On Frequencies in more detail

  So... It's been a while.
 So... Let's talk Frequencies... I've mentioned the subject lots of times in the previous posts, and I "long ago" decided, that in this post I'm not going to explain what role does the subject play in general and stuff like that, - and just start really quick on the subject itself. I couldn't do that without the proper explanation/preparation done beforehand. That is what I dealt with in the previous post. I remember firmly, that by finishing the last post I was sure, that pretty much all of the needed-to-be-made preparation had been made in the post, and thus I could do the thing I wanted to do, which is the thing, highlighted in this color. So yeah, let's begin, shall we?
  So..: 
The Subject of Frequencies applies to Everything, that could be called "human experience". One of the problems is that many people think that they are the best at... For example, - explaining the situation, [when one had done something, that he had never done before, and not to do that thing was one of his principals (a firm opinion), - and really liked it, when he/she had always hated it for a good reason, and that's why he/she had never done it, ever since discovering a thing about it, that made him/her form the strong opinion (principal)].(For future refference, - "11Frq, Pattern #7")
  Every person understands that situation perfectly, because, - I can bet you 100$, - everyone had been in that particular situation at least once in their lifetime, and, - moreover, - even if somebody had never before found himself to be in that situation, and is told about what had happened (informed of the situation), so that it is understood, - than he definitely will understand what that situation is "like". He would definitely understand...
 The Frequency of it.  
 d ...The DEGREE of it. I had explained Frequencies already before in this sense.
The problem here is that everyone has a thing to say on the subject of 11F, Patt.7, which is perfectly okay, but since the subject is Taboo and nobody mentions it, and everybody ignores it, - what we get is that "one *does not know* whether or not somebody else except for him at all is: 
1. - thinking about it;
2. - understands it;
3. - understands it, as well as he/she does;
4. - Really, - is interested in it;
etc... As a result of this, - when 11F-Ptrn#7 takes place, and one tries to explain what had happened, - he does it in such a fashion, that makes it seem as if the people he adresses are (1:38**) NOT "positive", so to speak, - in points 1;2;3;4, - which is ridiculous. He/she does not behave in a way, that would show people, that he, at least, - assumes that they might be: 1) - aware of what he/she's talking about; 2) - understands it too... AT LEAST those two points, okay? - At LEAST. 
  What you get, as a result of pretending there is no such subject, (one of the things) mainly, - is that everyone takes interest in it, which means that everyone takes interest in it, and anyway, - knows how big it really is, - and so, - one takes interest in trying to solve/understand/explain it him/herself, and, at least, - only for him/herself, - to worry NOT, about it. 
  What you get as a result of this, + the pretending that there's no such thing, - is that everyone who takes interest in it/thinks about it/etc. - thinks, that he/she is: either the only one who does that; the only one who is capable of explaining it; the one who understands it REALLY, - and, - either the only one, or one of the (very) few, - and, in this case, - the best at it(understanding, explaining, etc.) out of the people that actually try to form an understanding of it. 
  You get all of this also (probably most fundamentally, -->) because of false sense of personal identification (ego). 
  What people, that think the things, highlighted in this color, - don't realize, - is their Frequency.

Update.Thoughts. Need a title.

    Hi, everyone. Long time no fuckin' see ;D.

I'd been wanting to post something here for quite some time now, but still haven't. Also notice the fact that the previous post of mine ain't even close to being as long as the other posts of mine. That, however, does not mean that it's... less valuable, or less important, or something like that. Not at all. In fact, the "Patterns" subject is incredibly important and plays a huge part in the whole of the things that I post on this blog... in fact, it's so important and so Powerful, that it's, like... Well, it cannot be categorised at all by rate of importance, because every part of the whole of the things I post here implies every other part. I cannot explain to you (fully, for sure) a single part of "The Thing", without explaining all of the other parts, and those parts cannot be explained without explaining the first-mentioned part, you see... This is why I, really, intend to tell all of this to people from beginning to end, Fully. I had known this for quite some time now, (about 3/4 of a year, meaning "known this" - as in "a technical way of knowing, as in... concrete factual information, that is stated, scientifically(I am to this day, however, still actively "working" on it) that if I was to tell somebody any of the things, some of which are written on this blog, - I needed to make sure, that I would be able to expand on the things I would've said more, and, in the end, to tell the person ALL about it. To be capable of doing that. If I am not capable of doing it, - it shall not come out of my mouth, - not until I am ready to tell one all about it. There are some good reasons for this, trust me.

    If one would've received (,basically,-->) any amount of information about The Frequency Theory of mine, - and NOT from start to finish(fully), - he would hurry to tell everyone about it and/or make some assumptions/think-throughs/verdicts about the whole thing, and TRUST ME... None of them would be fully correct. He might be wrong totally; he might be wrong, partially; he might be correct, partially; I am sure that, to my eye, he would screw it up/miss a lot of things/get the wrong idea... None of that is to my preference at all... You see, when I'd see him anywhere, I'd go up to him and would surely like to tell him about it, and let him know the Reality of the whole state of affairs. The awful thing is that he'll be certain about what he is saying, and feel the same way about it as I feel about it, but he would ACTUALLY be (he might be-->) totally wrong. There's a pattern that can easily take place, like this one, for example:

   The fact, that he had made some of his own claims about the subject is bad enough already, and if he'd be so ... to tell some of his friends(or something) any information about the subject that I had provided him with and also the results of his own thoughts about it, that had resulted in (as he thought) splendid discoveries - that would be only worse, obviously, and The Kicker is that he'd be SURE ABOUT IT... You  see, I am, well, let's just say, - basically, - EXTRAORDINARILY careful and cautios about letting any of the thoughts I have on the subject out of my mouth. Not because I am ashamed of it or anything. You see, EVERYONE takes interest in this particular subject and everyone is able to say something about it, (after some "very careful/cautious" thinking on his own part) - and takes pride in it. Because, you seee... This is the most valueable/interesting/important/powerful/dangerous/secretive(Taboo) subject of all of the subjects out there, that are in store for all of Humanity today (or ever). At least for Humanity... which is fucking INSANE. But look...

