eander1981
The Force is Strong With This One
This article I have posted some time ago in the German forum only in German.
Now I had the time for a translation and so here it is in English.
Happy reading
eander
THE SIGNIFTICANCE OF THE ORIGINAL STARTING POINT
Preliminary remark.
The following implementations should serve the purpose to return to the person her meaning and her dignity. They should enable her to take here destiny again back in her hands independently.
All this are values which are more and more be threaten to get lost.in an increasingly by external influences stamped world.
Mainstream Physics mostly believes all phenomena are able to explain by purely material "objective" processes. However, thereby the person himself becomes more and more a bare physically explicable object.
(An object which becomes to be steered sooner or later by genetic manipulation.)
If one follows this world view in all consequence. thus we are only more or less helpless beings.
Beings to those a short moment of existence was granted, in a universe which runs according to unalterable laws. At best we can investigate some of these laws to be able to use them then possibly for our purposes. But what that could have consequences for long , already avoids our understanding. We must adapt ourselves to these laws whether we want this or not. We cannot form them ourselves.
This is the reality of mainstream physics is leading us.
The fact that this a fallacy and a trap should be tried to indicate here.
The significance of the original starting point.
We can perceive on the one hand mental phenomena and, on the other hand, physical phenomena.
Now there is immediately at the beginning of every reflektion about the relation of both to each other - usually unaware - the preliminary decision about at which we want to look as primary.
Want we to explain and understand the physical phenomena with the help of the mental phenomena or vice versa?
If we put the physical phenomena at the beginning, we are constrained to explain all mental – as consciousness, thinking, will, decisions, joy etc. - from physical (and from this derived as chemical-biological) processes. Because this is not possible without a new interpretation of mental phenomena, these become understood as bare data processing, like running in a computer. The place where they run can only be the brain. The person decreases thus to a body which perceives by his brain. If the brain dies then the person is no more existent.
All concepts not fiiting in this pattern must then be empty, i.e. pointlessly (or fall in the area of faith, which to deal with seems afterwards of no great importance).
BUT there is the wavelength of the colour red, but not the perception of the colour red itself. There are molecules their presence is assigned to a smell or taste but the experience of there smell or taste is completely other as the molecules as such. A favorite melody exists only as a salad of oscillation forms and can still release feelings of joy etc.
Where comes this difference between a physical-chemical-biological model and what a person really finds out?
This cannot be understood by this model and so is looked at as meaningless or is leaving to a later explanation. What means of course no solution.
If we put, on the other hand, the mental to the origin of our reflexion, we must try to understand all physical as a subset of the mental. Then physics is only a mental concept and the investigation "of the reality" - the observeable behaviour patterns of these physical phenomena - simply the investigation of new constructed or already existing mental concepts. The world in which each of us lives, is then a magnificently worked out idea in which every parcipitant has reached by agreement with it.
At the beginning, however, it stands always the - mostly involuntary - decision which starting point one wants to choose. For an growing child this decision is made in our culture already at the early age in the sense of a primate of the material and can later changed again only with strain. Though thus consensus an uniform and "as real-thought world" is generated.. But for what price?.
Why is the starting point, this mostly unaware preliminary decision, so decisively important?
Thinking about something just uses this thinking - i.e. thoughts, images - as tools.
Whether one wants it or not, the thinking of thoughts hangs on former times thoughts and on resulted convictions from them .
These former images, ideas etc. are mostly unaware. They seem so natural that it seems idly to ponder about them. Only when one consciously chooses a starting point as a stable date this dependence is chosen at least consciously. (though one can make himself not free from the actual fact of this dependence)
(Remarc : A stable date is called in such a way, not because it is indeed really solid and invariable, but because one thinks that it is stable.)
One HAS DECIDED consciously for a starting point.
It is a choice!!.
(Obviously should be met very intelligently).
One chooses:
If one goes out from himself, the subject.......,
.......or from the outside world, as Mater/Energy/Space/Time?
