Untitled, unowned, unhindered

This brings up the hierarchy of questions. From which questions do we get the most practical benefit? If the big question "who am I" is paradoxical and indeterminate, why spend a lot of time on it at the expense of other questions that are clearly more beneficial?

I have the same issue with explanations for synchronicity.

Naturally, we are free to explore whatever questions interest us (free will), but choice is important. As Neo discovers in the Matrix, "Choice. The problem is choice."

My question of choice, which I eventually settled on after asking lots of other questions, is this:

"What the hell is wrong with us?"

My working answer is that we allow sociopaths to run our society. This leads to a bigger and more practical question:

"How can we change this?"

Now you know why I let your complex exploration of the "Who am I" question slide, Sam. I choose a different rabbit hole to pursue because I think my question has critical practical benefits for all of us right here in this 3D 5-sense physical reality. This choosing process is a function of judgment. This is where good judgment versus bad judgment comes into the spotlight, which boils down to determining good versus bad. This final question of good versus bad is clearly related to my big question, "What the hell is wrong with us?"

Note that Neo's first question is "Why am I here?", which is a "Who am I?" question.



Matrix Architect Scene

 

Excellent. Questioning everything, dismissing nothing, open-minded, uncertain, flexible, inviting challenge, accepting discomfort in the pursuit of truth. Just excellent.

Your belief is what I call an example of subjective truth. It is indeed an operational assumption, a work in progress, and not necessarily true at all. It may or may not be "what is" (objective truth), because it is so speculative, and based on speculative interpretations of personal experience (like synchronicities). By contrast, an objective truth is often simpler, has abundant and undeniable evidence, and can easily fall completely outside of personal experience (though none of this is necessarily the case). An example would be that the United States government used two nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities in 1945. The purpose for these blatant war crimes is not what we have been told ( or "sold"), but the utter destruction of the cities and civilian populations is a fact. It is true, as far as any of us can determine, and has not been refuted by anyone. If I am wrong about that, I'd sure like to know about it!

 

The short answer is found in that piece I authored. Big Me, me and the realm where I perceive "something" arising (manifesting) are all the timeless, formless eternal one life (another set of words that points to the set of words, Big Me). When I play the game of which "me" is "doing what" I am playing the game of separation which is a fun game and points to the "why I (as Big Me) did all this" - all and only because I was bored and lonely... which is another of my operational assumptions and can only be "understood" from Level Three and in parts of Level Two. The reason becomes clearer from the area within the three level map that I am perceiving it from. This is why it is my opinion that in this strange realm we call 3D, or the 5 sense world or physicality... this is where all the "fun" is. Some of this "fun" is not so fun for many when dominated by sociopaths... another subject (as we have been exploring).

The longer answer requires that I again put forth my current operational assumption as to "why the Big Me became many "me's that had or still have amnesia as to the actuality of being the Big Me" within "Itself" (another expression of Big Me) where that Magick Kingdom (form) is simply Big Me externalized and that I (me) as an individuated expression of Big Me perceives this form. Big Me is bored and lonely, thus all this.

If I break down the 'me' (meaning the 'me' that is all that goes into being Sam Hunter in this one life) and when I do this I allow myself to incorporate my operational assumptions in this breakdown then I have three components which I mentioned in that Levels Post which I must refer to to provide my response.

The Big Me cannot "do" anything as the Big Me simply is. All doing is done as a result of Big Me's urge to experience which is impossible for Big Me to do without Its self deception which manifested as forgetfulness.

So here I am as Sam Hunter. There's my waking state consciousness and then there's the vast depth of me that we could call the subconscious that could be seen much like the iceberg metaphor which, if we include the sea where the iceberg is found, all is connected. This implies that all that I experience arises for many reasons, many combinations of reasons yet all is connected. I was speaking with Chico where we discussed the possibility that coincidences are all and only just that versus the possibility there are no coincidences. I share the latter view.

What I tried to do for years is to answer the question you asked, Rose (along with the many variations of the question). I never found an answer that satisfied me until I "saw" what I saw which is described in that piece I authored. I am all those illusory manifestations that appear separate. I am "me" (an illusion). I am the Magick Kingdom (an Illusion). The I that I am cannot even be "The Big Me" in a literal sense. I use the words only as pointers to what I describe as "something I apprehended."

I found this by exploration of the question, "who am I." The best source I came upon for this exploration is the author and standup philosopher, Tim Freke. The short book he wrote that did this best for me is called Lucid Living. And as it says... it can literally be read in an hour though it took me a few as I read contemplatively when it comes to books of this nature.

But it is always ever grander... this exploration as an individuated me within Me is for 'me' an ever unfolding flower led by eternal wonderment and I wish that others, if they choose, experience the same or greater enthusiasm for this incredible thing we call life and any other form of exploration within form Itself. I never want the wonderment to end... ever. My operational assumptions are all and only assumptions which could be modified or discarded at any moment for any reason... even the reason I become bored with one and seek another or decide I don't care to have one!

The point of the levels is to consider from which point of view I might look at something. It is technically impossible to look at something from the POV of Big Me but I can always imagine from within Me, what best explains why we did all this. I don't consider Level two as holding onto Sam Hunter as in fact it does not as Sam Hunter will experience death and there will be no more Sam Hunter. I could give a "name" or "label" to "Level two 'me' but that then would incite potential limit just past the only actual self imposed and well appreciate limit of individuation.