   So, everyone is after some answers about the question of what The Subject might be(at all). This Subject is the most Taboo subject EVER. Everybody acts like: "I have no idea what you are talking about" when the Lively Moments of The Taboo ACTUALLY take place in Reality, in the Present Moment. Everybody ignores it exactly as if there is the Grim Reaper standing with his "Eternally Sacred Weapon of Death "right next to them, and is JUST about to take their life, the moment they stop/let it(stop(ignoring)). Think about that for a second. Now think about this with the thought and/or realisation that the sentence is actually completely stated in accordance with the True state of affairs. That's fucked up, I'm sure you agree. I guess that, unless you understand what am I talking about here, - you are just going to have to trust me on the fact that what I am talking about IS this crazy. But who am I kidding? You know what I am talking about perfectly well... 

    Let's backtrack a little(return to the "particular pattern" part). You see, - yes, the person would be certain, that what he says/thinks about "The Subject" is:

-1.True;

-2.Unique;

-3. He takes a very careful attitude towards it, because the Thing itself is extra-ordinary for many reasons(like being the Most Ignored subject of ALL, for ONE) and also the Thing is also about various/all kinds of Coincidences that take place Whenever, - and all of us know perfectly well how Coincidences, and also, - Synchronicity - are treated in our world/society... --> "If you take ANY of this silly/mystical stuff like Coincidences and/or Coincidences or Synchronicity seriously, or think that there is something at all about them, that is something other than them simply being Coincidental stuff, - if you think there's any (*real) Truth in/to them, - then you, Sir, are deluded/retarded/crazy/fucked up/irrational/mystical(therefore to be avoided or simply to be an example of something that should be ignored/avoided/feared by any one that is a rational being) - so nobody in our Society officially takes Coincidental stuff(for example) seriously, and DEFINITELY nobody ("officially", mind you) thinks that thinking that there is/can be any truth to Coincidental stuff, because believing that would be CRAZY. That is not the Actual Truth, though. That is only on the outside. (1*-->) Really, everybody searches/checks/looks for(or interests in those 3 activities, (and hence the searching/checking/etc.) some Truth, or even Better, - some MEANING in the Coincidences, that just so happen to coincidentally take place. Okay... Now, that's a pretty bold statement. Back it up a bit maybe, no? 

Sure. What I am proposing, in relation to the text highlighted in Blue, is this(also this goes for the pattern that I've yet still failed to describe fully(the reason is that more/not less important stuff came up, and I had made a value judgement):

1*: "****** ***** *** ** ****** **** *****..."(blu-txt)

2*: The kicker of the blue text is that everybody does it to AN EXTENT. And this is exactly when (also is a good example of a time where-->) my Frequency Theory comes into play.

...To an extent, yes. You see, each and every single living being in the whole of the incredible Cosmos, that we inhabit, - has something very special, that non-living things don't. All of them has something called Consciousness. 

  There are people, that realize, that nobody knows what Consciousness is, and that it had never been really explained by ANYONE. So it's this mystical fucking thing and we do not scientifically(at the VERY least) know what it is at all. 

  In words of Alan Watts,: "It's the most ILLUSIVE thing of all; that, which you can't put your finger on; that, which ALWAYS escapes you... And yet, that is that, out of which you see." (<-- somewhat cut version, but the main thing I want to mention here is... here. lol)

  Let's investigate a bit further into this... What does Consciousness produce? Well...

Consciousness produces nothing other, than The Self. It IS The Self, itself, haha. 

So, basically, I Am Consciousness. I would even rather confidentely say, that Consciousness is the feeling of Self, the feeling of Me. But it's not even that. It is the great Nothing-ness, Void-ness. It is whatever it is that embraces all of this. And that would be the Real Me. No masks, or anything at all. Just *important-->* mental silence, being the Void-Ness in the present moment, enjoying it fully, Lively, REALLY BEING THERE. - That's the Real "I". No name. No history. No future. No words... It's beautiful.

Now, previously in my posts, I had already said/explained/proven, that we are all One. 

  Well, this Blank-ness that is the Self, (and all of us always have it, and not having it is not an experience - there is no such thing, as "having no Consciousness", because the one that "doesn't have it" - is not conscious of the fact that he doesn't have Consciousness or "that he is unconscious" - he can't fucking do it. There is obviously no Consciousness to realize the lack of it, - it's fucking absurd. In simple terms, - not having Consciousness is not an experience. It is, as a whole, but it isn't as such. It is, as a whole, because Consciousness is something eternal. It, at one point, occurs, and at another point - "disappears" (whenever when one loses Consciousness). Each time, when one regains Consciousness - he does not remember what had happened in the interval of time, when he was "out". If to raise the subject of being born into existence "for the first time", then we can state, that one does not remember what had happened to him in that above-mentioned period of time; does not know how or why does he find himself to be in a certain body, in a certain place in Time, and in a certain place in Space; does not know his purpose; does not know what happens when the body, that he finds himself to be in - disintegrates.

  Alan Watts had made a fantastic job by pointing out the fact that... Sure, you can try and imagine what would it be like to die and what will it be like after death - and fail miserably, achieving Nothing. Watts pointed out the fact that that is exactly the same with being born. You can't remember what was it like before being born. I'd like to point out the fact that not having Consciousness is not an experience. Alan had said something similar, but he was reffering to being dead, I think. It's the same thing, though. Having no Consciousness equals being dead or "not being", simply. Not to experience The Self is to Not experience anything at all. It is to experience Nothing, the only thing is that Nothing - is not an experience, too. It's Nothing. There is even no such thing as Nothing. It doesn't exist. It is inconceivable, incomprehendable. The Self exits/can possibly exist/can possibly be experienced only NOW, in the Present moment. Not in the Past, and not in the Future. Past and Future - none of them actually exist (I think I had explained that previously in a post, but let's do it one more time, - more easily. (On a lower Frequency, by the way, because of the amount of times of experiencing one thing - experience/knowledge/understanding/skill increases each time.)) in Reality. Oh, by the way, about Now and Reality - I had noticed something interesting one day - "in Real-time" means "on the fly/in the process/on the go/etc." Tell me... Past;Future;Present. - When is "in Real-time"? Certainly, in the Present. Well, what a coincidence! There, indeed, is only one Real Time, and that is the Present, - and the processes like in video game graphics real-time rendering - very fittingly, happens precisely in the Real Moment (The Present). 

