Observatory by nature

Underneath the mind, it's thoughts, desires, and reactions(all the things you consider as being "you") lies a space of pure awareness, in which you can observe yourself doing, quite automatically, all the things you "choose" to do.

This offers a number of interesting observations, and subsequent conclusions. Chief among these is the realization that you are not as "in control" of yourself as you imagine. Most people automatically shun this idea as absurd, simply because it's so frightening.

The most frightening implication being, that the margin between right and wrong, success and failure; is a lot thinner than previously thought, and not solely determined by will, as is so dearly held by our society.

Thus, any time someone attributes success to anything more than ability, and the LUCK to be afforded the right opportunities, and REACTIONS to those opportunities, is ignorant of the true reality of the situation.

And when someone condemns another, for not making the right decisions, in light of this observation, they become highly hypocritical.l, not realizing that the only difference between them and that other person comes down to, simply, luck.

Not that I consider Will to be nonexistent or completely impotent; nor do I offer this writing as an excuse to remain in negativity. In fact, I fight against myself every day from this place, trying my utmost to change my reactions. I've found that I had to consider one of two options: either my best was never good enough, or my will alone was insufficient. Of these two, only the second allows for any progress. The first says you must be incapable of trying hard enough, and where do you go from there?

It was this initial observation, of the separation between Will and Self, that led me to the realization that Luck not only determines the situations that occur around us, but also our reactions to such.

But hold up, the rabbit hole goes much deeper than this. Quantum physics essentially corroborates this stance, when It states that EVERYTHING comes down to chance. And it is easily verifiable by every person who is willing, all you really have to do is observe yourself in action.

You ready for the real rabbit whole here? When we don't know why something happens, we can say one of two things, and each is equally valid, there being no way to determine the one over the other. We can say it's either Luck, or Divine Providence.

Many famous scientists have corroborated this observations as well, but rather than cite a list, I will focus on Albert Einstein. He said, in one of his more famous qoutes, that "God doesn't play dice." If we don't search for hidden meaning and instead take that comment as face value, you'll see that Einstein was saying that God takes direct action in all matters.

Ready to take another spin? There's one thing that God doesn't control, which is Decay. This is because Decay is not a thing, so much as a natural order. For a creation to be temporal, that is, capable of change and therefore interaction and growth, it must also be subject to decay.

Not to imply that Decay is stronger than God, for he can choose to halt its advances any time He chooses, but if he were to do so, he'd Also effectively be halting the creation for which he stopped decay.

I will here borrow a term from the Bible. Original Sin. I believe this term refers to the effect that Decay has on the Mind; resulting in negative behaviours such as aggression, lies, greed, gluttony, etc; and more specifically, our relationship to such Decay.

As a religion, I am not fond of Christianity, over any other. However religion is to thank for preserving these concepts. In fact, any die hard believer in religion will feel that I am directly opposed to them, because I seek to demistify what they believe in, deconstruct the myths and metaphors which their sacred texts contain, and discard all the rest.

Thus, while I may refer to religious concepts, I do so in a scientific fashion, asking for no Article to be taken purely by faith. Observe: in relation to Original Sin, or the Decay which the Mind displays, the Bible sets Jesus Christ in opposition and Dominion. If we See Jesus Christ as embodying the force of Progress, the entire picture becomes clearer.

In fact, the only thing that saves you from decay is progress, and as I've established already, the difference between these two is more reliant upon luck, aka divine providece, than your will.

However, as the Bible also clearly states, Jesus Christ(Henceforth to be reffered to as "Progress") can only save you from Sin(Decay) with your cooperation. Meaning, you have to set yourself in opposition to iniquity in order to Find Progress.

You'll find that when we look at personal iniquity, in order to be opposed in this fashion, one HAS to consider themselves separate to their actions. I believe this is what the Bible refers to as Humbling oneself.

In the business of demystifying religion, as I've shown you that Jesus Christ is Progress, and truly is our only "Saviour" from Sin aka the force of decay, I feel I must demystify two other concepts: God and the Holy Spirit.

Remember that quote about how "God doesn't play dice" and how I explained that at face value it means God takes direct action in all matters? If we see God as the face of Reality itself... It's very existence as opposed to nonexistence, we see this explained, and it also answers the matter of quantum physics: Reality exists because it wants to.