By the way... when i began to express myself like this to Stephen, he literally did everything he could to crush every breathing pore of my being... I swear. Never have I met someone so... so "anti-life" for anyone else "but himself" if we could even see the form of his existence as "living."

 

This one is best discussed separately -

Sam Hunter said: ↑

“I (as us all) am (are)

simply the ‘All that Is’

that found a way to deceive Itself

that It wasn't Itself

and simultaneously

hid Itself within Itself

such that It might (re)discover Itself

alive and individuated

within Its self-created Magick Kingdom.”​

First, the short piece you quoted is using words to create a metaphorical idea of a paradox which happens to be my most favorite operational metaphysical cosmology.

Metaphysical Cosmology is an area of philosophy that deals with our place in the universe and the nature of reality beyond its physicality, including understanding and explaining why everything came to be. Metaphysics seeks answers beyond measurable matter, energy, space, and time and explores the mysteries and meanings of all that exists. It can include speculation about what type of god might exist. In metaphysics, it often involves questions of how a god operates and how a god might have created the universe. ~ World Book
​

Deception is not necessary to achieve individuation of 'The All that Is' unless the goal was that an individuated expression of the All that Is would not know that it is that. If the individuated expression knew it was the All that Is, it would also know all, be all, and that would be sort of difficult to achieve in form if there are other individuated expressions of the All that Is (and pointing this out reveals part of the paradox). But this is not the primary reason for tricking 'myself.' What fun would it be for me as an individuated expression of Me if I knew I was actually Me simply individuated in a sea of other Me's? The trick is necessary!

Note: I have the same piece saved where I have that single word "deceived" changed to the word, "tricked" because it sounds nicer to those who might not like that word. But I also know that if I trick you, I have deceived you.

Anyways, all that piece is saying is that I am the Big Me that found a way to be a Big Me that did not know I was Big Me, that I did so within me (as it would have to be this way being 'the All that Is') and where I discovered others like the Big Me where they didn't (at least initially) know they were also the Big Them (which is the 'All that Is' Big Me) so that each of us could explore with wonderment and perhaps do so eternally (all up to each individuated expression as long as each individuated expression has free will - which is my hope and desire that each of us do).

Note also that the All that Is (if there be such) includes... all, regardless of whether a single expression within that All that Is is something we like or don't like. I do not like deception, but within my metaphysical cosmology, I cannot be me, knowing all along I am the Big Me as I would never experience form which manifest as 'The Magick Kingdom' and the infinite other living expressions of the Big Me if I had not tricked myself initially to find myself as this ('me' (Sam Hunter and his one life) which is Big Me within Big Me). This is also why I hope there is "Level two" as I called it and described in this post.

One last point I wish to make which is more a reminder to myself. I have made the mistake (much more so earlier in my life) of "believing" something. One of the interesting things about the English language is that a word can hold many meanings where context is important. For example, if I rely on a friend to come pick me up and take me to work because they promised they would, then I find myself in the position of having to "believe" my friend would honor his word. But to "believe" something such as what I wrote above is an entirely different thing. I am not relying on it, I am employing it as my "operational assumption" unless and until I adjust it or discard it. So I would characterize that short piece of writing as my current operational assumption as to "how the world arose, how my individuation arose and that only from my perspective I must see this as true for all other expressions of life." But I would never impose this on anyone. I share it, but I strive not to impose it.

What might be the interesting question is "why" did Big Me do this? I have my own "answer" to that one as well which again would be all and only an operational assumption.

For me, the word 'belief' is strong where the expression 'operational assumption' clarifies that it is all and only the current "best working theory of something which most likely could never be proven anyways given the fact that it is a paradox."

 

I am indeed starting from the position that truth does not require a perceiver to exist. Something can be true in another galaxy, and whether that truth is ever perceived by us or not does not change its existence.

I often wonder. It seems to be a matter of degree, given the mind control we are subjected to from birth, in addition to our natural state of ignorance.

So here's a definition of consciousness: "the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world."

If your awareness of the world is to some degree an artificial construct which is not true (similar to The Matrix storyline), are you still conscious? The question is -- how is awareness defined by truth? When you are having a dream, and you are not aware that you are dreaming, are you conscious? The dream may be just as convincing as the waking world, but is it real and true, and doesn't it have to be for one to really be conscious?

No, because objective truth is independent of your perceptions and your desires. It simply is or is not.

I am pleased to hear that. Many people, maybe even most people, do not want to be challenged. They find it uncomfortable. It is uncomfortable. But how else can we move beyond perceived truth and towards objective truth?

Yes, you do challenge me, Sam, as does everyone that bothers to participate in a forum discussion. It is the sharing of ideas that is challenging, but only if we question everything and dismiss nothing. If we question nothing and dismiss everything we don't like, where is the challenge?

No, I see two very different perspectives. The first is based on certainty, and the second is based on uncertainty. The first says we can be sure about certain facts, and the second says facts can be illusory. The first says perceived truths are objective truths, the second says perceived truths are subjective truths. Does that make sense?

 

We are close... close to where we can either have the conversation or not.

The first question is based on my perception you are choosing to believe there is an objective truth. And this may be true or may not but in either case, for that truth to exist, there also must be the perceiver of that truth. An objective truth cannot be out there all alone. It doesn't become anything much less truth until you have the perceiver of the truth. This, to me, is what consciousness is and consciousness implies the one who (or that) is conscious.