Alan Watts, thank you for this incredible knowledge. I had simply thought-through all of it really carefully and swallowed it and digested it and vomitted it out lol in a much less complex form (not talking about Frequencies, but talking about knowledge, provided which I am thanks to/provided by A.Watts) 

    That being said,: The two things, that we call "Past" & "Future" - don't Actually exist in Reality. The Past is a recollection. The Future - an expectation. All memories & expectations exist NOW, and NOW ONLY. There. That's all. That simple. Truly. If you don't want to believe me on this - think for yourself. You'll realize it in a week if it is important enough for you, or if you've got the balls to realize this. (not saying this reason-lessly as well, trust me)

  Back on my track. -> I think that by now there would not be a single human being capable of thinking/critical thinking - that would not agree with me on the fact, that there is/can be only ONE "I". 

 Believe it or not, that last, small paragraph is a big step that we have taken. Here's why:

All of us share/experience/are Consciousness. Everyone of us is "Me". First person tense. (if I said that correctly... you know what I mean nevertheless. ;)-)

  Okay... Brace yourselves, Ladies & Gents...

Okay, look. There is, and can possibly be, - only ONE Self. Not two. I am one.

Now, let go for a second of the fact, that you had always thought that you were different from the other people and the other people had always thought and known, that they are different from you. Well, let me have the honor of saying that all of us are NOT different. Not one bit. 

  On the Outside, - we may look, sound, feel differentely. True. On the Inside, however, - we are the same. Now, one reader can right now stand up and say: "Absurd! Non-sense! Each person has it's own unique personality, and may differ GREATLY from any other person there is!" True, as well.

...Sure, - one can go "We are all ONE" and "We are all the SAME", and etc. and etc., BUT...

There still are all kinds of different personalities out there! VAST amount of variation! NONE are like the other one!

Ok, look, - that's True, too. It really is.

NOW one might ask himself and wanna ask me - why the heck is it, that I don't finally just GET TO WHAT I WANT TO SAY, for fuck's sake..?

   Well, to answer simply, - I don't just waste time and not getting to the heart of the matter, - we are in fact, right now, (at LEAST already approaching-->) - in the heart of the matter. 

This, again, (and this time it's for Real ;DD) - is exactly the time when Frequencies come into play, and when I change the color of text lol. With my Frequency Theory I can PROVE that we all share ONE & THE SAME CONSCIOUSNESS, okay? Now, bare with me, because, you see, if you bare with me and I fail at proving this wild claim to be true, - you can spam all sites on how a crazy nut on the internet made these insane claims and made it sound believable to be the actual truth, - and he failed miserably, resulting in being the most fucked up troll the Internet had ever seen. Okay. Sure. We've got a deal, dude. If I win, then... We'll just gonna have to see what then, I guess. :D Bill Hicks once said, while finding himself to be in the same position/pattern/situation, as I find myself to be in right now, - I remember him going "Come on, do you really think I would be this big of an asshole to just...-" - you know what... Soooooo, yeah... I present to you: The Frequency Theory. - The theory, that PROVES that we are/share ONE & EXACTLY SAME Consciousness. And/Or - The theory, thanks to which we CAN ACHIEVE WORLD PEACE 1, and (I had written the point of it rather beautifully in my diary... let me get it ;D... K, got it :D.) Now. On the question of: "Well... That's all fine and dandy, that you'd like this project of yours to be promoted, but what we want to know is - what are you offering? What is this theory of yours all about? What can make people believe, that it is something that they want?"

The Answer: "The Solution to an any kind of misunderstanding in terms of clear, easy, light conversation, happening between two individuals or more, ever, in Time, and anywhere, in Space.

 

A little on Patterns

1.1: - [[One] has been [doing something] for a [long enough period of time to tell a story about this] in order to [get the wanted result], but [after all this time], [just when a result was about to "bloom"], [the crucial part of the process] was [no longer available]]. Examples:
 Example #1: ["I've been working hard in order to get enough money to finally buy the Ferrari I wanted so much for over a month straight, and you know what? The Ferrari I wanted has gone exclusive and is no longer produced anymore. Unbelievable."] - Bummer.
 That's what I call "a PATTERN". They can "branch out" in all sorts of ways, and the thing is that I know a lot of "branch-outs" and a lot of Patterns as a whole. The "branch-outs" are actually "extended versions" of Patterns.
(about the example given ==>)That is the same pattern, but with different words in it. Same effect. Exactly. You see what I mean? No matter what you are talking about, what matters is The Pattern and The Way you say it, and Ways of saying are patterns too. The example used is simply a Specific Version of the same Pattern, and that's it.
 Example #2: ["After a whole night of studying, I've done the homework in order to get an acceptable grade, but the next day when I went to school to give the teacher my homework for him to check how I did - the school was closed and I can't give the homework to the teacher on any other day, because she is going to Paris tomorrow. Unbelievable."] - Same 1.1 Pattern.

Dynamics Of Understanding

Hello, viewer. Glad you could make it. Alan Watts at one of his seminars once said something along the lines of "it is difficult to say what the subject of this seminar is going to be, because it is too fundamental to give it a title". Considering this particular post, it is the same way, but the funny thing is that the things I'm going to talk about are even MORE fundamental, and therefore any title would not only be NOT correct, there would have to be more than one title... That's also the thing with the "The Fundamental FALSEHOOD of Humanity" post.

