If we think we have our new understanding of the nature
of personal experience, how do we change it when change would improve our
lives? Where do we intervene in the confusing automatic processes of our
lives to get what we think we want?
Life's information processing is probability processing
enabling conscious focus to single out resonate probabilities from the
subnuclear level with which to structure qualia of space-time and its matter-energy
content. To change our experience at the level of the conscious ego, we
need only change our surface-level, managerial feedback system. Our lives
are born of beliefs we have accepted as working fact through which
emotional and motor reactivity is established.
When we shift our focus in our space-time reality and
give our deep-seated beliefs a closer look, it may seem that the notion
that events themselves will alter to reflect any new beliefs we accept as
a bit off-the-wall, but keep in mind that this process is essentially
identical to changing the equations fed to a quantum computer. The
equation serves as a filter through which superpositioned resources are
fed to achieve a solution. When we change the elements of the equation of
our lives, so to speak, we change the solution to that equation.
We can study the nature of beliefs, but we must then
act upon new understandings of the working of our psyche. We must rise to
the challenge of a dynamic proactive synchronicity. We do this when we
reframe past experience in light of new understandings. We change, in the
process, our reactive behavior to past events. We redefine the present and
we open new fields of possibilities for the future.
As an example of how proactive synchronicity works,
imagine that we want a friend to visit during the evening, but we don't
usually consider it at all likely that our friend will want to visit us.
We surrender to the probability of spending the night alone, and in doing
so, we have taken a step toward selecting that probability as our reality.
Frustrated, we contemplate becoming a Buddhist. If we could deny our
desires and wishes and knuckle down to the 'objective reality' of the
situation, we wouldn't suffer such unhappiness.
But we just blithely skimmed past something important.
Why did we consider it unlikely that our friend would visit? Was it a
rational evaluation of probability based upon past experience, or an
expression of low self-esteem that has undermined the relationship? Why do
we give up trying? We can make clean breaks in life without suffering
emotional consequences. Remorse and self-recrimination warn of some poor
strategy at work in our reasoning process.
There's more to it than what is likely or unlikely to
happen. Actually, we sensed our friend would not visit because we knew we
were not tuned to that outcome. We chose
our desolate state of affairs for reasons deeper than were superficially apparent
to us. The event conflicted with a conviction of higher priority or
fulfilled some deeper value. We tuned to 'failure' because that outcome
fit within the overall structure of our current reality. It served a
purpose and had a reason for being. Low self esteem is sometimes a defense
mechanism. If we fear trying and failing, it's sometimes easier to not try
at all.
Or, we keep a low profile in life for fear of becoming
a high-profile target. An attractive woman risks sexual harassment.
Therefore, she wears less revealing clothing. A man with too much money is
plagued by the needs of the needy beating a path to his doorstep.
Therefore, he may drive a Chevy and wear blue-jeans to sully his refined
image. A man with few personal resources may feel insecure against the
demands of modern society and drives a Cadillac to compensate. In our
case, if we are too easily successful with one partner, might we find
ourselves prematurely dealing with the question of long-term
relationships, or the challenge of managing multiple relationships with
others we would like to have knocking on our doors?
We all possess an intuitive awareness of the acausal
structure of reality. It explains our whimsical affection and familiarity
with the rules of magic, the idea that we can get what we want if we
believe with adequate intensity, or that we need to 'knock on wood', or
'break a leg', to avoid getting what we fear if we fail to acknowledge the
possibility.
If, for example, we could make things move, as with
telekinesis, robe sashes would be winding around our neck at night during
our nightmares. Our fears as well as our desires would manifest, and not
always consciously. We'd destroy ourselves at the hands of our personal
demons, given the quantum-like power of creation. If telekinesis is
possible, we are not ready for it as yet.
Our belief in an objectively physical reality beyond
our conscious selves protects us from personal responsibility of this
magnitude, even at the expense of every dark assumption of the futility of
life that accompanies it. Unfortunately, our personal demons tend to
destroy us anyhow. Much that manifests itself in our lives does so
unconsciously, following programs that we ourselves have unwittingly
unleashed, but do not recognize. We have little to fear toying with the
power of 'magic', if we are confident that it rules our life regardless.