The problem you encountered was because you locked onto an airbyte. I will admit I do not have a very good command of the English language, therefore if you misunderstood my full statement, apologies. I will break it down better. Note I start with the statement that I do have a truth but I do not assume it is an objective truth as each individual would have to decide for themselves IMO.

So my own (and only truth) is that "i" (whatever that is) am conscious... but perhaps even that is a lie to myself.

Chico says - "You start from a position of certainty."

No I did not... read the whole sentence. I clearly am open to being wrong which is the same thing as being uncertain.

If that would be true (that I am lying to myself), nothing is true but that statement that nothing is true! Ohhh wait, I just found a way to shake hands with "the paradox" again (in another metaphorical form). My point is - to state as a truth that nothing is true is a paradox because you are calling that statement truth.

What I wrote was...

that "i" (whatever that is) am conscious...

So I must ask you this, as we spoke the other day... is their consciousness? If so... then "what" is conscious? Something has to be conscious for there to be consciousness, yes?

That's all I pointed to with the words "i" (whatever that is). The next step beyond pointing to that which is conscious, I depicted "that" in as uncertain a way as the words I know and use can do.



Now... you say it starts with truth and I say it starts with consciousness - my question is... is objective truth just dangling around out there? In there? Out where? In where? Truth is a word and that word points to 'something" and all somethings are elements of form.

IMO it can only be (the following words are all and only creating a single metaphor which is ultimately ineffable) "the timeless, formless eternal one life" that elects to perceive the first form which may very well be an ultimate all encompassing truth, yet it must arise within consciousness. That initial action creates the perceiver and the perceived but until you have either, truth or anything else for that matter cannot be.

It may be true that I desire consciousness to be fundamental to all else, but that would be just as true for "objective truth."

We are close to the starting point for conversation (as I would love to discuss the rest of what you posted where I can), but I see we must first share the same opinion as to what is fundamental to all and that if we cannot, we probably would be wasting our time in going beyond.

I will say this, Chico... and this is personal. I am very happy I have met you and I am very happy a few folks slapped me around a little that I didn't run in a few moments of weakness. You challenge me and I love that! I hope I am able to do the same for you.

Last question... if I am certain about uncertainty and you are uncertain about certainty, are we not saying the same thing but saying it from the opposite direction? That's the way I see it... that we are saying the same thing. Please, show me where I might be missing something. It won't be the first time! haha

 

Interesting. I see our starting premises are different. You start with consciousness, while I start with truth.

I would not agree with your statement that "the only thing we do know (as in 'know exists with all certainty') is consciousness". You might not agree with my statement that there is objective truth. Even the existence of objective truth is something I don't know for certain. But I am fairly sure that we don't know much at all about consciousness.

It does not follow that "nothing is true" just because your premise ("i" am conscious) is incorrect. You've created your own paradox via bad reasoning, or what some might call poor judgment.

Whereas I am uncertain about certainty. That may be the crux of our different perspectives. You start from a position of certainty ("i" am conscious), while I start from a position of uncertainty (Am I conscious?).

Good stuff, Sam. Thanks for clarifying.

 

Sam, I woke up this morning with a thought in my head, an example that might better illustrate what I am trying to say about your experiences with synchronicity. That example is none other than Bill Ryan. How's that for synchronicity?

Your personal experience with Bill Ryan is that he's a good guy, because he's never done you wrong. Others you know have had different experiences with Bill Ryan, like Christine for example. Your subjective truth is that Bill is good. Christine's is that Bill is not so good. My subjective truth is that Bill is a sociopath, and that when a sociopath is in a position of power and control, like owning and micromanaging Avalon, bad things happen to good people. So we have three different subjective opinions of Bill Ryan. What is the real truth, the truth that is independent of the experiencer?

So my point is that we have to look at all data, including data that is not part of our own personal experience set. If we limit ourselves to our own personal experience set, and our own interpretations of those experiences, we also limit our understanding of truth.

Another example might be extraterrestrial life. As we discussed, I have no direct experience with ETs, yet I believe ET interaction with our planet has occurred in the past and is occurring now. Is that the real truth? My personal experience gives me very little in the way of evidence to support my conclusion, so how did I conclude such a thing? I examined a lot of other data that other people offered, data from their personal experiences. It was like working on a puzzle with lots of pieces, including pieces from many other puzzles, and even potentially false pieces that might not fit any puzzle. My investigative strategy was to question all of it but dismiss none of it. Slowly, a picture came together which was the basis for my belief. Even so, I have to realize it could still be a false picture, and that my belief could be wrong, so I can never be certain that my picture is complete and correct.

 

A brief additional comment. If I had to summarize the point you are making, Chicodoodoo... well, the point I think is your most important one, it would be this.

My opinion is "definitely."

 

I don't have to. I am aware. I have paid attention. I have discovered (for me) that all I have stated in this thread regarding the phenomena of synchronicity (and other related psi phenomena that I have not yet mentioned such as - "the compelling") is so far beyond random that "to not see it would conclude I am mentally blind." And I am not suggesting others might be mentally blind because one component of my theory is how an individuated expression of the all that is can create the environment from which profound, uncanny synchronicities arise.