  This post will describe how is it that we understand things... Well, this immediately means that I need to first explain what I mean by "Frequencies":
Each person exists on a certain frequency. 
The deeper a person goes into thinking about something, the deeper the meaning. The deeper the meaning, the more unique it is, and hence the LESS FREQUENT it becomes to hear such a thing on an average day. The deeper you think through something, the more time you spend on it. The more time you spend on it - the more valueable it is to you; the more patient you're willing to be in order to get "the answer".  Also, the more deeper you go into a thing, the more profound it is as a result of thinking about it. And the more unique it is, and hence - less frequent in the society. Also, the more time you spend on a thought, the less frequent the "impulses". 
   When something is average and usual, people don't pay much attention to it, like when somebody gets killed or something, as it's been said on "The News" - it's nothing special, and people more or less "ignore it". But when, say, there were news about "a baby born with dragon wings" - it gets an incredible amount of attention from people, because it is so rare. And so we can say that "the less frequent a thing is - the more value it has". 
   And so - each person exists on a certain frequency. Therefore, each person spends a certain time on thinking about something, and the most fascinating thing is that the timing CAN BE ESTABLISHED. This also applies to reaction time, and I figured out how exactly does this happen.
   I already explained in the previous posts here, that we (humans) DON'T think in words. As an example of what I'm saying, I'll describe a situation that took place with me about two days ago.
  I just woke up, and went to the kitchen to have breakfast with my parents in the morning. We have a small TV there, and the "news" were on. A small misunderstanding always takes place in this situation. Read on...
  I sit, eat, and watch the TV... Mom and dad do the same thing. The interesting thing is that I'm not listening to the words that are being said AT ALL, but I just watch it. I watch it, and am "thinking" at the same time. I'm looking directly at the TV. At a certain point dad looks at me (that's fine). He looks at me, and sees me watching the TV with a "very interested look". He then looks back at the TV, to see what made me make that expression, but here's the funny part:
  At that particular moment I had NO idea what was being said by the news reporters. My thoughts were about something else, but it's obvious that my dad not only did not realize that, he also didn't consider the possibility of that. And so - I am misunderstood. And people never take such things into consideration!
  Now... Let's just jump right into it from here, on how frequencies work... Using the example given above:
 When I watch the TV, first of all - I will react to the things being shown at a certain moment - at my frequency. I know that. But what happens, when there is the "pause"(between "impulses")? Well, you don't THINK about how to react to whatever it is at all, but at a certain time you react, spontaneously and your reaction is geniune and cannot really be faked. And so, I've figured out, that, for example, when somebody is talking and you're listening (you take on the role of "The Perceiver" in the conversation) - you watch and listen to HOW  a person is saying something, rather than WHAT he is saying, at first. When you notice a point in the pattern of his speech, that, for example, signifies the end of his "thought", that he tried to convey - THEN your reaction time comes into place. When the person was talking - you were doing nothing, except pay attention to simply "him, doing it, and THE WAY HE DOES IT". Then, when it is your turn to talk (to give your reaction), a pause takes place in the conversation. Only NOW you "think" about WHAT did he say. You backtrack, and this time you in your mind pay attention to the WORDS he said - it is a REPLAY, in a way. In your mind.
  You see, "each" person (some people are exceptions to this, but it is an insane rarity) uses certain patters, and you recognize those patters as "his", easily. And the person always knows the following reaction too, because he uses those patterns on a regular basis. However..: "same person, different people, 1 subject - the person will use different patterns with different people", but, if..: "same person, same "reactor", 1 subject" - this person may use one and the same pattern (A WAY OF TALKING (HOW)) multiple times, and "the reactor" can react in a "usual" way, too, but not nescessarily, and the same goes to the "giver".  
 The first thing to note is that - when a person uses the "known" pattern in the way he talks, - it usually is the case, that he is "playing". What I mean by that is that he pretends he is not God. He pretends he's an ego. That usually takes place when the person needs to "get out of trouble". All of that applies specifically to "the persona". And we know ourselves by the way we talk or react, to be more specific - IN WHAT WAY. If a pattern of the conversation so happens that you can use the pattern you "are" - you can use it, and that will imply something like "I don't know what you're talking about", but if you DON'T use it, then people take it as  "something's wrong" , or "something's strange", but it really means that the person is "God". 
  There's also another thing considering the "how-what" thing. If you say something about a UFO crashing into the White House in a usual way you talk about school homework, - everybody is going to react in the same way as they do to "you talking about school homework" , instead of reacting the way you expected them to react. It is not the words that matter, again. It is HOW that matters, it is HOW that captures attention. If people were talking about amazingly fascinating things, but in a boring, monotone way, - nobody ever would be interested or fascinated. 
  After figuring that one out, I've tried it out in all sorts of ways. I was interacting with my dog, my parents, and, more or less, everyone - in a "fascinating" fashion. Meaning, - I was really making an accent on HOW I (ex.) talk, rather than WHAT I am talking about (in words). And my thoughts appeared to be true! The reactions were those of interested people. But, in the example of talking, it is not only the way you talk. It is also about what your facial expression is like, what emotions you convey, and body language. 
  In the end, it comes down to this... Alan Watts once said, that "the interesting question is not WHY, but WHAT". And at the time I heard him say that (in the "Time and The More It Changes" , on YouTube),  I thought, that "probably my favorite question is "Why?". As time went by, some months, - I understood  his words, and was able to agree with him,  in a "non-blind" way (when I hear Alan Watts say something I haven't yet thought of, or haven't "concluded" something (understood something myself) - I took it that it was the truth, because it is Alan Watts saying so, and I can trust him for thinking through what he says).  The only thing I don't agree with Alan Watts fully, is the on the subject of thinking. 
  And so, I state, that it is not the question of WHY that really is interesting, and it is not the question of WHAT that really is interesting, but rather - it is the question of HOW , that REALLY is interesting. You bet it is. Take dancing for example.  There is a trick to this, by the way, which I will explain.
 -Do you have a hobby?
-Why yes, Sandy, I do.
 -What is it?
 -I dance. I love dancing.
 -Really? What is your dancing style?
 -It is Karate (lol).
 -Wow, what belt do you have in Karate-Dancing?
 -A blue-green-rainbow-striped-red.
 -Cool! Is that the most difficult one to get?
 -Almost. 
  ...Who CARES what is your dancing style? The importance of WHAT here is only in this: "What do you do?". And that's it. "What is the subject". You can say that fundamentally it is the most important question, and I'd agree with you on that, but only partially. You see, if you say "I dance", the following question should not be "what is your dancing style", but something like "how do you dance", and not in the sense that "how do you do it", as in "how good" or "how bad", or "how did you achieve it", but in a sense that... Hmm... It can be explained by reactions, such as:
 "Wow! The way he moves!!"; "I really like the way he does that"; "I love what his dance looks like". "How" is a different form of "What is it like". 
 And this applies to EVERYTHING. And it can change EVERYTHING, especially the way you look at any-thing. It is the spice of life - "How?". You can get up in the morning with a long yawn, by doing everything really slow and mellow; and you can also get up with dance movements, along with a good deal of spontaneouity. And THAT's when anything stops being boring, and becomes fascinating, fun, interesting and so on. 
 On the subject of frequencies, though, I need to end the thing I was saying. Let's again take the situation I described previously with me and my parents  having breakfast in the morning. 
  You watch the TV; absorb the information. By the time you react, you just literally STARE at it, and pay attention to the pattern. Note: same thing goes with listening to music. When you notice something that is (to some extent) fascinating enough in order for you to pay any attention to it and think about it, you basically STOP paying attention to the pattern, and you backtrack and "replay" what just happened, but you now pay attention to concrete things, which do not apply to the patten, but to the particular, concrete situation, things like "words" and "names" and just basically "Who?" and "What?" (ex.: male/female, short/tall, car/train, dog/person, etc.), and JUST WHEN YOU'RE DONE "reviewing" (or "replaying") the pattern, (but this time around paying attention to concrete things) - that's EXACTLY the time you will give your (thanks to replaying-) appropriate reaction to the pattern of the situation. To recap, first you ask yourself "How does he do it? In what way? What is the way he does that?" (and you just pay attention, being completely here & now), and then, when you notice something WORTH MENTIONING, you stop asking yourself "How?", and you ask yourself "What?"
 "How is he saying this to me? In what way? What are his emotions? What are his feelings about this? --- "Oh, that was something worth mentioning/worth looking into/worth paying attention to" OR "that was nice, I liked the way he said that, and he clearly made a thing out of it, he clearly made this STAND OUT, and I noticed it, and I like it (the way he did it) ---- Now, WHAT did he say, IN SUCH A WAY? --- *re-playing* ---- "Oh, I see" ---- THE REACTION."
     And so, the reaction should always be based on the pattern FIRST, not the words. Because if you pay attention to the words: "Oh yeah, I love you so much, I'm beginning to think that I can't live without you!" - you can misinterpret the message, if you don't pay attention to the pattern, and think that the girl is really in love with you and she really meant what she said. But that is a misinterpretation for the reason she was being sarcastic and she clearly meant the opposite thing, and therefore - YOU'VE SCREWED UP.
   So, what is relevant indeed is - the flow/the pattern/the way. What is relevant is "HOW?", and not "WHAT?", in the end. The point is that in a conversation you should always pay attention to How one says something first-hand, and only then pay attention to What he's saying. You can find this out for yourself. All of my words here. Take a look around. Try all of this yourself. Investigate. Experiment. This really is the case. 
 Thanks for reading.