It is a bit of a tangent but a worthwhile one: this means that Reality is essentially no different that Nonexistence, except that it is. That's a kind of hard concept to wrap your mind around, and it took me a while. I won't get much further into it here, but for those of you who have kept up with my work, this is what I mean when I say Zero is greater than Infinity.

As for the Holy Spirit, this one is the least mystical to begin with, as the definition found in the Bible is pretty accurate. It is The Truth, and our relationship to it. It determined also our knowledge and ability to percieve Order. Decay affects this as well, but only in regards to our side of the interaction. Meaning we often have a distorted view of things, which in a large part is what determines the negative qualities we embody, being primarily reactive creatures. But Truth always stands alone and untouched, and we are fully capable of searching and finding it, even if the process could be a bit more streamlined.

Though I mentioned the Bible, this is not a gateway into talking about the Bible, apart from the concepts I mentioned, in the specific context I mentioned them.

Chance exists within a bubble we create for it to exist within....we can make as many of these dynamic bubbles in which chance exists as we wish...but we must always do it as a group one person alone can do nothing...one person alone reduces chance completely and eliminates it …..these dynamics are recognisable and we can also avoid them if we choose to....yes you can create these bubbles and force others to experience chances while you yourself do not....but you have to convince them to create the dynamics for you to lure them into dancing for you.

a reply to: one4all

Please edit your post to delete the quote as it takes up space and is irrelevant.

I recognize the validity of what you say, however, I would argue that chance is not being created, but rather, influenced to embody those specific structures. We can see this evidenced in the pastime of counting cards. You are taking what amounts to a random sequence, and are applying your own order to it. Does his affect the order of the cards at all? Not quite but it does allow you to, by trial and error, percieve the order which it holds already.

Chance is not being created in the bubble, it is being placed in the bubble.

a reply to: LucidWarrior


I respectfully digress.

As a former high level multi-sport Athlete I know a little something about creating and managing chance...chance requires CONTRAST or a MISTAKE or a BREAK IN PATTERN....to be a potential...and this requires specific PARAMETERS be in place...or the BUBBLE.....we CREATE INEQUITIES or contrasts or mistakes or pattern breaks to induce a dynamic inclusive of chance upon others...with consistant regularity when one reaches the elite winning level....this is HOW YOU BECOME AN ELITE WINNING ATHLETE....by learning all about chance.

If you say chance is pre-existing and simply influenced into being....then you are precluding the requirement of boundaries or encasement or a bubble or PARAMETERS which are REPRESENTED BY A REGULARLY REPEATING PATTERN OF CONTINUITY ...which is a core value need for chance to even exist....first you build CONTINUITY OF DYNAMIC....and only then can you build a dynamic bubble in which chance exists and can be managed and directed...and it takes MORE THAN ONE PERSONS INPUTS TO MANIFEST a constant inter-relational dynamic in which one may conceive of and birth CHANCE.


You are forgetting about CREATION or MANIFESTATION which is which seperates us from AI and from numerical symmetry....and this symmetry is what we are taught to seek out.....lol.....are you familiar with the Chaos Theory....maybe if you learn about it you will recognise it is the mirror reflection of the stability required to create chance.

It is a BUBBLE WITHIN A BUBBLE....we TOGETHER by group agreement on status quo beliefs cumulatively build the macro-bubble and within it individuals can skew the odds and create dynamics or smaller bubbles where chance exists...and aim them and fore them at others while they remain immune to the impacts or risks....and yes..all of this happens wIthin the BOUNDARIES OR ENCASEMENT OR PARAMETERS OR Mcro-Bubble.Together we manifest and create the Macro-bubble and as Individuals we catalyse and create the micro-bubble within which chance can exist in any given spot on the entire tapestry of our reality.


Now I am seeing bubbles everywhere...lol...lol.

a reply to: LucidWarrior

all the things you "choose" to do.

I make this to be ''all the things you ''think you choose'' to do. And of course it flows right back into the notion that ''we are not as in control'' of our actions as we would wish to be.

And yes, it is frightening. It calls for a totally radical de-escalation of overly active egos that will fight tooth and nail against it as what we think ourselves to be is existentially threatened by this notion.