(And with subject I do not mean the body, not his thoughts, but the core of the being so far we can recognise, namely consciousness)
Who denies the fact of this choice, this unquestionable preliminary decision, and takes physical phenomena as a starting point, has already chosen.
He has made himself dependent from physical phenomena. He tries from a subset (physical) out the totality (which is more than physical) to explain. Since the totality encloses beside physical processes also consciousness, will, joy, beauty, dear interest, etc. all phenomena not included in the physical model.
Then the false starting point resulted from this choice is the glasses all other thoughts are seen. What does not agree is not perceived either, or is considered as not essential.
These are a form of the buffers Gourdjev is speaking from.
And thus this original starting point causes the reality resulting from it, to become more and more firmly, more and more real.
In naive manner we suppose that the picture of the world which our senses deliver to us, thinking they are in our brain localised, corresponds as a whole to the world beyond the brain. We look at the picture of the world and the world itself as identical.
Already an easy consideration shows that this is not natural, but is based on an unproven assumption.
The senses can take up only physical stimuli, like electric stimulation by light, sound waves, pressure or molecules interpreted as smell or taste. One can show that the brain takes up millions more stimuli of this kind than becoming conscious. A selection takes place. Already from this should be clear the picture of the world and the world itself cannot be identical.
Who selects, however? What comes through by the filter of this choice and what is held back?
These are former assumptions, convictions, aggreements.
Former convictions determine what we can perceive!
And the former convictions were determined for their part again by a CHOICE of the starting points.
If one is convinced of something, same-being experiences cause that this conviction is strengthened. Opposite perception is weakened or not perceived.
The "perceived" picture of the world becomes thus - according to the initial convictions- more and more firm .
One comes more and more to the conviction - and all experiences seem to correspond to this - that there is a firm, given, external, objective world in which one has to adapt himself.
One has totally forgotten that one has come to this reality only by the choice of a certain beginning-faith.
Where do these primary convictions come from, however? Now they are put in the childhood by the surroundings. Healthy sound children believe everything what they are told. They adapt themselves in her convictions to her environment.
After in the childhood the basis was laid, i.e. the primary dogmas were set up (you are a body which lives in a material outside world) then the school comes and puts on on this foundation the second layer in dogmas which are of course not called into question any more - because the first layer has been accepted already largely as natural.
If one has "enjoyed" then still a purely scientific education (and belongs with it to the ruling class which further knits in the already available convictions), it is almost impossible to change dogmas and to see the world "in a new light". Then one is ready to indoctrinate now on his part others in his own reality of the primate of the matter.
What would be a more suitable starting point returning our freedom of choice?
It is the knowledge that every person is an observer, a true awarness unit of his world, his reality.
He is at first AWARE of his world.
The eye can perceive everything, but not itself.
(If it looks in a mirror ir sees only a picture of itself, but not itself direct)
Thus the true observer of a reality can possibly recognise all worlds, but never himself.
The observer of a world (which encloses all existing, so all thoughts, feelings etc.) cannot be a part of this world.
And over again because it is so important:
The true observer of a reality can never be A PART of THIS reality.
Thus the matter-brain - as the incorrectly believed true observer of this objective world - is also a part of this world and not the observer itself.
It cannot be the real true observer of his world - and with this a part of that what it observes.
Because also the inside world (thoughts, feelings, sensations, opinions) are a part of this (observed) world, they can also not be the true observer themselve. The true observer stands outside and cannot be recognised, as well as the eye cannot see itself.
But the true observer can identify himself so much with his reality (his outside AND inside world) that he believes HE HIMSELF would also be a part of this world.
He creates an additional reference point (a body, brain or symbol) from is he can operate and calls this I.
In addition there is an outside world which is non-I as he postulates.
With this decision he has become a part of his world and has forgotten who he is in reality - as long as he is not stopping his identification.
And this is the trap into which a materialist world view and especially physics could lead and largely has led......
Since she wants to make us believe, we were only a part of this matter universe - only this and nothing else - and so totally subject to his physical laws.