Myth of Telepathy

As I explained in the previous post, thoughts are "metaphysical" feelings. Reactions, assumptions, intentions, decisions, opinions, views, understandings, concepts, ideas... All of those really occur not in a "worded" version, but they occur as metaphysical feelings, which are infinitely more precise, but cannot be hold on to - they can be experienced and then they naturally flow away, like water. The thing is that they don't "come up" in one's head, but rather it occurs in one's CONSCIOUSNESS. The consciousness is infinitely smaller/infinitely bigger than your head or body, because your body is the Cosmic  "void"/"field" of Metaphysical Feelings.
  When A is having a conversation with B... When A reacts to something B has said, B feels the metaphysical feeling that A manifested, and B reacts to A in the same way.
  For example, A had said something about something, he wanted to get an idea across to B. B can *SEE* what A *MEANS* by "Telepathy". Now, it can happen sooner, later, or exactly as A finishes his  thought TRANSLATION. When the metaphysical feeling formed in the consciousness of A "reaches out" to the field ("area") of B's consciousness, JUST when that happens, even if A didn't finish his sentence, B goes:"Oh! I see what you mean!". They both see one "image", "in their head". This is actual telepathy. In actuality a Collective Consciousness Field (COSMOS) is experiencing itself as A and B in a form of Human Verbal communication. One particular metaphysical feeling manifested in a particular "here & now" of Cosmic Consciousness, called "A", and then that metaphysical feeling is observed from the side of another particular "here & now" of Cosmic Consciousness, called B.
 So, when we are talking, we it is our collective consciousness field experiencing itself, in other, more "comfy" words, - it is The Self (Me, I) experiencing Myself, by pretending to be separate from Myself, to really experience it as if it really is so.
  A & B in this example don't need to assure each other of both understanding something in the same way, because they KNOW they both understand it correctly by seeing each others FACIAL EXPRESSIONS and EMOTIONS. This is The Key to Telepathy. Emotions. If you can accurately convey your emotions, you will be understood so clearly that words will never be able to keep up, in any given situation, ever.
 We should all wake up to this. There is no need to translate the metaphysical feelings we get into language, not one bit there isn't. And if you try to follow the socially-accepted idea of Telepathy, you would try to listen to the talking in other people's heads, with not much success though, especially if you're not looking at them, because if you are, then you can read their facial expressions and that is a slight cheat, even though facial expressions lose their accuracy taken in a different context, and can never be accurately described by words anyway.
  But if you follow this idea of Telepathy, you can SEE what other people MEAN (as Terrence McKenna stated that is what Telepathy is, and I figured out how is that exactly), and you don't necessarily have to see their facial expressions, or see them at all. You can still hear their intonations, and that already gives you all the accuracy you need. Really. You can go on YouTube and listen to Alan Watts to see this for yourself, as an example. The third aspect of this kind of telepathy are The Eyes. The Look. Trust me, that is, like, the BIG thing. One's Look can be infinitely different, infinitely accurate, infinitely "a thousand words", INSTANTLY, without difficulty. Same goes for Facial Expressions as a whole and The Intonations of One's Voice as well. To see all this you have to be pay attention to the present moment and watch/listen/feel the pattern of (as an example) a conversation, then you will be able to accurately see what people mean, and to accurately convey your own intentions to other people, and you will be shocked by HOW accurate and AMAZING this really is. I am unbelievable excited for this to happen to us as human species. We need to wake up to this, trust me, it has never been this fun to have a conversation and it is honestly an incredible experience, when you realize, that words are really not that necessary at all in order to have a conversation or to be clear when expressing your FEELINGS.
 There is no need to translate Metaphysical-Feelings into Speech in a precise way, as long as you can sense and convey your Intentions as a whole and the Intentions of others accurately. Speaking takes too much time and is essentially dead and boring, if you believe that words are important.
 The most important thing to remember is that it's not WHAT is being said, but HOW it is being said.