You also use the term ''luck''. Maybe not luck but ''happenstance'' as ''luck'' denotes a winner and a looser. Though I see you see that when later you speak of quantum physics and the notion that in self observation we can see that this is the case with maybe not all we think of as free will but at least most of what we think it to be.

Thank you for the clear statements on ''decay''. Your description has helped a number of loose balls rolling around in me to click into place making clearer sense of a number of things for me.

Decay is always with us. Shiva, not the destroyer but the decayer. We cannot stop it. The more we build or construct anything be it physical infrastructure or self images, the more we come to depend upon them being permanent which leads to dependence upon that permanence. The longer that dependency continues, the greater the inevitability of collapse as the decay inexorably erodes from within the illusion of permanence.

Two steps forward, one step back. That ''one step back'' is the decay, and is always with us. Taking only one step forward will always be negated by decay and we are left where we were. We need two steps forward that allow for the decay that will follow in order that we can learn from it and take another two steps, and on and on.

Yes, progress, rather than just one step forward and building a fortress around it. The political implications of this are interesting.

Right and failed vs wrong and successful. Cant be moral and succeed within society.

Did I just expose all religious dilemma? Yup.

a reply to: one4all

Aren't you precluding the necessity of chance, in building a pattern at all?

Maybe I should rephrase. When I say "Luck" or "chance" I refer to the patterns and seemingly random events that unfold in the universe around and in us. That's what I mean when I say chance already exists prebubble, as it exists in the bubble we call the universe. We can, as I agreed with you, take and create smaller bubbles, concentrating chance inside to achieve, more or less, the results that we want.

This not only determines athletic success, or the successful counting of cards, but also comprises the foundation of science itself. True magic, such as is found in our stories and legends, is merely much higher orders of this display. But in each case, you aren't truely creatig chance, you are tappig into the inherent chaotic order of reality itself. It may seem like a new creation, especially if you were to consider it in terms of magic. "I create a giant crystal." But that wasnt a creation of the patterns that formed into that crystal, for you were borrowing the creative potential of reality and moldig it into a crystal. Seems like the same thing but it's an important distinction.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Ah, that's what I was trying to convey with the quotation marks lol. Like "laser", lol.

I agree, luck is perhaps not the best word to use, but I used it because it's more commoner than happenstance or chance. Happenstance can be equated to chance, and while not he same thing, chance is often associated directly with luck and there I went lol. I try and speak to the largest audience I can, when choosing my words, lol.

Re decay: I agree fully, and in fact, have another thread incoming relating to one4alls comments and your comment here.

"The longer that dependency continues, the greater the inevitability of collapse as the decay inexorably erodes from within the illusion of permanence."

Interestingly enough I wrote the beginning of that thread yesterday, it's nice seeing the concepts emerging in this thread as well, lol.

The stance I've always taken with Decay, however, is not "two steps forward, one step back" but rather, "two steps back and one step forward". It is a bit semantical, so I will explain, lol. Two steps forward and one back indicates us striving for progress, and decay nipping at our heels, as it inevitably does.

What I mean by two steps back, one forward, is trning around to Face decay, striving into it, and then emerging from it in the direction you wish to go. The clearest example I can think of to display this effect would be on regards to personal iniquity. For simplicity, well use an addiction to, say, tobacco.

To overcome an addiction using the two steps forward method requires tremendous will and dedication, and, as I indicated in my op, the happenstance to actually take those steps. Whereas the two steps back method, would mean, facing your addiction head on. Grappling the horns of the dragon. Instead of trying to ignore the urges, you analyze them and insist upon their separation to your core identity. You immerse yourself, slowly, into the urges, while maintaining this separation. Once his is achieved... The urges may yet remain until they die off, but you won't be sway to them. This requires a lot less happenstance, as well, as all you need to do is, as my opinion states, observe.

~

a reply to: LucidWarrior

Getting warmer...
Still overthinking and grasping is seen.

Is your decay similar to entropy?
Things have entropy.
What is underneath, that has no decay?

originally posted by: LucidWarrior
Underneath the mind, it's thoughts, desires, and reactions(all the things you consider as being "you") lies a space of pure awareness, in which you can observe yourself doing, quite automatically, all the things you "choose" to do.

This offers a number of interesting observations, and subsequent conclusions. Chief among these is the realization that you are not as "in control" of yourself as you imagine. Most people automatically shun this idea as absurd, simply because it's so frightening.