But this can be valid only, as long as our identification did not stop and we see ourselves as a part of this world, instead of as an observer, a true awareness unit, part of Source. - as what we are in reality.
Very briefly said, as long as we agree with this materialist world view.
The starting point of all considerations cannot be this materially, objectively given thing, because this becomes part of ones own reality first by perception
(And by agreement of a group of people also, to an external, seemingly objective world)
The only sure starting point (BASIC BASIC) can only be consciousness, that what the perceiver as his creation perceives.
The being itself, as a true observer, knows only his own reality, it can find out other realities only by AGREEMENT with them, by resonance, perhaps, by communication and make them in this way to his own reality.
If there is for long periods and under many beings agreement, a (apparently) objective outside world can originate in this manner.
The longer this state lasts, the more firmly becomes this world - a matter universe is born.
And if even more time has passed by, these beings possibly start examining the rules and laws of her own creation. Laws they themselves created , but have forgotten again in the course of the past äonen long ago.
An empiric science originates which orientates itself by the so-called "objective reality" and tries to solve it again.
AGREEMENT CREATES REALITY.
Your reality has originated (for the most part) out of agreement.
First I want to define for clarity both concepts "Agreement" and "Reality" as I use them and extend there meaning here.
Agreement is physically seen resonance.
A vocal fork is struck, another goes (if it is tuned to) in resonance with it and also starts to swing.
People meet and exchange her opinions. One knows the other and " finds its right", or "believes", or "can share" what another told, (or not). One goes into agreement or declines what somebody says .
One gets advertisement at home, turns the leaves through the new catalogue and goes with an offer into agreement wanting to have or buy, feels it is interesting, perhaps, will order.
A politician makes a speech and wants to convince other people of the advantages of his party, somebody finds it is properly what he says (or also not) and goes with it into agreement (or goes with a contrary opinion into agreement).
Agreement is a widespread phenomenon which can be found in all areas of life.
(And - even if that often does not become conscious - one decides to agree.)
The concept of "Reality" has in generally usage two meanings:
First, one can understand by it that, what is objectively given, outside by one, stationary, unalterable.
Secondly it can have the meaning of something what is only for me especially as an individual, and experienceable, actually real. My subjective world. E.G. "in my reality the weather is too hot". This is a subjective reality thought of as real.
Because, however, the objective world is experienceable not directly, but we have at best a picture of her in our brain, these both differentiations collapse, actually. The "objective outside world" is also a part of our reality like the "subjective inside world".
And the "brain seen by us with the accepted-wise pictures contained in it of an objective world" also shows again only a picture in an organ of higher perception..
An "organ of perception" which is the perciever himself.
The perceiver, the observer who wants to perceive – to have a game..
And because he wants to perceive, he creates something to perceive - a reality - identifies with it and then forgets who he is in reality).
One can so define reality as that what is experienceable and learnable for me, so to speak, my world, the inside AND outside world., So thoughts, sensations, feelings, my surroundings, objects, other people, my body, etc. simply everything what in my consciousness is, or what to me is aware, or once was aware.
Reality is the whole world one is living in.
If one believes now in the existence of an "objective" world, so of a world is outside from itself, one goes with this world view (this paradigm, more elegantly expressed) into agreement. And then one will experience what one believes in.
Thus agreement is the process which creates the reality one is living in..
Agreement with something creates convictions, faith, whole thougt constructs, believing and religious systems.
And so the whole reality somebody is experincing again.
And everything begins with agreement.
One can agree unwittingly or consciously what seldom seems to be the case.
A child has generally no other choice as to agree with what the parents, friends and school offer as facts.
But as soon as information about other opinions, world views, religious sentences, convictions appears etc. in ones own reality - possibly while one reads a new book, or a friend represents another than the current opinion etc. - one HAS a choice.
One can agree (with which what one has found out) or not.
However, the fact is not to be overlooked that the general opinion exerts a certain pressure which makes it hard to hit a real decision .