And again, I am only speaking for myself and only speaking of my own experience in the matter. It is also my speculation that the concept 'apophenia' is derived by and for the folks who have not had anomalous experiences of this nature and who also need an explanation likely because they have a pretty solid 'materialistic world view' which they prefer remain in tact. In fact, when it comes to discussions regarding this phenomena, I have found that an intelligent materialist is all but unmovable. The odds that the materialist opens their mind to the degree they begin to experience the explainable is 'all but impossible' and I can understand why... the need most humans have for security.

For me to be able to discuss this we would first have to agree on what we call "real." This is probably the launching pad.

Let me try and kick start this - As we discussed the other day... the only thing we do know (as in 'know exists with all certainty') is consciousness then did consciousness arise with this strange material universe or did the material universe arise in our collective consciousness?

again... "then did consciousness arise with this strange material universe or did the material universe arise in our collective consciousness?"

This assumes there is that truth or "a truth that is independent of subjective perception."

I doubt there is truth in anything within the limited subject of "materialistic science" unless an individual experiencer desires there to be and the Universe gives them enough evidence to satisfy their perception. But if that occurs, that does not assume the Universe does not behave/react differently with others (as it does with me for example).

There are synchronicities that do not require the type of meaningfulness as you just described.

Again I refer to the number synchronicities and the additional component of "invocation or compelling."

In the 23 Synchronicity, I was compelled by the first "23" that came forth. In the 5 years I had spent in Panama where Gisella was working with my family, there was one time and one time only that I had this "compelling" and told her specifically about it. That 23 came forth again and again in all the very next sequence of numbers when considered that it all started with the compelling has to raise within the experiencer 'an eybrow.' It did for me and it also spoked Giselaa. What was even cooler is that a few days later I had to photo copy her driver's license and discovered her age was 23. And then the next evening my wife and I went to the "Rey" grocery store where at midnight the cheese counter was still open (I asked them if this was normal and they said it is never supposed to be open past 10 PM), yet it was... and there was the "take a number" machine and I walked over to it, waved for my wife to look and sure enough... BAM - 23... it is undeniable "something" is up. And no, I cannot explain it, no... I have learned not to interpret it, no... I don't try and validate it within some pre-existing explanation or paradigm... because I don't have to "prove it" to know that it is consciousness Itself (capitalized all and only out of respect I have for "It") metaphorically saying "Boooo!" to an individuated expression of "Itself."

And yet this assumes that there is an ultimate "objectivity" when maybe there isn't. In my experience, the form of anything is co-dependent upon my individuated consciousness and/or a consciousness of a group. In fact, it is the phenomena of form which, to me, is the illusion that arises in all that actually is... consciousness. Even our individuation "perceiving itself conscious" is, from the perspective of consciousness Itself, an illusion. Thus again why I authored the artistic and metaphorical piece in a previous post a page or so back. It points to the paradox as it is known in mysticism and I make odds very high that paradox can never be "intellectually resolved" though I "know it and its actuality" via what I call "direct experience" and then application of what I have learned via this direct experience where I also know that all of this only has to be "true" for me, for me at this moment, and I can freely and easily change a part of my mind or even all of my mind about any of "it" (my theories) at anytime for any reason.

Morphius' point only makes sense at "one level" of perception and his point was important because at every level of perception where 'what is reality' is perceived as that which one observes outside of 'themselves.' What may first be important to answer (if one can) is... "who/what am I?" As only then can the matrix be understood such that one can ask, "am I in a matrix within a matrix? If so, how many levels might there be? If so, what level might 'i' be at?" All these questions can only be answered subjectively IMO. In fact, I must ask... why do so many of us "need" the type of answers one could attempt to say is "objective truth?"

So my own (and only truth) is that "i" (whatever that is) am conscious... but perhaps even that is a lie to myself. If that would be true, nothing is true but that statement that nothing is true! Ohhh wait, I just found a way to shake hands with "the paradox" again (in another metaphorical form).

Agree... I am certain this is true! Ooops did we again meet the paradox? I am certain about uncertainty.

It is! I am certain about that. Or can I be?

I have had to learn the hardest of ways (probably still 'learning this' too) that your above statement has been incorporated into my operational protocol.

What is and has been would have to be universally agreed upon for it to be undeniable truth, yes?

And even it it is universally agreed upon, could that be universal delusion?

If it does not have to be universally agreed upon, who would be "the decider?"

 

I understood that, but keep in mind that you never calculated any odds in advance, not on timing, or actions, or people involved. It was only after the sequence of events occurred with apparent fortuitous timing that you decide something special just happened according to your very subjective assignment of meaning. That's how it works for all of us, as far as I can tell. We assign the meaning. And we pay no attention whatsoever to all the special events that didn't happen, and we don't assign any meaning whatsoever to those non-events. Isn't there something strange about our behavior, something extremely biased?

You are essentially saying that this speculation on synchronicity is highly subjective. I agree, and I also do not agree. Let me explain.

Our perception of truth is subjective. For example, we often believe things to be true that aren't true. But the truth itself is objective, because it is real. Reality doesn't care how it is perceived (at least I don't think so, speaking subjectively, of course). My interest is in the truth that is independent of subjective perception. All of us can have different opinions about the meaningfulness of synchronistic events, but what I want to know is not what the meaning is for the experiencer, but what is the meaning independent of the experiencer? What is the objective meaning?