We can test our ability to manifest acausally
synchronous events in our space-time world once we feel comfortable with,
and have confidence in, our ability to accommodate the result. Following
the example of desiring a visit from our friend, we'd begin by exploring
an imaginary scenario of wanting our friend to visit regardless of how
unlikely our desire. We imagine highly detailed circumstances in which everything will
work out well, because that scenario is no more unlikely than any other.
Our very lives are the product of nearly insurmountable odds regardless,
our bodies made of the stuff of exploding stars, with possibly no two
atoms belonging to the same star. We, therefore, play with
the idea that we live in a multidimensional universe and that the events
of our lives are reflections of our beliefs and anticipations and
expectations and that we get what we want or expect, sometimes what we
fear, regardless of whether we fully understand the consequences and
hidden nature of all those feelings.
Both possibilities, our friend visiting or not
visiting, are, in an odd sense, fictions, or fictitious scenarios. In a
quantum reality, either reality manifests somewhere regardless, under what
we'd deem to be proper or appropriate circumstances in 'parallel'
experiences, or 'parallel' worlds. Neither reality is
more or less likely than the other, although one may occur with a greater
measure. Again, as in the case of a raindrop assembled from atoms
born in a million exploding stars, all realities are equally improbable.
If our friend does not visit despite our best efforts
at imagining that outcome and we beat ourselves up over a perceived
failure, we’ve misunderstood the mechanics of proactive synchronicity.
Whatever happens is the product of ‘swimming with the stream’. When we
'fail' at anything, we've missed some vital factor in the equation we
needed to change the stream's current. If we were counting on brute
strength to succeed, then we feel ourselves too stupid, too slow, and too
weak to accomplish what we want. We've missed the point entirely.
Our friend not visiting was a success, however, not a
failure, because we can be confident that more than random chance was at
work. if we want the friend to visit regardless of initial failures, we
continue to imagine ‘tuning’ to a preferred version of our friend, one who
truly loves us, and 'tuning' to events in which circumstance lean our way
despite the odds. We imagine feeling utter confidence in the inevitability
of events as we’d prefer them to be. We imagine our friend showing up. We
imagine our friend thinking thoughts and feeling emotions conducive to the
circumstance we want.
We are not manipulating our friend, or controlling any
element of 'objective physical reality'. If mind and matter are one and
reality is ultimately a superpositioned reality, we are only 'tuning' to
an aspect of our friend who resonates with us with equal intensity. Our
friend is multidimensional in nature and will make his or her own choices
in multiple personal histories. A great many of them will not include us,
but some will. In some worlds, our feelings are compatible with
theirs and we will steer toward the possibilities that encompasses that
compatibility.
The trick is always to recognize a belief for what it
is, an idea about reality, not a fact thereof. Beliefs we consider
positive, but have never been fulfilled, are commonly contaminated with
wishful thinking, or unwarranted fear. We hold them at bay at deep levels
for good reason.
Once we've tasted success in an endeavor of this
nature, and once we are convinced that more than coincidence is involved,
our understanding of the nature of beliefs will be complete. We won’t
always be successful at getting what we want. It's initially hard work.
But the reasons for our failures and successes will always be a personal,
internal conflict and never a matter of forces beyond our control. Some
changes in our lives take far more effort than others, but no change is
totally impossible.
We'll often find that getting what we want opens
multiple cans of worms. We generally want more romance and sex than we
get. If we obtain it without giving the consequences of excess romance,
sex, money and good fortune a thought, we begin to see the reason for many
of our conflicting beliefs, squabbling ex-spouses, child support, IRS
audits, attorney fees. Beliefs often conflict for good reason, because
choice implies consequence, responsibility, and a burden to be shouldered.
The purpose to life is not success, or even survival.