If one has understood this one, one sees clear that in all quarrels, wars, fights, differences of opinions, in the advertisement, the news, in discussions etc. there is only one agenda::
To create a reality, in a way that is useful for the initiator.
To bring afterwards others to agree with this reality.
In discussions opinion is against opinion, superficially to be right. But actually it is about reality creation.
Creating a consensus is reality creation.
If one is interested in creating a better reality, it is helpfull to found people with which agreement is possible.
I found somewhere an important remark on this:
"That means, if a group of enlightened people, straightened, balanced and in touch with her mind leaders, her common energy generates a strength exponent which corresponds to the quotient of one third of her personal number.
(Example: A group of 12 generates an exponent of 4, 12/3 =4.
Hence, the strength exponent of 12 high 4 = 20 736.)
Whether this is right or not is here not my point. (Whether one can go with this statement into agreement or not). However, this quotation should generate an image of how by group education the strength of singles can be possibly strengthened. And also - how it arises from the quotation - which great role plays quality of the participants.
Vadim Zeland writes in his book "Transsurfing":
[Emphases and comments in angular clips of me]
"Human groups with their consciousness directed in one and same manner create energo-informative structures - the so-called pendulums. These structures develop a kind of there own way of life and subject the people to her laws. The people are not conscious that there acts are made according to the interests of these pendulums....."
Further one reads :
"These structures form if a group of people starts to act in a certain manner. As a result more people of the group join in [agreeing with it] and the structure expands, wins in influence and makes her members obey established rules."
And further:
"The structure originates if the thoughts of the people are in in a certain manner aimed.... if the parametres of her mental energy are identical [they in agrreement with each other are]. In this case own, independent, energo-informative structures [a field of thought with a certain oscillation or intention, morphogenetic field] - an energetic pendulum originates in the midst of the ocean of the energy. This structure gets a kind of own way of life and binds the people to his laws."
[He calls this a pendulum, because this structure is like a pendulum that has a certain frequency which forces every one who is receptive to this frequency and manipulates him without knowing. A pendulum lhe calls it, is a kind immaterial? oscillation field, with a certain intention and information equipped. One could call it also morphogenetic field, Egregore or mind energy or demon.]
Further it reads:
"Such a structure is independent as it develops independently, according to her own laws [of her creators, but only in the beginning]. The followers do not understand that they act according to the laws of the pendulum and not along own arbitrariness. For example, a whole bureaucratic apparatus which acts like an independent being develops in organisations independent of the will of the single officials. Of course mighty officials can also make own decisions. Nevertheless, these may not contradict the principles of the system, otherwise they will be rejected by the other members [by non-agreement]."
And further::
"Any pendulum is devastating according his being. because it takes energy of his followers [for his own existence] and forces upon them his power...... The pendulum has only one aim to get the energy of the follower. Whether the follower has some advances of it or not is uninterested to him....... Who is lucky finds his place in the system and feels there like a fish in the water. As a loyal follower he gives to the pendulum his energy and the pendulum grants a sphere for his existence to him. As soon as a follower starts to injure, however, the laws of the structure [the inherent intention often concealed to him], the frequency of his radiation does not agree any more with the resonance frequency of the pendulum. Such a troublemaker is disowned by the pendulum either or is eliminated."
After that , so I hope, should it be clear what the devastating influence of pendulums results in, and so the meaning of the question how one gets in such an influence or can escape of it receive ther proper importance.
One gets under the influence of pendulums by the decision of wanting to agree.
To remain quite practical:
In which points does one have agreed with the existing reality one is living ?
(Perhaps. there is an outer objective matter/space/time world? )
Differently asked:
What are the most basic acceptances and dogmas about the reality (outside AND inside world) one is in?
One can reject these thoughts, and go to non-agreement with them, then this refusal will become part of ones own reality and one will find out what this refusal is creating.
Or one can agree to them.
.
In any case, however, this decision lead to exactly of that own reality to which one has agreed .