Of course, the only way we can approach objective truth is subjectively, and that is extremely limiting. But if many of us can debate the issue, we stand a better chance of breaking out of individual subjectivity and approaching a kind of group objectivity. Of course, there is always that Amanda Bloom quote I am fond of using -- "An idea does not gain truth as it gains followers." Perhaps it should be modified to "An idea does not necessarily gain truth as it gains followers, but it possibly could." And now we are back to the certainty / uncertainty debate.

Nobody knows if their future steps will be on solid ground. It's uncertain. The steps we have already made can be judged with greater clarity, we hope, but it is still subjective and dependent on our perception, our experiences, our beliefs, etc. It still sounds like shaky ground to me. That doesn't mean we shouldn't speculate. It just means caution is advised, as speculation can go in any direction, while truth is found only in what is or has been.

 

That's OK, we each can have our own opinions. My experiences have ruled out apophenia.

The reference to "all but impossible odds" was prior to the event happening. The factor that you might not consider important but is one of the primary factors in my ability to label an event as "a profound synchronicity" is "the timing" and not simply "that it happened."

Again, Timing is a key element - here's an example (just one of dozens I have experienced)

http://merlynagain.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-most-charished-synchronicity.html

I will clarify what I meant. I have chosen to take the attitude "a zest for life" which has played a role in my emotional experience I call "enthusiasm." I found that in heightened moments of enthusiasm, the elements that arose in my immediate awareness that had a clear connection to something specific I had also been focusing upon did so far beyond realistic probability and to a much more profound degree.

I am only speaking for myself but I have proven to myself after years of study that the following is true... the fundamentals need to be
open mindedness, an ability to recognize symbols behind the ordinarily mundane and then the feeding of enthusiasm into one's moment by moment experience essentially (a metaphor) fertilizes the ground from which profound synchronicity experiences arise.

Again, this is all and only my experience. The only reason I share the experience is based on the benefits I have experienced from the synchronicity experience. One of those benefits is that (and again... I am only speaking for myself) this type of experience has played a major role my formation of my operational world view which I described in Post # 467 - a world view which I found has made me a better person from the perspective of my loved ones, friends, neighbors, those I pass on the street and those I may never meet. I have also experienced a "richness to life" materiality has never matched. For me, "the gold" is exactly what I experienced in the above posted synchronicity.

No, I am stating that it does for me. I have also been told this by others who also happen to be what for me is "experts" regarding the phenomena. Note that I had come to this conclusion for myself long before I ever discovered anyone else citing this same key ingredient.

It absolutely could but that is not the case for me. That is not my experience. When I was young and had not found that indescribable connection I sometimes experienced apophenia. I am able to know the difference for myself. For example, if I stick my hand in water that is at a temperature of 5 degrees Celsius, and then stick my hand in water that is at 50 degrees Celsius, in the case of the former I would be able to say that the former was "cold" for me. In the case of the latter, I would be able to say that the latter was "hot" for me. I am able to state that not because I could also measure the temperature and "prove" which is cold relative to my own determination as to what might be tepid. I am able to state that based on my experience and based on my confidence that the words I am speaking is truthful to the best of my knowledge and ability. Yet also, no one has to believe me. I don't care to prove anything because unlike measuring water temperature, synchronicity "proof" would be subjectively determined. In other words, one person might see it while another may not. If every reader here but one decides to conclude that there's zero reason to open up to the possibility there really is something to this so called phenomena by so doing, the end up beginning the journey I have now traversed for years, and that journey ends up playing a direct role in that reader's improvement as a person from the perspective of others, then I would feel I did not waste my time in writing up my synchronicity experiences as I have and I would feel like my posts on forums which touched upon or focused upon synchronicity was not a waste of my time.

I have no experience with that but as far as we think we are intelligent, I don't think I am. If I were, why would I incarnate on this planet at this time which is a total insane asylum run by sociopaths? I actually think I am an idiot. But what I also acknowledge about myself is a fundamental fearlessness which may have something to do with why I may have (as I like to believe I have) made this choice to incarnate on Earth at this time.

I best say that this is my opinion which I incorporate into my world view. It is also likely not provable and therefore I don't need to try. I am aware of some others who have lived who share a similar view who also may be more qualified to have this view. For example, Wolfgang Pauli and Dr. Elliot Benjamin who I mentioned in a post above. And maybe we should not dismiss Carl Jung either.

Of course, all we are dealing with is postulates and theories anyways. Everyone is welcome to having their own views and changing their minds about those views.

I ask a friend to take me to work tomorrow because my car is in the shop. He says, "sure" and asks what time he should be at my home to pick me up. I say, 5 AM.

Knowing myself, I would probably be waiting out on the front porch no later than 4:55 AM.

In this case, I am speculating that my friend will actually be there and be there around the time I asked him to pick me up.

Because that is just a speculation, should I dismiss any possibility that he may actually show up and do so around 5 AM?

So let's look at the results of each possibility.

I sleep in with earplugs in a bedroom at the far end of a giant home where even if my friend bangs on the door or calls my phone, I won't hear him and my friend doesn't show up.

The result is I don't get to work.

I sleep in with earplugs in a bedroom at the far end of a giant home where even if my friend bangs on the door or calls my phone, I likely hear him and my friend shows up.

The result is I don't get to work.

I get up and am outside waiting for my friend and I wait and wait and wait and my friend doesn't show up.

The result is I don't get to work.

I get up and am outside waiting for my friend and I wait and wait and...suddenly my friend shows up.

