Has anyone else experienced a complete shift in reality mechanics from STS to STO protocol?

Though each tradition is diverse, different in its language and focus, I think those Eastern frameworks, as well as Western thought like Apostle Paul or the Fourth Way material, Jordan Peterson, etc., do describe an increasing alignment with the truth, the Light, or the Creator, as increasing real change in Being. And in dynamic ways. For me, this was well described in the C's discussion of building the antennae, creating a conduit, etc., or Laura's videos in her Course in Knowledge and Being series on YouTube. Aside from that, EEQT provides a framework for why the field shifts dynamically in response to increases in awareness as I mentioned above.

There's nothing special about all this in my opinion - it's just called learning. I don't do most of the stuff I used to do, not necessarily because it no longer works, but because it was sad, disgusting, or harmful.

There are many paths up the mountain, and your change seems to be catalyzed by a utilitarian analysis - 'it no longer works'. Fair enough. And now it sounds like you're trying to understand the mechanics of that. I would surmise that it worked for a while because you were part of the STS feeding hierarchy as described by Michael Topper. The masters of darkness are always rewarding people for their selfishness. Just look at billionaire oligarchs.

Now it doesn't work. That's cool, it's probably good for you. Why doesn't it work? Who knows. I could list any number of possibilities. With some things in life, there is no left-brain explanation, just that 'it was time'. As such, along with trying to understand the exact mechanics of your change would probably be well attenuated with just accepting that you don't know.

About seeing the smallest aim as triggering distortion, I would put the question to you - how do you know that this notion isn't coming from your Predator Mind? It's quite common for STS forces to generate spiritual breakthroughs - as Castaneda wrote, they generate flares of awareness in order to feed on that Light. Demons often masquerade as angels. Check out the book Masquerade of Angels for a particularly chilling account of that. Anyways, the point is that we do not know our own mind. So subjecting our thoughts and experiences - especially significantly positive ones - to scrutiny, is the only way to prevent us from falling prey to this. And accepting feedback from a network of others is the only way from preventing a spiritual realization from turning into a self-important, solipsistic trap.

On that note, you write that you went from selfish aims, and now you are considering pure, selfless aimlessness. A totalizing swing to the opposite is a common psychological response. I recognize that some people need to just hanging out in Being for a while. But this can also be an indication of black-and-white thinking, either/or thinking. I already raised this issue in your 'diet doesn't matter' idea. IMO, this will be a key issue for you to pay attention to in the future, as a hallmark of STO is to respond in a balanced way, and at least in this case, there's some degree of unbalanced thinking by way of strong identification with your own perspective.

And before you say, 'I don't want to talk about that' - then I suggest you put your newfound STO perspective to the test and let go of control of the conversation.


This is just a more subtle version of the same thing Jones did.

You’ve framed it such that if I don’t respond, it looks like avoidance, and if I do respond, I’m already accepting the premise that there’s something I need to defend or prove.

You’re free to think whatever you want about me.

What’s telling is that so many of the responses in this thread haven’t been about the actual ideas I've been describing. They’ve been framed as attempts to point out where I’m flawed as a person. Why is that what this has turned into?

I never presented myself as enlightened and I don't even accept that to be a real thing.
 
Seems to me some people in this thread are unknowingly training an AI.

Or, know this already and probing it.

It's true, I often use AI to refine my own thinking and to help present my ideas more coherently so there is less confusion in what I'm saying. Sometimes it writes things more clearly than I do. If others aren't doing that, I'd say they are missing out on a great tool that helps to propel me forward in my own understanding.
 
Interesting, what in particular makes you think that?

I don’t think so but would like to see your observations.

What I think is that some arrive with predetermined ‘case in point’ that they want to share, aren’t necessarily interested in joining the ‘group’ per say but inclined to want to shed light or their learnings or point of view, probably thinking they can safe someone from themselves, with Peter I get the vibe that he things we are doing something wrong. That’s how it feels to me, however fascinating what’s being shared, we still all have our own lessons to learn.

I could be wrong, I just know a few people that no matter how much info is right in front of them they’ve already decided something and there’s not much anyone can do to change or refute it. One of them is convince that they are God and can DO everything on their own, no groups or feedback loops necessary, the bias is pretty unbelievable, hilarious as well.

From my experience, I learn best from others, so without the group exploring their inner mechanisms, sharing themselves, their knowledge, their lives, and me trying to understand and relate to them then I’d go nowhere even faster than I’m going.

What do I think you're doing wrong? We're all on our own paths and that's where we're supposed to be.