Though this is not possibly provable for others - but it is personally experinceable.
Now I had the time for a translation and so here it is in English.
Happy reading
eander
THE SIGNIFTICANCE OF THE ORIGINAL STARTING POINT
Preliminary remark.
The following implementations should serve the purpose to return to the person her meaning and her dignity. They should enable her to take here destiny again back in her hands independently.
All this are values which are more and more be threaten to get lost.in an increasingly by external influences stamped world.
Mainstream Physics mostly believes all phenomena are able to explain by purely material "objective" processes. However, thereby the person himself becomes more and more a bare physically explicable object.
(An object which becomes to be steered sooner or later by genetic manipulation.)
If one follows this world view in all consequence. thus we are only more or less helpless beings.
Beings to those a short moment of existence was granted, in a universe which runs according to unalterable laws. At best we can investigate some of these laws to be able to use them then possibly for our purposes. But what that could have consequences for long , already avoids our understanding. We must adapt ourselves to these laws whether we want this or not. We cannot form them ourselves.
This is the reality of mainstream physics is leading us.
The fact that this a fallacy and a trap should be tried to indicate here.
The significance of the original starting point.
We can perceive on the one hand mental phenomena and, on the other hand, physical phenomena.
Now there is immediately at the beginning of every reflektion about the relation of both to each other - usually unaware - the preliminary decision about at which we want to look as primary.
Want we to explain and understand the physical phenomena with the help of the mental phenomena or vice versa?
If we put the physical phenomena at the beginning, we are constrained to explain all mental – as consciousness, thinking, will, decisions, joy etc. - from physical (and from this derived as chemical-biological) processes. Because this is not possible without a new interpretation of mental phenomena, these become understood as bare data processing, like running in a computer. The place where they run can only be the brain. The person decreases thus to a body which perceives by his brain. If the brain dies then the person is no more existent.
All concepts not fiiting in this pattern must then be empty, i.e. pointlessly (or fall in the area of faith, which to deal with seems afterwards of no great importance).
BUT there is the wavelength of the colour red, but not the perception of the colour red itself. There are molecules their presence is assigned to a smell or taste but the experience of there smell or taste is completely other as the molecules as such. A favorite melody exists only as a salad of oscillation forms and can still release feelings of joy etc.
Where comes this difference between a physical-chemical-biological model and what a person really finds out?
This cannot be understood by this model and so is looked at as meaningless or is leaving to a later explanation. What means of course no solution.
If we put, on the other hand, the mental to the origin of our reflexion, we must try to understand all physical as a subset of the mental. Then physics is only a mental concept and the investigation "of the reality" - the observeable behaviour patterns of these physical phenomena - simply the investigation of new constructed or already existing mental concepts. The world in which each of us lives, is then a magnificently worked out idea in which every parcipitant has reached by agreement with it.
At the beginning, however, it stands always the - mostly involuntary - decision which starting point one wants to choose. For an growing child this decision is made in our culture already at the early age in the sense of a primate of the material and can later changed again only with strain. Though thus consensus an uniform and "as real-thought world" is generated.. But for what price?.
Why is the starting point, this mostly unaware preliminary decision, so decisively important?
Thinking about something just uses this thinking - i.e. thoughts, images - as tools.
Whether one wants it or not, the thinking of thoughts hangs on former times thoughts and on resulted convictions from them .
These former images, ideas etc. are mostly unaware. They seem so natural that it seems idly to ponder about them. Only when one consciously chooses a starting point as a stable date this dependence is chosen at least consciously. (though one can make himself not free from the actual fact of this dependence)
(Remarc : A stable date is called in such a way, not because it is indeed really solid and invariable, but because one thinks that it is stable.)
One HAS DECIDED consciously for a starting point.
It is a choice!!.
(Obviously should be met very intelligently).
One chooses:
If one goes out from himself, the subject.......,
.......or from the outside world, as Mater/Energy/Space/Time?