Great... I get to work!

So in three of the four possibilities, I get a negative result, but the forth possibility achieves the desired result.

The lesson is, if you do not speculate when all you can do is speculate, you may never "cash the gold" when having a dog in that hunt could only be done via speculation.

A mistake one might make could very well be (at least in part if not fully) drawing a conclusion or two and then interpreting that conclusion... yes, but this is another subject. In addition, number synchronicities eliminate this issue and can be analyzed with much greater accuracy though i would never claim 100% accuracy. And it is up to each individual as to what degree of accuracy one requires to conclude (for themselves) that "something is up here."

I, like Carl Jung, am sufficiently satisfied. I have met others who are sufficiently satisfied. Each individual should be able to decide for themselves and whatever they decide (or later change their mind about) is certainly their right to do.

What are your odds that your interpretation is the one actually operating in our perceived reality? Do you think I would come up with nearly the same odds? Would the odds we each calculate be little more than blatant speculation?

An explanation as to what are the mechanics involved in the creation of a synchronicity which might then be recognized by an observer and seen as meaningful may never come about. I don't need the explanation of the mechanics. I have been able to experiment with what I have now found to be the fundamental ingredients required for me to prepare the ground from which all but impossible (based on the subject matter combined with the timing), profound synchronicity experiences to arise.

As far as your "interpretation" goes... does a blind man know every step he takes will always be on solid ground? Does this stop all blind men from taking steps? I certainly can respect the right for anyone to refuse to take a single step, but just because one doesn't, does not mean that everyone should be afraid to.

 

I'm a big fan of Tesla. I've read the main biographical books of his life (which are incredible), studied some of his patents, posted about his influence on me, and I even lived for several years right near where his lab was in Colorado Springs in 1899. There might be some synchronicity in there somewhere.

 

I've read that post three times now, and I cannot find any answer that justifies dismissing apophenia. Am I missing something? Perhaps if I comment on that post I will stumble upon your reason.

Events that happen no longer have 'all but impossible' odds. Lots of things that seem impossible happen all the time. Estimating the odds of an event happening is not a valid measurement of an event's existence.

Wait, a "zest for life" is equivalent to "energies of enthusiasm", is it not? Also, you are claiming enthusiasm produces synchronicities. Why couldn't enthusiasm simply make you more attentive to recognizing synchronicities, or more susceptible to "the human tendency to perceive meaningful patterns within random data", which is the definition of apophenia. Or maybe even more susceptible to the human tendency to perceive meaningful patterns within any data set.

You know, it just occurred to me that the IQ tests I have been exposed to are all based on the human tendency to perceive meaningful patterns within a specific, non-random data set. We try to measure our intelligence by our ability to find meaningful patterns. I am suddenly stunned by this thought... I'm wondering why we think we are intelligent.

You are saying the link between individual consciousness and the quantum nature of reality is what makes synchronicities possible. I have lots of problems with that suggestion:

1. What is individual consciousness? All we have is speculation.
2. What is reality? All we have is speculation.
   
3. Does reality really have a quantum nature? All we have is speculation, and maybe some theories founded in measurement, measurement being necessarily quantum in nature.
   
4. Is there even a legitimate link between consciousness and a quantum model of reality?
5. If so (and that's a big IF), what is the nature of that link?
   
6. And finally, does the nature of that link generate synchronicities?

This mistake that everyone makes is called "interpretation". Interpretation relies on finding or recognizing patterns and drawing conclusions from those patterns. Humans already have a "tendency to perceive meaningful patterns within random data", which may explain our tendency to perceive meaningful patterns within non-random data as well. But are the patterns we perceive really there, and if they are, are they truly meaningful?

I guess my point is that you do not seem on very solid ground when it comes to your interpretation of synchronicity. What are your odds that your interpretation is the one actually operating in our perceived reality? Do you think I would come up with nearly the same odds? Would the odds we each calculate be little more than blatant speculation?

Note that while I recognize synchronicity, I don't have an explanation for it, i.e. my interpretation would definitely not be on solid ground.

 

WoW Rose... thank you for sharing this story. In those situations, it can absolutely feel like fate.

We (sadly) share the same thing in common... the suicide of our father. In my post above I mention the single most mind boggling synchronicity (and more) experience I ever had where the key events spanned over 50 years yet tied together and incredible story which I thought was concluded on Easter day, 2014. A story I have shared with about a dozen or so folks in one on one voice communications (or in person). One day I will share this story publicly but I must first wait for something that will likely happy inside the next ten or so years... but I feel at this time this must happen first.

Anyways - the most incredible element to the story happened on June of 2015 (one year after I though the story was concluded and after I had shared the story with a good dozen others). What happened in June of 2015 has a one chance in 132,800 of happening on the two annual dates involved. That then the "thing" that happened on the second date has never been known to happen ever in the history of the United States by a current US President which is also the central element to the story prior to Easter 2014 makes the odds of this happening one in millions if not billions or less.

A mystery... just like the pairs of shoes... what a mystery! Not one pair either but four. Keys disappearing and then miraculously appearing when you know you looked there many times. What a mystery! Thanks so much for sharing this story as I imagine this is not so easy to bring back to your memory...

The voice on the phone... your grandfather's "ghost"?

Who is (was) Bobby? Your father?