The Fundamental FALSEHOOD of Humanity.

 Our Society is a sick Society. It believes in Lies and does not question their authority. There are many things that should be cleared up, considering our common sense and our fundamental understanding of Reality. We, as a civilization as a whole have to wake up, in order to finally achieve Piece & Love. It all comes from having a false sense of personal identity. Read on...


     What is thinking? Well, people normally refer to it as "talking inside one's head". People also think that you think in words, I, however, would like to point out that you don't. What is a thing? I agree with Alan Watts on the fact that a thing is a NOUN, and "a noun isn't a part of nature - it's a part of speech"! It is a word.
  I would like to point out, that you don't think in words, because whenever a "thought" comes into "your head" you only THEN translate it into actual human language into words. The interesting thing is that, yes, you may be *thinking* about an answer to an equation in math; you may be thinking about a lot of things, and, well, basically about anything whatsoever, even about thinking in itself. But there are things in out everyday experience that we refer to as "thoughts", but it is not exactly "a thought". For example, imagine you were riding your bike pretty fast, and you at one point all of a sudden lose your balance and begin to fall. At that specific moment in time "a billion" "thoughts" rush through your head about what to about the situation; how to react. You see, if you were indeed thinking in words, you would have never even finished saying a phrase (let alone a thought, out of "a billion") before falling on the ground. But in reality you "thought" so much, like "Oh no-I'm losing my balance-I'll do my best not to fall-I'm falling to my left-what should I do" and so on... But if you were "thinking" in words, you would only be able to go like "Oh no"- and fall.
   What I am proposing, is that these thoughts are indeed not really "thoughts", I mean, that's not exactly the right word. They are FEELINGS. You intuitively respond (react) to the situation, in a SMART way, mind you, without using words. Words are too slow. Those feelings-thoughts are as fast and quick as one can imagine. They are beyond simply human abilities... I mean the time an average person is capable of reacting to something can be UNBELIEVABLE, truly. Also the INCREDIBLE power of NOTICING things. One can notice something unspeakably fast, feel a lot of things about the situation and then regard those feelings as "thoughts". But they are obviously not your "average kind of thoughts": they are instantaneous, they are lightning fast, and the power of noticing - GODLIKE.
  The weirdest thing is probably the fact that all of us not only pretend that we don't know this, but we ignore this as a whole thing in itself. I'm saying it's a TABOO. For example... You are chatting with a person and you lift your head up to see him. Now, this is more or less sudden for the person you're chatting with, because he "can't know" when are you going to lift your head up to see his face, "obviously". And JUST WHEN YOU'RE LIFTING YOUR HEAD he not only notices that you are about to look at him, he feels the rhythm of the conversation and at one point sort of "expects" you to look him in the eyes, and he even "prepares" a certain facial expression just for that moment... For example it is usual for people to make eye contact after a sentence had been said completely, or a certain point had been made. Because it takes some "specific" time after the pause to get the idea, that the person wanted to get across. If you "feel" the said thing a bit later than the "needed" point (to get the right idea), you get a more deep meaning of the words than the other person wanted to convey, and it is not what he meant by saying those words, but you're understanding was correct, it's just that you went a bit deeper on that thought (feeling). If you "feel the thing that's been said" a bit sooner than the needed point in time, you don't get the idea, that the other person wanted to get across to you,: you're not paying much value to what he is saying, and you're not getting what he means; you're taking his words a bit too lightly, there is a point in time that is not far from the start of the pause, and it "means" sense of humor, when you take something as a joke, rather than seriously.
  I call this "rhythm of talking and feeling" phenomena - "frequencies". It is a rate of frequency of impulses. The feelings that we get, that people normally refer to as thoughts, - what I mean can be called "metaphysical feelings". I don't really know anything about metaphysics, but the word "metaphysical" fits right in.
The thing is that this unbelievable ability of Noticing things with lightning speed is Godlike, and it proves that we are all the same incredibly unbelievable thing called The Cosmos(Space), or The Universe(All of Existence) (Nothing/Everything), but we are hiding it, because we "cannot" all of a sudden start talking about it, especially in the exact moment in time, because:
1.People are afraid of thinking about this, because everyone is aware of this and everyone, nevertheless, ignores it.
2.People don't talk about it, because they don't understand what is that, but it has "magic" in it, I tell you...
3.If we were to talk about it, people would soon realize they are all one God, but that does not cope with our normal-everyday notion of personal identity, because we feel ourselves to be separate from everything else. Yet there's this incredible virtue in all of us... We ignore it, because we are afraid of it, because it is "The Unknown".
  ...We get a metaphysical feeling and THEN we translate it into words and language altogether. You might ask yourself :"Why?", and I've been thinking about that for a long time, and I've found out the reason. The reason is that words and language overall create the illusion of things being separate from everything else. Take the word "tree" for example. Imagine what does it mean, get the picture inside your head... You probably got something like this, right?:
 http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/tree-clipart/tree-clipart-4.jpg
...Well, let me tell you, that this is an illusion. A tree IS never, and CAN never be separated from the ground and the whole planet and be living. Same goes to the planet in relation to space, galaxies and the Whole Universe. In this way words are illusions, and they make Reality seem not what it is. The fact of the matter is that a tree never was separate from anything in the Universe, and the tree IMPLIES everything else in the Universe, and essentially IS the Universe. OK.
http://www.onearth.org/files/onearth/article_images/08spr_trees_01_h_feature.jpg
  Now, ask yourself: "Who am I?". And you would probably answer like "I'm John Jones from California, a 22-year-old male student of Harvard University."
  What if I say: "No no no, that's not really you, come on, tell me, who are you REALLY?" What then? You would say something like: "Well, I'm a person! I'm a human being!" but that's STILL not who you really are. You need to look deeper than that.
  Now, look. "Person" in Wikipedia:
 "A person (plural: persons or people; from Latin: persona, meaning "mask")..."
  A MASK. We need to find out what is behind that mask. Who wears it?
 If you believe yourself to BE the mask (ex. "John Jones"), then in order to understand who you are or to answer a question "who are you?" - you need to look into the past and remember something that will tell you what kind of a person is "John Jones", and you view that as yourself. The problem with this hallucination is that if you are under its influence, then you can not answer the question BASED on what is happening in the present. Even if you say: "I am John Jones." - you still already have to remember the fact that it is your name. The "John Jones" persona is like an official record of something, it is like a document to be used in court, because it needs precise, concrete, specific information, but (!) that can NECESSARY be SAID in WORDS, otherwise it is "not serious" and can not be taken as "proof". But the thing is that one wearing the mask is constantly changing and evolving, always, and everything around him as well, and therefore what was back then - is not what is now, and, therefore, not valid and not true. The past is gone.
   You can continue by thinking "I can prove that this is the real me", and proceed by saying: "I am a graduate student of Harvard; I am married and have children; I drive a Red Ferrari"...
  But I ask you, are you BEING a graduate student of Harvard; married and have children; and drive a red Ferrari RIGHT NOW and this very moment? No. You are not. All of those events are not taking place at this present moment. Even if they are, what if they didn't? That can easily happen. You can find yourself, say, in a bar, when you are none of those things, but ARE drunk, for example. In this case you say you're "John Jones", but in actuality you are anything perceived by someone else, like "a drunk guy in a bar", and not "John Jones, the graduate of Harvard University".
  The persona is one's PUBLIC face. It is what is on the "OUTSIDE" of one's self, it is not really the self.
  Notice that the definition of the mask always uses words. Words, as we saw before are illusions and "isolates". Non-verbal definition of who "John Jones" is, is not good enough fully, because it is not concrete, and it is NOTHING you can HOLD ON to.
  Since one believes himself to BE the mask, he believes himself to have a name, a personality, that is not only different, but separated, alienated and threatened by its environment (The Universe as a whole). Therefore it is something you can hold on to, which we do, to not lose the sense of our "personal identity", and words overall are things that you can hold on to, because they make the illusion of (ex.) a tree being separated from the planet, which is simply NOT TRUE. And, as Alan Watts pointed out, a "thing" is a noun - which not a part of nature. Words don't exist in reality. Not a single word means what it means. Let me explain.
  You: ...And then I climbed on a pine tree.
  Someone: What is "a pine tree"?
  You: A "pine tree" is a particular kind of a tree.
  Someone: What is a "tree"?
  You: It's one of those brown colored things that grow out of the ground, with little green things all over it, called "leaves".
  Someone: I don't understand what you are talking about...
      And you say...:
http://www.onearth.org/files/onearth/article_images/08spr_trees_01_h_feature.jpg 
"Well,  it is this thing right here, see? This, is "a tree"."
  Someone: Oh, I see.