(And with subject I do not mean the body, not his thoughts, but the core of the being so far we can recognise, namely consciousness)
Who denies the fact of this choice, this unquestionable preliminary decision, and takes physical phenomena as a starting point, has already chosen.
He has made himself dependent from physical phenomena. He tries from a subset (physical) out the totality (which is more than physical) to explain. Since the totality encloses beside physical processes also consciousness, will, joy, beauty, dear interest, etc. all phenomena not included in the physical model.
Then the false starting point resulted from this choice is the glasses all other thoughts are seen. What does not agree is not perceived either, or is considered as not essential.
These are a form of the buffers Gourdjev is speaking from.
And thus this original starting point causes the reality resulting from it, to become more and more firmly, more and more real.
In naive manner we suppose that the picture of the world which our senses deliver to us, thinking they are in our brain localised, corresponds as a whole to the world beyond the brain. We look at the picture of the world and the world itself as identical.
Already an easy consideration shows that this is not natural, but is based on an unproven assumption.
The senses can take up only physical stimuli, like electric stimulation by light, sound waves, pressure or molecules interpreted as smell or taste. One can show that the brain takes up millions more stimuli of this kind than becoming conscious. A selection takes place. Already from this should be clear the picture of the world and the world itself cannot be identical.
Who selects, however? What comes through by the filter of this choice and what is held back?
These are former assumptions, convictions, aggreements.
Former convictions determine what we can perceive!
And the former convictions were determined for their part again by a CHOICE of the starting points.
If one is convinced of something, same-being experiences cause that this conviction is strengthened. Opposite perception is weakened or not perceived.
The "perceived" picture of the world becomes thus - according to the initial convictions- more and more firm .
One comes more and more to the conviction - and all experiences seem to correspond to this - that there is a firm, given, external, objective world in which one has to adapt himself.
One has totally forgotten that one has come to this reality only by the choice of a certain beginning-faith.
Where do these primary convictions come from, however? Now they are put in the childhood by the surroundings. Healthy sound children believe everything what they are told. They adapt themselves in her convictions to her environment.
After in the childhood the basis was laid, i.e. the primary dogmas were set up (you are a body which lives in a material outside world) then the school comes and puts on on this foundation the second layer in dogmas which are of course not called into question any more - because the first layer has been accepted already largely as natural.
If one has "enjoyed" then still a purely scientific education (and belongs with it to the ruling class which further knits in the already available convictions), it is almost impossible to change dogmas and to see the world "in a new light". Then one is ready to indoctrinate now on his part others in his own reality of the primate of the matter.
What would be a more suitable starting point returning our freedom of choice?
It is the knowledge that every person is an observer, a true awarness unit of his world, his reality.
He is at first AWARE of his world.
The eye can perceive everything, but not itself.
(If it looks in a mirror ir sees only a picture of itself, but not itself direct)
Thus the true observer of a reality can possibly recognise all worlds, but never himself.
The observer of a world (which encloses all existing, so all thoughts, feelings etc.) cannot be a part of this world.
And over again because it is so important:
The true observer of a reality can never be A PART of THIS reality.
Thus the matter-brain - as the incorrectly believed true observer of this objective world - is also a part of this world and not the observer itself.
It cannot be the real true observer of his world - and with this a part of that what it observes.
Because also the inside world (thoughts, feelings, sensations, opinions) are a part of this (observed) world, they can also not be the true observer themselve. The true observer stands outside and cannot be recognised, as well as the eye cannot see itself.
But the true observer can identify himself so much with his reality (his outside AND inside world) that he believes HE HIMSELF would also be a part of this world.
He creates an additional reference point (a body, brain or symbol) from is he can operate and calls this I.
In addition there is an outside world which is non-I as he postulates.
With this decision he has become a part of his world and has forgotten who he is in reality - as long as he is not stopping his identification.
And this is the trap into which a materialist world view and especially physics could lead and largely has led......
Since she wants to make us believe, we were only a part of this matter universe - only this and nothing else - and so totally subject to his physical laws.