Seen 12 Monkeys? wow

341-1626 adds to 23

Go look at the synchronicity I had that was highlighted in the essay written by Dr. Elliot Benjamin I mentioned in my post above...

it was all about the number

23

apophenia? Like David Icke says... "Its just a coincidence... nothing to worry about."

 

Answered in the post above.

I am in process now of writing a book (not for sale) regarding these experiences which will include the analysis of a well respected professional statistician with his analysis details for critical review. You'll have to wait for the book and that won't be available until a certain event has occurred which will be understandable to the reader.

Nope, you are making an assumption I can't back it up.

About the only thing I am certain of is that I am currently typing on a black Logitech K120 keyboard at the moment. The fingers doing so are attached to a body and that whole body is known as Samuel Chester Hunter.

I have developed an operational protocol which holds almost all things as speculation and opinion. In order for me to function in the world, I consciously and willingly take on assumptions which I call "operational assumptions." I do this to explore life. At any time I might experience the tiniest new experience and/or new thought which then might excite me to modify one or more of my operational assumptions which impacts my constantly changing world view.

Note that one man's "poor judgment" might be another man's willing risk. Based on my Three Levels of Being primary world view, one can understand I am far less concerned about the risks I take. Have I made poor judgments? When I use hindsight, I am able to sometimes view a risk I took as a stupid one. It wouldn't be wrong to then place the label of "poor judgment" on that. Yet for me, the bottom line is that all judgment is subjective. That doesn't say that almost everyone might agree something someone did was at the very least a "usage of poor judgment" but that still is a completely and entirely subjective opinion (IMO haha).

Nothing to correct until we reached your conclusions... I would consider your questions as asking for clarification and support. Some has been provided. You are free to believe as you choose.

 

I actually just made statements.... but I did not make them willy nilly.

I am an odds maker by trade and have been so for 45 years so I have developed some experience in this regard. In addition, the very most profound (meaning profound for me personally) synchronicities are in fact the very ones with the most 'all but impossible' odds. That points to one of the key ingredients in the definition - "meaning." In addition I have worked with a mathematician (staring in 2010 and still continuing) regarding the phenomena when I was in my earliest stages of theory development regarding this phenomena - Dr. Elliot Benjamin

In fact, here's a series of discussions between Dr. Benjamin and oppositional explorers on the IntegralWorld website

http://www.integralworld.net/readingroom.html#ELB

Scroll down to the lengthy dialogue that begins with -

Elliot Benjamin, License Plate Synchronicity: An Experiential Account and Analysis, November 2010
here

and go from there...

In fact, one of my more mundane synchronicity experiences (though analyzable) was explored by Dr. Benjamin in this response here -

Elliot Benjamin, Synchronicity and Mathematics: A Response to the Lanes, December 2010
here

What might surprise the reader is that I do not subscribe to any "intentionality" views unless we theorize that the deepest aspects of our subconscious (if seen separately from the waking state (limited) conscious "self") might have intentions. My theory is simple. A zest for life generates the energies of enthusiasm and I found via years of investigation that the key ingredient required to produce profound synchronicities is enthusiasm.

More about my theory is not what most folks who have experienced the phenomena and many who have gone on to do more intense study (both of their own experiences and the experiences of others) generally like to hear.

My current theory rules out the following:

God is trying to tell you something

The synchronicity event implies "this was all planned in advance... "fated" or "one's destiny"

The Universe is trying to tell you something

That there's a "meaning" in the synchronicity beyond the obvious one - that being that the "meaningful component" of a synchronicity is actually all and only because it is meaningful to the experience at the moment that the synchronicity is experienced (and not necessarily to God or the Universe ot The Goddess or Anu or, etc.)

The elephant in the living room is the phenomena itself which has led me to raise the odds the following is what makes synchronicities possible. And that is that there as I sated above, the link between consciousness (and most specifically the individuated consciousness of a single living being) and the quantum nature of reality implying reality itself is conscious, alive and... well, just like my little post above implies... a paradox likely never solvable. In fact, maybe we don't ever wish to solve it or the fun may end.

Well... I will add this - I have discovered that there are certain "themes" which have been meaningful to me at stages of my life where, when I was enthusiastic about that specific theme, the rate of and the profundity of synchronicity experiences obviously linked in a meaningful way to that theme or the most featured elements in that theme rises way beyond reasonable odds. No... it is not because "I notice them more." Why I say that is that I learned several years ago to "pay attention to everything." It was via this process I have hundreds of documented and in many cases many supporting artifacts to various of my synchronicities.

In fact the very most profound synchronicity string of my entire life did not conclude (if it actually has concluded) until well after I had gotten the story out to a good dozen folks. This string involves directly one of the most highest profile human beings on Earth as well as one of the top five most impacting events in Earth history in the last 55 years. Perhaps number two behind 9/11 being number one.

Anyways, meaningfulness and enthusiasm go hand in hand in this regard. If something is meaningful to me and I am enthused with regards to increasing my understanding, I stand a chance to experience several profound synchronicities that are obviously related to that which is meaningful. The mistake I feel almost everyone makes is that when they have the synchronicity experience, they so often conclude that having that experience means their beliefs are correct, are valid... and this implies a "God thingie" or "The Universe" (as an entity onto itself), etc. is trying to tell you you are right or on track, etc.

My theory throws that sub theory out completely.

 

Oh? How are you able to dismiss apophenia so completely?

I would also like to see how you calculated those odds.