 ...See? You can never explain what do you mean only by words. They can never provide a satisfactory explanation. Even if they could, it would take an eternity, because you would never get through artificial words to an actual feeling. It's like assuming a robot will love, see beauty and have actual feelings, instead of programmed responses. It is impossible.
  So, because, as we saw, words don't exist in Reality as such at all, in exactly the same way a persona DOES NOT EXIST in Reality. It is a kind of a myth. A hallucination.

  You also can never provide a proof of being the person you claim to be by looking into the future. You can never say, say, in court, "I will be 30 years old. I will be Andy Peanuthead. I will own an orange Cadillac.", and expect to be taken seriously, because the future is NOT HERE YET, it is YET TO COME.
  Thus, the past is not real and not true; and the future is not real and not true. What IS right, what DOES explain things ALWAYS, what IS real, what IS true, - is that, which is taking place Right Now in This Moment in time. IN FACT, the most important moment in one's life is "here & now".
  Notice, that we found out why a persona is not real NOW, and The Now is the only real moment. Therefore the persona is not real. It does not exist, now.
  But do not make the false assumption that it might be in the future, because it can not. There is no future. There has never been any future OR past. They are not real. There is only Now, always. This is the true meaning of Eternity. We more or less know WHERE we are, not really though, and also we don't really not WHEN are we. Kudos to George Carlin on that one... "When the hell is it..?"
   If you ever think about where & when is it, whenever and wherever you think about it, the thinking is always present at one place and in one point in time. That is Here & Now. Always. The persona, and the words never existed in reality, nor will they ever exist, since they don't ever exist in Reality, Here & Now.
  Now, you might say: "Alright. Fine. And what should I say, who am I, NOW?"
   Come back to your senses... Listen. What you experience all around you is how you feel inside your head, exactly the same thing. What I am saying by that is "Tat Tvam Asi". You're It.
  In the words of Alan Watts:"This world "peoples" (verb) in the same way as an apple tree apples." You grow out of this world. That already means you're something like a tree. And, as we saw before, the tree is not separate from anything else, you see, as a WHOLE it is The UNIVERSE.
  You; me; my headphones; the music; the keyboard... All of them RIGHT HERE & NOW are as a whole The Planet, The Galaxy, The Universe. ALL of Existence. Right now.
  The bottom-line is: WE ARE ALL ONE.