But this can be valid only, as long as our identification did not stop and we see ourselves as a part of this world, instead of as an observer, a true awareness unit, part of Source. - as what we are in reality.
Very briefly said, as long as we agree with this materialist world view.
The starting point of all considerations cannot be this materially, objectively given thing, because this becomes part of ones own reality first by perception
(And by agreement of a group of people also, to an external, seemingly objective world)
The only sure starting point (BASIC BASIC) can only be consciousness, that what the perceiver as his creation perceives.
The being itself, as a true observer, knows only his own reality, it can find out other realities only by AGREEMENT with them, by resonance, perhaps, by communication and make them in this way to his own reality.
If there is for long periods and under many beings agreement, a (apparently) objective outside world can originate in this manner.
The longer this state lasts, the more firmly becomes this world - a matter universe is born.
And if even more time has passed by, these beings possibly start examining the rules and laws of her own creation. Laws they themselves created , but have forgotten again in the course of the past äonen long ago.
An empiric science originates which orientates itself by the so-called "objective reality" and tries to solve it again.
AGREEMENT CREATES REALITY.
Your reality has originated (for the most part) out of agreement.
First I want to define for clarity both concepts "Agreement" and "Reality" as I use them and extend there meaning here.
Agreement is physically seen resonance.
A vocal fork is struck, another goes (if it is tuned to) in resonance with it and also starts to swing.
People meet and exchange her opinions. One knows the other and " finds its right", or "believes", or "can share" what another told, (or not). One goes into agreement or declines what somebody says .
One gets advertisement at home, turns the leaves through the new catalogue and goes with an offer into agreement wanting to have or buy, feels it is interesting, perhaps, will order.
A politician makes a speech and wants to convince other people of the advantages of his party, somebody finds it is properly what he says (or also not) and goes with it into agreement (or goes with a contrary opinion into agreement).
Agreement is a widespread phenomenon which can be found in all areas of life.
(And - even if that often does not become conscious - one decides to agree.)
The concept of "Reality" has in generally usage two meanings:
First, one can understand by it that, what is objectively given, outside by one, stationary, unalterable.
Secondly it can have the meaning of something what is only for me especially as an individual, and experienceable, actually real. My subjective world. E.G. "in my reality the weather is too hot". This is a subjective reality thought of as real.
Because, however, the objective world is experienceable not directly, but we have at best a picture of her in our brain, these both differentiations collapse, actually. The "objective outside world" is also a part of our reality like the "subjective inside world".
And the "brain seen by us with the accepted-wise pictures contained in it of an objective world" also shows again only a picture in an organ of higher perception..
An "organ of perception" which is the perciever himself.
The perceiver, the observer who wants to perceive – to have a game..
And because he wants to perceive, he creates something to perceive - a reality - identifies with it and then forgets who he is in reality).
One can so define reality as that what is experienceable and learnable for me, so to speak, my world, the inside AND outside world., So thoughts, sensations, feelings, my surroundings, objects, other people, my body, etc. simply everything what in my consciousness is, or what to me is aware, or once was aware.
Reality is the whole world one is living in.
If one believes now in the existence of an "objective" world, so of a world is outside from itself, one goes with this world view (this paradigm, more elegantly expressed) into agreement. And then one will experience what one believes in.
Thus agreement is the process which creates the reality one is living in..
Agreement with something creates convictions, faith, whole thougt constructs, believing and religious systems.
And so the whole reality somebody is experincing again.
And everything begins with agreement.
One can agree unwittingly or consciously what seldom seems to be the case.
A child has generally no other choice as to agree with what the parents, friends and school offer as facts.
But as soon as information about other opinions, world views, religious sentences, convictions appears etc. in ones own reality - possibly while one reads a new book, or a friend represents another than the current opinion etc. - one HAS a choice.
One can agree (with which what one has found out) or not.
However, the fact is not to be overlooked that the general opinion exerts a certain pressure which makes it hard to hit a real decision .