My point is that you are demonstrating unjustified certainty and building on it to reach unjustified conclusions. It's a human tendency that we should be aware of and correct when we notice it.

I would also point out that unjustified certainty can easily lead to poor judgment calls.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

The point of all my views is that I am left with having to take responsibility... probably a good thing.

At this Level three level of being... I ask myself, "why would I incarnate in a world run by sociopaths?" One of the responses I get is, "Because a sociopath is a form of expression possible within the grand 'All that Is' and because 'you,' at your Level one level of being are the 'szource' for that stream of individuation which eventually manifested as a living, breathing sociopath sets up quite an interesting challenge, no?

 

ahhhhh... Rose? Do you see a connection between synchronicity and what one might see as "fate?"

Anyways... I feel like I create or at least co-create with the Big Me these strange synchronicities.

 

Rose said: ↑


I have one quote typed on a now quite withered piece of paper stashed in the corner of my wallet...

And that, Rose, is the quote you posted...

My view from the only me "I know" exists... Sam Hunter. Its fun when I override the very fate I may have mapped out for myself! Usually...

 

This is a big question and my answer requires complexity.

To even begin to answer this for oneself, one must answer the question - "who am I?"

My current answer to this question (and I emphasize current because my views along these lines have changed over the course of just this one life). Even in my last statement requires further explanation.

So, "who am I?"

I am Sam Hunter. In this one lifetime, I am known as Sam Hunter. I accept the name I was given as an identifier of the being that is alive, well and kicking within this body vehicle I now inhabit. I know this like I know that I am currently typing on a black Logitech K120 keyboard.

At one point about 12 or so years ago, after living for about 46 years or so I dove deeply into mystical studies and the perennial philosophy. It was during this period that I apprehended the "Big Me" which I will describe further in a moment.

I will now share with you what once came to me a few years ago.

“I (as us all) am (are)

simply the ‘All that Is’

that found a way to deceive Itself

that It wasn't Itself

and simultaneously

hid Itself within Itself

such that It might (re)discover Itself

alive and individuated

within Its self-created Magick Kingdom.”​

The Big Me is just other words I use to point to the 'All that Is' mentioned in the writing above. Of course, I cannot say I know I am 'The Big Me' like I know I am Sam Hunter and like I know I am typing on a black Logitech K120 keyboard at this moment. But I treat this as a "deep knowing" when in reality, it is nothing but a current operational assumption.

So in my answer as to "who am I," I have three levels of "being." Level one is The Big Me. Level three is Sam Hunter. And so now I will describe Level two.

Level Two is the wish, hope and desire that an individuated aspect of the whole me continues on beyond the death of Sam Hunter's physical body. And if this be true that it is likely we could assume that same individuated aspect of the whole me existed before Sam Hunter and thus also lived through the life of Sam Hunter and through the story of Sam Hunter.

It was important for me to explain how I see "me" to be in order to respond to your question, Rose.

From the point of view of Level 1, the All that Is which I also describe as "the timeless, formless eternal one life" (Eckhart Tolle's words), it is possible to have the view that all is fated.

Even from the POV of "szource/self" (my own word which plays on the popular term, Source, twists it by throwing in the 'z' and then complicates it by insinuating individuation with the term "self") - the szource/self being my first step from Big Me into being individuated... at the very tippy top of Level two, perhaps I plan lifetimes and thus again, things may be somewhat fated.

At Level three I prefer to "think" I have free will. I "believe" I have free will though when I am fully honest with myself, I see how I have accepted limitations and in some cases self imposed limitations. But generally I operate on Level three and I operate under the assumption I have free will. Therefore I do not "believe in fate" at this time. There were times earlier in this current lifetime that I actually believed my life was fated. And guess what? Fate happened. I then realized I did not like accepting that my life be fated and I realized I would not respect some "creative source" that threw me into some odd dynamic where I was told I had free will, where I desired to have free will and where I operated freely even when I chose to adhere to illusory limits... I did so by my own will.

It was then that I started to see the depth of the programming I was under. It was then that I started to see I was in the matrix. It was then that I started to see that its not so easy just to recognize these things and then whisk them away. This is the place I have been at for some time now. Chico's enlightenment process with regards to sociopaths has resulted in an even deeper and even more brutally honest look at my Level three being in this current lifetime known as Sam Hunter. I recently became quite depressed about it and noticed a few days later that the depression coincided with acquiring a virus. Did my Level two szource/self place me in a position where the depression would be amplified by the virus for some "purpose"? Could that purpose be to increase the rate I toughen up based on this latest revelation the world I currently live in at Level three is run by sociopaths? Does that really matter to "me" considering my operational assumptions of my three levels of being? No, it doesn't. But guess who it might matter to? My loved ones, friends, neighbors, those I pass on the street and those I may never meet. And THAT is why I did not give up after all and that is why I will likely never give up.

I am also very wide open that all sorts of influences known and unknown to my waking state conscious being can and do effect my life experience. I often feel like a pinball in a spiritual pinball machine... where one flipper is operated by demons and the other is operated by angels. But also... that seems to make this game even more interesting. And yes, I do see life as a game. But far far more than just a game.

Frankly, I love life. Despite the heartless bastards. When I gaze into the eyes of my loved ones... my children... Cristina, my wife... I am nothing but grateful for life, even though a lifetime lasts less time than it takes a single grain of sand to fall in the eternal hourglass.

I am not well know for short answers.