 ...Everything in The "Physical" Universe is a part of Everything-Else. Everything implies everything else. Black implies white. Death implies Life. Yin implies Yang. Night implies Day. Down implies Up. Left implies Right. Republic implies Democracy. Insanity implies Sanity. Logic implies Intuition. Seriousness implies Sincerety. Nothing implies Something/Everything/Anything. Dark implies Light. Negative implies Positive. Self implies Other. Sound implies Silence. Sight implies Blindness. Background implies Figure. DIFFERENCE implies UNITY.

 This is not just some philosophy, my friends. This is the way it is, you can not say it isn't. We are organisms, and an organism can only exist as a part of another, greater organism.
   All organisms are self-aware and wide awake to being Here & Now, all nature, and it dances...
  Just follow the pattern of life. It is flowing like water. You can not grab hold of it, but if you catch it into a bucket you will suddenly notice that it is not anymore dynamic and is still. Static. What you should do is go with it, and you have all the energy you spend on meaningless self-defense.

 If there is a God, he is identical with the Universe. Nothing can exist outside of Everything. It is impossible. I will do my best not to get too much into this, but, here is some wisdom of a Pre-Socratic philosopher, Parmenides:
  I state 2 things, with which you can not disagree without falling into a logical contradiction.
 1.What is, is. (i.e. "existence exists")
 2.What is not, cannot be. (what-is-not, cannot be, since it is not here now anyway)
...Therefore, "creatio ex nihilo" is impossible.
Go to "http://holosophy.info/first_cause.html" for the whole article. It completely demolishes the false assumption of The Universe having a "First Cause".

"No-Thing" is actually "Some-Thing", however, in DISGUISE.

   "There are no such things as things, that is to say, there are no separate things (separate events). What is a "thing"? Well, a "thing" is a noun, and there are no nouns in the physical world. A noun isn't a part of nature, it's a part of speech."  - Alan Watts.
 
    Alan Watts had also said: "This is not - as you would fantasize it - a state of being in the dark forever. It is not like being buried alive, because - then there's an experience of darkness. Now I remember, a little while ago - in one of my seminars - a girl, who is born blind, and I had the most interesting discussion with her, because she doesn't know what darkness is! The word is absolutely meaningless to her!.. Because she has never seen light. So, when you really think about nothingness, it becomes like - what I've often referred to, is - how your head looks to your eyes!
And behind the eyes you don't see darkness, do you, right now? You're not aware of the contrast of light HERE and black THERE. Behind the visual field - this way - you CAN'T see darkness. There is, simply, nothing conceivable at all. Neither darkness nor light, see? So, my convention to say, almost, is that that area of blackness we call Death - is what lies behind the eyes!"...

  Truly incredible. Alan Watts is amazing, to say the least. Well, I've been thinking about the subject of "nothing/something" for some time, and this is, quite frankly, is what I've come up with:
  I don't think there is, at all, such a thing, as absolute nothingness. Because, at least here, in Life, there is no such thing as "absolutely nothing". It depends on the context... For example, you can create a text file document on your desktop right now, a blank one, and you can confidently say, that it is empty, and that there is nothing written in it whatsoever. Well, that's the thing. There is nothing written in it, and while the blank text file consists of nothing, it still isn't nothing, for there is the background of the text, there is the "blank" itself. Likewise, if you were handed a green piece of paper with nothing on it, there simply isn't anything visible to the naked eye on the piece of paper. There is nothing between one cloud in the sky and the other. However, there IS air, and SPACE.
 ...
 The "how your head looks to your eyes" is the second best "nothing" there can be, I think, at all in the "physical realm". The best would be, for me at least - "how your ears looks to your eyes", because after all, you can see a bit of the head (you can vaguely see the nose), but you most definitely can't see your own ears.
  And while this, in fact, is NOTHING (conceivable at all!), it is still not nothing in actuality, is it? You can still find out what your ears look like. Just not with only the help of your own eyes. So, nothing, in actuality is something!
  So, the main (pretty BIG) thing I've come up with is this:
  "Nothing is always something, but in disguise."
I don't know how does that go for the "afterlife" though, because I think there is a point when "everything suddenly becomes nothing", so there is a "nothing whatsoever" at that point, but after that, I believe, comes some later realizations of something... Therefore, in theory, you're going to find out what, of a "something", that "nothing" was in disguise. For example, while you've lost your consciousness and stuff, so there really is "nothing", but there would later be, after an eternal moment of nothingness, a realization of the Universal Consciousness. Nothingness was, therefore, temporarily there, and in actuality, is was not only "something", but something even bigger, than the "something" that was before death. Heh!
 Well, that's what I think. I haven't experienced a complete ego death. It is possible to be one with the Universal Consciousness, say, through the use of some psychedelic drugs, such as LSD and hallucinogenic Mushrooms or DMT, without having the need to die in actuality to experience it.
...However, the Ego Death that can be experienced through psychedelics is not only "real", but, I guess, it is absolutely the same as the actual "real life death". For Death is just the Death of you, as your concept of yourself. When you die, you don't actually die, but you DO die, however, as "something that you have perceived yourself to be", but that event is only to be followed by the event of realizing who you were really. So, you become nothing, and then you become something once again, however bigger and more amazing this time around. Yet again, something comes out of nothing!

 What is also very much note-worthy, is that while being high on DMT, your visual field is 360 degrees, all around you! That, basically MEANS, that Alan Watts was right about his theory! While high on DMT you SEE The Impossible, The Inconceivable, The Unspeakable, etc., JUST like the nothing in our own eyes' view of our own head! AND there just isn't nothing, but the opposite - there is EVERYTHING AT ONCE. AND the visual field is 360 degrees!

 I do not state that everything in here that are my actual words and not somebody-else's, are true. But thanks for reading. I would appreciate some comments though.