If one has understood this one, one sees clear that in all quarrels, wars, fights, differences of opinions, in the advertisement, the news, in discussions etc. there is only one agenda::
To create a reality, in a way that is useful for the initiator.
To bring afterwards others to agree with this reality.
In discussions opinion is against opinion, superficially to be right. But actually it is about reality creation.
Creating a consensus is reality creation.
If one is interested in creating a better reality, it is helpfull to found people with which agreement is possible.
I found somewhere an important remark on this:
"That means, if a group of enlightened people, straightened, balanced and in touch with her mind leaders, her common energy generates a strength exponent which corresponds to the quotient of one third of her personal number.
(Example: A group of 12 generates an exponent of 4, 12/3 =4.
Hence, the strength exponent of 12 high 4 = 20 736.)
Whether this is right or not is here not my point. (Whether one can go with this statement into agreement or not). However, this quotation should generate an image of how by group education the strength of singles can be possibly strengthened. And also - how it arises from the quotation - which great role plays quality of the participants.
Vadim Zeland writes in his book "Transsurfing":
[Emphases and comments in angular clips of me]
"Human groups with their consciousness directed in one and same manner create energo-informative structures - the so-called pendulums. These structures develop a kind of there own way of life and subject the people to her laws. The people are not conscious that there acts are made according to the interests of these pendulums....."
Further one reads :
"These structures form if a group of people starts to act in a certain manner. As a result more people of the group join in [agreeing with it] and the structure expands, wins in influence and makes her members obey established rules."
And further:
"The structure originates if the thoughts of the people are in in a certain manner aimed.... if the parametres of her mental energy are identical [they in agrreement with each other are]. In this case own, independent, energo-informative structures [a field of thought with a certain oscillation or intention, morphogenetic field] - an energetic pendulum originates in the midst of the ocean of the energy. This structure gets a kind of own way of life and binds the people to his laws."
[He calls this a pendulum, because this structure is like a pendulum that has a certain frequency which forces every one who is receptive to this frequency and manipulates him without knowing. A pendulum lhe calls it, is a kind immaterial? oscillation field, with a certain intention and information equipped. One could call it also morphogenetic field, Egregore or mind energy or demon.]
Further it reads:
"Such a structure is independent as it develops independently, according to her own laws [of her creators, but only in the beginning]. The followers do not understand that they act according to the laws of the pendulum and not along own arbitrariness. For example, a whole bureaucratic apparatus which acts like an independent being develops in organisations independent of the will of the single officials. Of course mighty officials can also make own decisions. Nevertheless, these may not contradict the principles of the system, otherwise they will be rejected by the other members [by non-agreement]."
And further::
"Any pendulum is devastating according his being. because it takes energy of his followers [for his own existence] and forces upon them his power...... The pendulum has only one aim to get the energy of the follower. Whether the follower has some advances of it or not is uninterested to him....... Who is lucky finds his place in the system and feels there like a fish in the water. As a loyal follower he gives to the pendulum his energy and the pendulum grants a sphere for his existence to him. As soon as a follower starts to injure, however, the laws of the structure [the inherent intention often concealed to him], the frequency of his radiation does not agree any more with the resonance frequency of the pendulum. Such a troublemaker is disowned by the pendulum either or is eliminated."
After that , so I hope, should it be clear what the devastating influence of pendulums results in, and so the meaning of the question how one gets in such an influence or can escape of it receive ther proper importance.
One gets under the influence of pendulums by the decision of wanting to agree.
To remain quite practical:
In which points does one have agreed with the existing reality one is living ?
(Perhaps. there is an outer objective matter/space/time world? )
Differently asked:
What are the most basic acceptances and dogmas about the reality (outside AND inside world) one is in?
One can reject these thoughts, and go to non-agreement with them, then this refusal will become part of ones own reality and one will find out what this refusal is creating.
Or one can agree to them.
.
In any case, however, this decision lead to exactly of that own reality to which one has agreed .
Though this is not possibly provable for others - but it is personally experinceable.