There is no you doing any choosing. There is no you!
There is 'observingness' - in which all appears - including apparent choosing and doing.
Observe this 2 minute conversation to clear any confusion.

a reply to: LucidWarrior

In fact, I fight against myself every day from this place, trying my utmost to change my reactions.

Who is fighting against who??
You are pure awareness - there is awareness of conflict.
Watch this to see what the conflict is.

This offers a number of interesting observations, and subsequent conclusions. Chief among these is the realization that you are not as "in control" of yourself as you imagine. Most people automatically shun this idea as absurd, simply because it's so frightening.

Reminds me of when the girl(host/robot) was escaping 'Westworld' - when she was shown that her program had been upgraded and the program was to escape - ha, ha. She was angry and said 'no, it's me - I am doing it'.

a reply to: Nothin

Decay is entropy, is corruption.

The answer to your question, Nothing, is Nothing.

Itisnowagain- I'm not interested in discarding the "I" concept, it is eminently valuable in the work of consciousness which I am engaged. Thus, you misunderstand what I meant when I said I fight myself. I watch, from pure awareness, the thing that is known as me do things, and I fight to assert will in order to change the program that is seen. Or do you not believe in will?

originally posted by: LucidWarrior
Or do you not believe in will?

I am not sure what you mean by this question - can you explain what you mean by 'will'?
Do you mean to say - there is a 'you' that can choose? Are you asking; is there 'individual volition'?

Did the links to the videos get clicked or not?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Not, you've posted them so many times, I've only clicked them once.

What I mean to say is this: we are in agreement of pure awareness, even if you seem to be hung up on my usage of "I". What I mean by will, is the ability to change what appears on the screen, instead of just watching. True choice, instead of merely being a passive observer. I believe in you, and so I continue to use "I" concepts. I was wondering if you believe we are puppets and nothing more, doomed only to observe. That's the gist iget from your words

I really liked reading your post, Lucid You are absolutely correct that we are so much the victims of circumstance. There is so much we can try, but whether or not our trying gets us anywhere is reliant on countless factors: who is there to stop us, support us or let us in (the proverbial gatekeepers such as literary publishers for would-be authors or a manager for would-be employees,) and what other circumstances help, impede or complicate. What family are you born in, the strengths and weaknesses of genes, the competitiveness of the field/s you seek, and random health, personal or societal events which impede upon you.

Right now, I am working full time while also self-publishing. If I'd ended up with a wife and kids, which I easily might have, I could easily be working two jobs right now and spending all my free time with them. Nothing wrong with sacrifice for love, but as someone who lives for art, I sacrifice for time and energy to do my art. Finding a job that doesn't completely drain me mentally has taken several years, but I finally have one. I am not so drained from my job that I cannot create or work on perfecting created projects. My life has also changed so that I am less stressful and this is a huge help. I've accomplished a lot creatively lately, when before it was very challenging to complete anything.

Circumstances dictate what we are able to accomplish. We can change our circumstances, in theory, but luck is always a factor.

originally posted by: LucidWarrior
What I mean by will, is the ability to change what appears on the screen, instead of just watching.

No - there isn't anyone that could change what is appearing on the screen. Whatever is appearing, is appearing presently and is known presently.

I was wondering if you believe we are puppets and nothing more, doomed only to observe. That's the gist iget from your words

Not doomed - you are free because you don't exist as any thing which appears - you exist as everything that is appearing.
The word 'exist' means to stand out - consciousness is expressing itself as what is appearing.
It is the apparent things that are doomed!

Thanks for the reply Lone.


Itisnowagain- whether or not there is an ability to change what is happening, I see evidence of will in the effort to effect change on events that are occurring on screen. It is for this reason I continue to believe in the "I" construct, because Will suggests that there is an entity enacting it.

This entity-the entity that is observing- is what I refer to as "I". I suppose more accurately the reference is to the system of subjective lenses placed in array about it. Right now, I know that pure awareness only as a concept, but I am transitioning, if slowly. I don't think I'll ever let go of the "I" fully, however, as there is much work to be done that uses it.

I'm enjoying the discussion in here. I'm not as articulate as the rest of you guys, so I'll just pull up a chair and listen for now.