From my angle, I don't see how I can explain myself without pointing out where others are misunderstanding me. Maybe that is being taken as my thinking that others do it wrong?
 
What do I think you're doing wrong? We're all on our own paths and that's where we're supposed to be.

From my angle, I don't see how I can explain myself without pointing out where others are misunderstanding me. Maybe that is being taken as my thinking that others do it wrong?
You wrote this to a reply of mine in your introduction thread,

I would be willing to get on the phone with you and talk to you for like 30-45 minutes and try to help you trace the root of your conflicts. I don't think it'd take much longer than that to get to the bottom of it.
you know nothing about me, yet you assume you could fix everything in 45 minutes, effectively bypassing all of my lessons.
 
I don't know if I understand all of what you're saying, and I don't have any answers, but to me it sounds like exactly what I think of as "non-anticipation"..




..to me, this sounds like you're using a sort of surface level or mundane definition of "anticipation", and so the "non-anticipation" term isn't adequate for what you're experiencing. Nothing wrong with that.. But for me, when I use that term, it has a lot more meaning to it, both broader and more specific.. Similar to the term "not doing" from Carlos Castaneda's books. When I first read that, it sounded like he meant "doing nothing", but later it turns out his definition of "doing" in this context isn't the mundane one, but rather means something like "perceiving reality through the filters you've learnt throughout your life".. Likewise, when I think of "non-anticipation" I don't only mean not hoping for a particular outcome, but.. something I can't quite put into words.

Yesterday I happened to watch this short video about playing Shakuhachi flute, which talks about the same kind of thing. I liked the word this guy used for this kind of state of being - curiosity.
Hi Brandon I didn't reply at first because I hadn't yet watched the video. I appreciate that you've responded in good faith.

The video you shared is actually extremely similar to what I have been attempting to explain. The guy Robin definitely sees it from an angle that, I do not see any contradiction in what he said and what I have been experiencing. He doesn't name the functions and mechanisms in any kind of direct way though. His explanations don't define why things work the way they do, it's all explained through metaphor and felt truth. And also it will be complicated for others to replicate because he does not make anyone aware that it is their energetic posture that is what is effecting things to happen, so you could listen to what he said and try to replicate it, but if you have any of these subtle or micro expressions of lack, it won't work for you and you won't understand why. In any case, I do resonate with pretty much everything he said.

Aside from that, I'm starting to think that what I am saying is just potentially not possible to convey to many people because I am viewing causality from a completely different lens than them. I do not view events as separate from myself. I do not see myself as having a relationship to anything out in the world. I see myself as only having a relationship to the manifestation of of whatever thing in my experience.

I'm literally saying that cause and effect is an illusion.

Most others think, as I also used to think, that you do things and as a result, effects occur and things happen. Now I'm saying there is this thing in between our "doing" and reality happening, I am calling it "the field", and saying that it reads your energetic posture towards whatever the thing is, and then makes a judgment as to how aligned and how congruent you are with that thing, then either allows or doesn't allow its manifestation to occur. Anytime anyone thinks they made something happen by doing something, is just being fooled by an illusion.

I guess I can just point this out because it is such a glaring example of it that anyone here can see.

Look at my initial post in this thread, I started off seeking something. I said "has anyone else experienced this reality shift that I have experienced?" My posture was that I was in lack and seeking an answer from those here. What did I get in return? A bunch of people attacking my character, attempting to play dominance games, or intentionally misinterpreting me to try to make me doubt myself. (Not everyone did, but a good chunk did.)

Look at the other thread I created in the introduction section. I was asked to post that. I had no intent behind it, I wrote it from a lackless posture. Look at the types of responses I received there.

Completely different. Night and day difference.

No one attacking me, people appreciating what I had to say and people engaging with it.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. We don't interact with one another, my field interacts with your field and your field interacts with mine. It is not us who makes these things happen, it is the field.

Anyways, I see that continuing to post, especially with any subtle hope of being seen or understood, is itself a signal of lack and that signal necessarily shapes the mirror of the field into distortion. Most of the pushback here hasn’t been about disagreement with the ideas, but about the energetic disruption those ideas create in others.

Either I’m describing something that challenges a distortion they aren’t ready to confront so they lash out and attempt to diminish me, or I’m pointing to a way of viewing reality that simply doesn’t register from their current frame, so they tell me I'm either confused or that what I'm saying has been clearly said before by others. Though no one has been able to confirm any of that.

Robin sees it. I also noticed that Gottathink does see it the way he explained his healing practice and how he goes about it.

So thank you, I really appreciate you pointing out this video to me.
 
