Self-Improvement and Interesting Knowledge

In my books and in my videos, I often say that words can be misleading and that they can get us in trouble. What I mean by this is that the words that we use are not a very accurate form of communication, especially when we are trying to describe or discuss our inner reality.

Words can be quite efficient when we are talking about the material three dimensional world, but when we try to speak about things that are not part of the classical mechanical material universe, these words hit a limit and often times they can be more of a hindrance than an asset. Words are designed to try to describe a world made up of objects. The moment that we try to go beyond an object based reality and simple causal mechanics, words fail us. When trying to describe aspects of the mind for example, those words that were so helpful in communicating with another person in the average human world, are just not up to the task. For example, how do you describe a thought using words?

It can be done but it is difficult, and in trying to describe the great intricacy of a thought, we are often limiting those things that we try to describe at best, and we may actually and unintentionally lie at worst.

When I say the word thought, you may instantly think of one distinct thing. Indeed, even in trying to picture a thought, we may picture in comic book style, a thought as being a distinct little cloud over our heads. But this natural need of words to separate things into parts, fails to describe the great intricacy and fluidity of thoughts. A thought may seem like a distinct individual thing to us, being that we look at the world through a very specific worldview, one that is further cemented by the beliefs that we hold about the nature of reality. We look out into the world with our physical senses, and we see distinct objects, each one separate but interacting with the world in a very predictable manner, we call this theory of motion and being; classical mechanics.

But thoughts cannot be perceived by the physical senses and indeed thoughts are not in any way like the physical mechanical world. Thoughts are not distinct, they are always combined and amalgamated to other thoughts, and the nature of this intermingling is so complex that it goes far beyond the simple mechanical causal world that we are used to. A thought can be distinctly itself, but at the same time it can be part of a larger structure, and depending on how you perceive that one thought, that larger structure may be apparent, perceivable, or it may not. And incredibly, even the nature of the perception of thought may change that thought, and in a way that is impossible to describe using words, both the thought and the perceiver of the thought are changed by such a perception.

A thought can transform instantly into something else. It can be in the past and in the present simultaneously. It can both be the cause of a future scenario and it can be that future scenario, simultaneously. And all of this is happening in such a fluid and dynamic environment, a causal order of such complexity, that classical mechanics is not adequate in describing the flow of a thought, let alone the mind that is having those thoughts.

Words are in a sense a magical creation. Words have allowed us to create a kind of sandbox, a cube like structure, where we humans may all meet and find a consensual world in which to communicate and work as a cohesive whole. Words are quite literally designed to filter out most of reality, to make everything banal and repetitive, so that in this highly controlled and filtered environment we can all communicate and work together. But in creating such a world, we have given up a great deal of perceptive power. The price of this little sandbox that we have created has a great cost, and that cost is our awareness.

Due to the great limit of words, I have been asked if it would be far better to communicate using telepathy. Would it be better to have direct mind to mind interaction instead of using the mechanics of words?

It would be easy to say yes, being that there is the potential to go far beyond any kind of word and syntax restriction. Telepathy would certainly allow us to greatly expand the nature of that little sandbox that we have created for ourselves. But, such methodology always involves a great deal of instability. In other words, many of the rules and restrictions that we might experience in the use of words, are there in order to try to establish a kind of communal, consensual, form of communication that does not allow for too many misconceptions.

Those restrictions, that Occam’s razor, the beloved tool and weapon of the modern skeptical rationalist, has a very important function. That function is to restrict and confine so that one separate individual can talk to another, work with another, and align with another. Certainly for some, Occam’s razor has turned into a kind of theology, but in reality it was only meant to be you might say, a relatively simple decision matrix, a heuristic, for individual minds to be able to understand the general boundaries of the sandbox that was created for communication and alignment.

So, if we were to use a new form of communication in the future, one more akin to telepathy, which might allow for a greater fluidity and expansion of communication, then such a form of communication would need to develop other laws, another kind of sandbox, that would then allow those communicating within it to come to consensual understanding. Without this restriction, no true understanding would be possible to any great degree.

Another way to say this, would be to say that telepathy would be a viable form of communication, as long as the individuals communicating have a certain degree of proficiency.

An example would be dreams. In a dream there can be many interpretations, sometimes potentially incorrect ones to one degree or another, in the same way that certain symbols, which are in essence communication groupings, might be interpreted in ways that are not optimal. In this example, two people would be dreaming together and while both would be in a very similar dimensional position, this dream position, the interpretation of those things that they perceive in that particular position, might be different from one person to the other.

What to one person might seem like a tree, could be a bird to another. The fluidity of the dream position, just like the fluidity of a telepathic sandbox position, would mean that a new set of standards, a new type of filtering mechanism, would need to be established. This new filtering mechanism would eventually have very well understood principles, which would then allow for the development of a new kind of Occam’s razor. Without the filtering and the containment of the sandbox, strong alignment and therefore communication would be impossible.

Yes, generally speaking telepathy would be a better way to communicate, in that it would allow for a bigger sandbox. And this bigger sandbox would hopefully allow for less restriction which would then make it possible to not only communicate at far greater speeds, but it would also allow for the interchange of far more complex and intricate material.

But this is not the best from of communication possible.

The only way to truly assure true understanding, is to have both parties in a particular communication let us say, be able to perceive energy directly themselves. What I mean by being able to perceive energy directly, is that both parties would optimally have the ability to use what I refer to as their inner feeling sense, the ability to ‘perceive’ energy directly.