The purpose to life is exploration, understanding, and the freedom to
create by virtue of conscious focus. Growth feeds upon failure as much as
it does upon success as with Thomas Edison’s ten thousand failed light
bulb filaments. Ten thousand failed. One finally worked. Impossible
outcomes cancel and successes carry on into new calculations. When we
think we have failed, we have experienced the 'wrong' success, but we have
succeeded nevertheless. We didn’t get the right answer because we didn’t
ask the right question. Our semantic realities are vague, not at all as
precise as mathematical equations. It’s far more difficult than is
apparent to plan a life using tools as infuriatingly elusive as words and
the sensory precepts that underlie them. Life sinks deeper roots in a
reality that is far more expansive and intricately detailed than is
visible to our space-time view. Tweaking events to our satisfaction often
requires trial and error until the desired outcome is achieved. It's a
process we won't soon master, but it's one we can at least validate to our
own satisfaction.
All of the events of our lives are tied together and
they are our ultimate balancing act. In a space-time world, we cannot
always have our cake and eat it, too, even if our choice is derived from a
world in which cakes, eaten or intact, coexist. When we experiment with
proactive synchronicity, we best begin with harmless events, meaningless
events, events that will have no consequence of any importance upon our
lives. May all our cans of worms be small, docile and toothless.
In any case, we’ll never be able to do more than toy
with synchronous events at our current level of psychic development. The
structure of our lives are truly like those castles we've built for ourselves stone by
stone and they are not easy to casually tweak. Yanking a bottom can from a
ten foot pyramid at your local grocery store is never a good idea.
The ability to consciously manipulate events by
manipulating belief would seem to be a tremendous personal power, and it
is, as long as the emphasis remains on the word ‘personal’. There’s no way
to abuse the process. A rapist who understands synchronous events can more
easily attract victims by harboring a conviction that victims will find
their way to him, but in an acausally synchronous world, the men who commit such crimes become victims themselves. Can a
rapist hope to truly honor and respect the life of a mother, a daughter,
or a sister? Do the lives of these men move toward the light or the
darkness that harbors the repercussions of their behavior?
More often than not, negative experience of any kind is
born of ignorance, and we could honestly state that we are all far more
ignorant than knowledgeable about the reality within which we dwell. We
wend our way into situations we have no way of anticipating, because they
and their consequence are new to us. This is the most challenging aspect
of the nature of synchronicity, the hardest to accept and the easiest to
deny. Events happen for a reason. Those reasons are ours. Our associations
with others and with all events are two-way interactions. We can turn our
back on any of them at any time and simply walk away, and we can approach
new possibilities at will, with or without awareness of the consequences
of our action.
Ignorance in this analogy is an asset, not a liability,
because we ultimately benefit from what we do not currently know. Moving
into the unknown is the nature of the game of life we play. Sometimes,
it's stressful. Ultimately, it's fun. It wouldn't be fun if we could
predict the consequence of our every move. Life would become stifling
under such circumstances.
It is true that, even if we can speak of our ability to
perceive potential events, or future events, we never know ahead of time
the overall, long-term effect an event will have on our lives. We can
witness a fatal car crash and then watch survivors rebuild their lives
with startling success because of invaluable lessons acquired in the
accident. We can watch a family win a lottery, fail to manage the chaos
that ensues, and witness lives destroyed as a result.
And some unavoidable and invaluable lessons in life
involve dark urges and pain, both suffered and inflicted. We learn that we
harm ourselves by harming others. We harm others by allowing them to harm
us. These are interactions as dark and cold as a prison cell. When we want
out, we find the key waiting in our own pocket.
When we know our own psychology, we will see how we
have unwittingly shaped the world in our own image. We will openly
perceive synchronous events following the train of our thought. We need a
first-hand taste of this phenomenon to set us on a course to
self-determination. These new insights and potentials are not as
mysterious as they may seem. They lie within us, not in the world without.
They are not at all mysterious and not in the least intimidating. The
fuzzy edges to our Newtonian world show us what others have missed in the
past.