Aside from that, I'm starting to think that what I am saying is just potentially not possible to convey to many people because I am viewing causality from a completely different lens than them. I do not view events as separate from myself. I do not see myself as having a relationship to anything out in the world. I see myself as only having a relationship to the manifestation of of whatever thing in my experience.

I'm literally saying that cause and effect is an illusion.
Well all of us are constantly choosing from multiple universe states to branch to. Ark's hat saga mentioned in the Cs transcripts even shows there's some converging as well as diverging of paths involving multiple universe states. Your conscious state can relate to probabilities for your path through universe states and your free will can have varying abilities to prune the branches towards something that is not strictly probabilistic. Your "field" that is not strictly deterministic cause and effect is kind of quantum physics that is not strictly probabilistic.
 
Here's what Cass Wiki has to say about anticipation and non-anticipation:

Anticipation and non-anticipation

The Cassiopaean material discusses anticipation in relation to following one’s path or interacting with reality at large. There two sides to the discussion: the first is that one should always anticipate attack in order to avoid problems by preparation; the second is that one should not be fixated on any particular imagined outcome of one’s creative efforts or intent, because such fixation or anticipation restricts the ’creative flow.’

This is the closest the Cassiopaeans come to discussing the idea that ’you create your own reality’, or ’YCYOR’.

Intent can invite realization, but anticipation of any particular realization metaphysically nullifies the intent. This relates to the distinction between service to others and service to self. Anticipation is expecting the self to be confirmed, expecting to bend the Universe to one’s will and thus falls on the side of the service to self principle. Intent is non-personal and can be generally creative in the service to others sense. Anticipation does however have its uses in a world of service to self, but this use is for the service to others candidate principally in predicting and blocking possible foreseeable difficulties. This takes the form of simple physical or mental preparedness.

An alternative formulation of the idea could be that if one thinks one must have more money, the idea of having more money is projected into the future and the idea of not having enough money is asserted for the present. In the reverse, if one thinks one could get mugged and therefore avoids the side alley after dark, one asserts that one could be mugged in the future and is safe in the present and to give this idea physical expression even avoids places where muggings are the most common. If any part of mind really influences reality by metaphysically attracting events, it is not the conscious wishing part. If this part has effect on reality, the effect is rather in selecting what is an appropriate perception, hence blocking much information that would otherwise be available. This too has a survival oriented role but it is overexpressed in people who will only accept that which conforms to their assumptions or anticipations.

Another way of thinking about this would be the idea that ignoring something is an invitation for experientially learning this something. This is generally so in the case of ignoring warnings of impending danger. The ’all giving Universe’ responds by allowing one to experience the danger.

We could say that uses of anticipation are defensive and rooted in knowledge of possible dangers. Anticipation can also be used in a controlling sense when people make precise plans about carrying out a project that has little to do with openness to the ’creative principle.’ Such activity is mostly concerned with meeting external requirements or getting confirmation for oneself being in control.

Having internal discipline is a somewhat different matter. Discipline implies staying the course and being consistent, while not ”anticipating” specific outside effects as a result of merely expecting them. The greatest creative contribution in the service to others mode can be realized in a state of not anticipating outcomes or effects while expressing one’s fundamental nature or gift. Much work may be required to properly know this gift and where its use is appropriate. It is not a simple process of self-expression, as it includes doing this in accordance with objective reality. Openness to reality is what makes constructive and non-restricting response possible. Without this objectivity and state of non-assumption one is again forcing one’s interpretation, even if unconsciously, on reality.

Acting completely on behalf of universal principles and on an unbiased perception of reality, without any desire for the self is vanishingly rare. Still, combining intent with accurate perception can lead one to entirely unexpected openings and synchronicities. Placing too many restrictions on what are acceptable openings may simply lead one to miss them. This is more a manifestation of obsession than objective seeing.

This idea is tied to the adage that knowledge protects. Knowledge of risks makes preparing for them possible and may offer some psychic protection as well. Obsession with specific results is not knowledge, for it imposes one’s subjectivity on the world and thus does not protect, but rather blinds one to reality and leaves one open to dangers. Thus flexibility and objective perception are key.
 
It seems to me that Peter is here to teach. And with his thorough investigations that lead him to know that the Earth is flat, I think he is in the :wrongbar: . PMing people and asking for their phone number in order to set them straight is not the kind of person we want here. It just shows his agenda.
 