Inner alchemists have been able to discover that the base awareness, the most fundamental and direct perception possible for a human being is direct energetic perception, the perception of energy as it flows across the dark cosmos, this may be referred to as seeing, and it is optimal perception of reality for a human being. On top of this base energetic reality, we find all of the many perceptive filters that are possible.

In the modern world we use a particular type of perceptive filter that we could call the rational view or the rational syntax. This perceptive position, this phenomenology, makes us perceive the world as an ‘out-there’ full of objects. A world where each thing is separate and distinct. A world of hard things each interacting with other things in accordance with a relatively simple set of causal laws, something we may refer to as physical mechanics. And in accordance with this physical organization of things, we have created a communication system of words that match this causal structure as closely as it is possible for us. The syntax of our language matches the syntax of our perceived reality.

But being that the rational view is merely a filter, a kind of screen or window, on top of the fundamental energetic reality of everything, this rational syntax will always be flawed. Furthermore, this rational syntax will never be able to explain the true intricacy of our reality because in order to do so, we would have to disobey most of the mechanical laws that we feel are un-challengeable.

If we were able to communicate through telepathy, then this would open up a new kind of causal structure, one where perhaps we would need to engage something akin to a quantum mechanical sandbox of communication, a quantum mechanical syntax. But even though this new syntax might give us even greater flexibility and possibility when it comes to direct communication, this new syntax would always need to have boundaries, and these boundaries would always limit and skew communication in the end.

So, for the inner alchemist, the only true and real communication possible, happens when two individuals can see, perceive directly, the fundamental energetic reality of existence. Such direct perceptions exist outside of any consensus, they are solely the individual’s perceptions, and even though these perceptions may then be interpreted or given symbolism that is individually unique, this symbolism, this syntax of whatever kind used, is understood to be just that, a made up edifice for the sole purpose of a certain kind of communication.

When both participants in a conversation can see, then in many ways you might say that communication in the way that it is normally understood, becomes obsolete. Such a communication between seers, which is more akin to a communion than communication, this communion might seem like a kind of telepathy to an outside observer, but in reality, it is far more than this, it is direct perception and alignment by each individual participating in a seer’s communion cluster.

If you would like to know more about extended perception and how to ultimately develop the ability to perceive energy directly yourself, then I would recommend the book The Magnum Opus, a step-by-step course. In chapter 4 of that book, I describe how to use the inner feeling sense, which is the foundational source, of seeing.

4 comments

  1. Hello John. Interesting post as always, though it does bring to mind one particular question I’ve had for a while. Is using the inner feeling sense essentially just projection? When you’ve described it in the Magnum Opus, it seems to me like a form of projection that is just more guided towards physical objects (at first, at least). I question this because I’m not a particular fan of the inner feeling sense exercises, but I do like the projection exercises outlined in The Way of the Projectionist. But aren’t they fundamentally the same skill? Or have I made false assumptions about the mechanisms behind these actions?

    1. Thanks Sam.
      You know that is the crazy thing about words, it can be so difficult sometimes to describe things (Inner alchemy) properly using them. And in the end your questions are great because they force me to try to try to clarify further things that are in essence beyond rulers.
      I think you are quite correct in saying that the inner feeling sense is a kind of projection. In the book, The Way of the Projectionist, we train ourselves to project an aspect of ourselves to other locations. In a sense you might say that a part of us is in one place while another part of us is in another. In time as we master these skills, certainly such motion can become so powerful that it can take us wholly to other locations. But generally, we could say that a part of us is in one location while another part of us is in another.
      Now, if you have read my book, Out of Body Experiences, then you will know that in that book I try to give a defined boundary to that other part of us that projects. I refer to this travelling part of us as the double, and in that book I show you how to make the double more concrete so as to increase the power of your projections. When you use the inner feeling sense you are quite literally projecting parts of that double into that other thing that you want to see. In that sense then, projecting and seeing are in essence the same thing; it is your double, a part of it like a tentacle, that projects into that other thing.
      So, next time that you try to use your inner feeling sense, imagine that you are projecting into it, and there and then you will find this contradiction, this place beyond rulers as I said, where you will seem to be both at the place where your body is, and at the place where that thing that you are trying to see is, at the same time. By being both here and there simultaneously, you will in essence be yourself and be that thing at the same time. From that new position of here and there simultaneously, seeing can begin. So, the inner feeling sense is projecting and then coming to terms with being here and there (you and the other thing) simultaneously. Once this is accomplished, you just have to pay attention to your ‘simultaneous self’ and perceive; feel/see what comes to you.

  2. Hello John, I have a question for your about servitor companions. Can they be created and used to help a person in a sexual relationship, for example to help a man to restore his physical attraction to his wife?

    1. A servitor companion can be used in many ways and in the end, they are all individual. I could not tell you whether such a thing would work in the manner you want, what I can tell you is that creating such a companion is no joke, in that if it is created properly, you will find yourself in the presence let us say, of a very REAL ally. One that will feel as real and seem as real as anything living over time, if again this servitor is created and maintained properly as I outlined in the book, Create a Servitor Companion.
      From that point of view, you have to ask yourself if such an ally would be a benefit or not. Sorry I cannot answer such individual questions, you are the only person that can answer such a thing.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.