It seems to me that Peter is here to teach. And with his thorough investigations that lead him to know that the Earth is flat, I think he is in the :wrongbar: . PMing people and asking for their phone number in order to set them straight is not the kind of person we want here. It just shows his agenda.
I actually agree, it's the whole contradiction of "I've stopped manipulating people to get what I want" to behaving and posting in a way that aims precisely at it. And when asked about examples of how this "protocol" change took place, there's really nothing, just word salads about posture and the system and so on and yet... nothing has come accross as anything really strange, all we have is claims.

In the example about the poker game, it was once he decided to refuse responsibility that things started to go well... and that is a sign of somehow shifting into an STO responsive protocol or whatever? how about not gambling someone else's money? in that example it wasn't a shift, it was more like.. still getting what you want but only not stressing about it because you've got no skin in the game.

Which is why I made the connection to Dispenza, it sounds like he's trying to sell something, a way to "manifest" the reality that you want while convincing yourself of somehow being selfless and free of wanting. Like the people who claim to be empaths while being really self centered.
 
Robin sees it. I also noticed that Gottathink does see it the way he explained his healing practice and how he goes about it.
She sees it. Gottathink, me, is a she.
And I still do not consider what you are saying is groundbreaking, the illusion is that you persist in, is thinking nobody else gets it. When actually the field response to how we ‘Be’ is fundamental. The additional layers of understanding simply arise from semantics. It seems to me the resistance that you say you are getting and supposed personal attack is directly because of the way you communicate. Or you actually believe that every one else doesn’t get it. I think you are actually behind the programme here not ahead of it.

However, I concur that making the shift from acting without the core work in one’s being or even as you say ‘posture’, to acting with belief or attitude or effective “posture”—take your pick of definitions—is necessary to live creatively. But this is simply coming to understand fully “knowledge and being” (LKJ). The whole basis of the Work.

I have enjoyed the challenge in this thread but think I’m done with it now.
 
Last edited:
I actually agree, it's the whole contradiction of "I've stopped manipulating people to get what I want" to behaving and posting in a way that aims precisely at it. And when asked about examples of how this "protocol" change took place, there's really nothing, just word salads about posture and the system and so on and yet... nothing has come accross as anything really strange, all we have is claims.

In the example about the poker game, it was once he decided to refuse responsibility that things started to go well... and that is a sign of somehow shifting into an STO responsive protocol or whatever? how about not gambling someone else's money? in that example it wasn't a shift, it was more like.. still getting what you want but only not stressing about it because you've got no skin in the game.

Which is why I made the connection to Dispenza, it sounds like he's trying to sell something, a way to "manifest" the reality that you want while convincing yourself of somehow being selfless and free of wanting. Like the people who claim to be empaths while being really self centered.

I was thinking along similar lines.

Claims manipulation tactics don't work and yet uses them in the thread about how they don't work, keeps saying for example but never actually gives an example, uses word salads to obscure what would if more plainly stated be considered either absurd or unremarkable, doesn't realize the poker game story is self-delusion, and says they want people to challenge the idea but when challenged says he doesn't have to prove anything.

Seems like PJ is deluding themselves and is looking for others to share and confirm those delusions.
 
Claims manipulation tactics don't work and yet uses them in the thread about how they don't work, keeps saying for example but never actually gives an example, uses word salads to obscure what would if more plainly stated be considered either absurd or unremarkable, doesn't realize the poker game story is self-delusion, and says they want people to challenge the idea but when challenged says he doesn't have to prove anything.

Seems like PJ is deluding themselves and is looking for others to share and confirm those delusions.

Yes, his posts come across as hollow and insincere. He keeps contradicting himself. His communication surely calls for more simplicity and authenticity.
 
Interesting, what in particular makes you think that?

I don’t think so but would like to see your observations.

What I think is that some arrive with predetermined ‘case in point’ that they want to share, aren’t necessarily interested in joining the ‘group’ per say but inclined to want to shed light or their learnings or point of view, probably thinking they can safe someone from themselves, with Peter I get the vibe that he things we are doing something wrong. That’s how it feels to me, however fascinating what’s being shared, we still all have our own lessons to learn.

I could be wrong, I just know a few people that no matter how much info is right in front of them they’ve already decided something and there’s not much anyone can do to change or refute it. One of them is convince that they are God and can DO everything on their own, no groups or feedback loops necessary, the bias is pretty unbelievable, hilarious as well.

From my experience, I learn best from others, so without the group exploring their inner mechanisms, sharing themselves, their knowledge, their lives, and me trying to understand and relate to them then I’d go nowhere even faster than I’m going.

The responses seemed very mechanical, constructed... Very dry, no soul. Maybe a language barrier.
 
Back
Top Bottom