You are wasting our time.
Only you have the power to waste your time.
I am not making you interact with me.
Cute. Equivocation. How novel. You deliberately "misunderstand" the use of "belief" in order to excuse ignoring my point. Lovely dodge.
I prefer to see the use of the word belief and believe as either exactly what the user is conveying or a type of Freudian Slip.
It is your responsibility to ensure you are not misunderstood. Use words that better reflect your position.
You win +5 Teflon points for slipperiness.
Projection.
So you claim. See how you've gone from a "personal experience" to a loud "it's true"?
You cannot use the word "true" like that. You are declaring that in the common domain where you and I both exist, that what you say (about your personal dowsing experience) is true for both of us.
It is not true for me and that is a contradiction.
Yes. It would be a vanity of the ego to assume I am the only one this process is able to work for. I am better to assume it can work the same for everyone prepared to sincerely make the effort.
While I clearly understand that it is not working for you I also understand this is because you have no interest in trying.
But that is not the context of our communication. You were saying you did not believe me, based on the fact that you have never done so and do not want to do so. I was saying your belief does not negate my own experience.
Indeed, I understand that if you were willing to give it the time and effort in a sincere and genuine manner, you may not get the same results. that alone would not mean that what I am saying about my own results would be false.
But that point has not been reached.
So I am not willing to resort to vanity by inferring that it works for me but won't work for you because I am somehow special.
You have not established the truth of your "communication" outside of your head. Sorry.
Of course I have, for my own subjective experience it has proven to be true.
I have already explained in quite simply terms why that similar truth is not available to you because you refuse to go there. That is your choice.
Well, you
are the expert.
Who the hell else can I ask? You're the high mucky-muck here with your shot glass and your vibes.
If I want Zen, I'll sign-up for it and regard fingers and moons.
Hey - I get it. You are free to choose!
Well, I'm glad you are using some of my terms, it shows some facility to adapt. If you are indeed mapping the space, that's great. I have not seen anything like it in your posts. Perhaps you are working in seclusion before sharing your map.
Oh? So, your work is visible but I cannot see it for some reason? Is it shy? I won't hurt it, bring it forth a little more into the light.
What would you like to know? You seem to be swinging from open contempt to curiosity.
Most science starts with individuals. Do you think everyone agreed that feathers and balls fell at the same rate and then voted Galileo to go study it?
Back to contempt? I have given you the basics. What specifics do you require?
[Be the Galileo of Psychonauts. (Don't get stuffed in prison!) Start the ball rolling. Create a synthesis of all the mystics who have gone before you. Write an ebook. Something!
I am sure that you can agree that giving my account of what is involved in communicating with real self (might) be a fascinating read but how will that in itself change your skepticism about the process? How will that be 'evidence'?
Here's the same truth problem again. It's your truth; not a common truth, just a parochial one.
Can you see that? Does that make sense?
And yet you tell me I should write an ebook about my experiences and what I have discovered using this process.
I have already told you what I discovered.
Yes, it is truth - I have experienced it and know it to be so. I am not at liberty to assume that I am special, more special than you. We are human consciousness and that is our common ground. We are equals.
Meh. I didn't say "all". The problem is who to trust. The problem is each is an enclave of private knowledge.
Ah the perceived 'problems' of the individuate ego self. The solution is not to be so private that you are a 'mystery'.
Don't you think it more prudent to discover for yourself than for me to tell you the extent of the data communicated to me?
Would it not be better for me to keep as much of it to myself in order that opportunity is given for that data to come through your own communication with real self?
Then we can compare data knowing that we cannot easily be accused of cooking the books as it were or that your own experience and subsequent data was affected by your having access to mine beforehand?
Fine, I don't have a problem with that - as long as some introductory effort it put in and the question of trust is handled. I'd be hard pressed to teach someone how to play a guitar if all I did was lay it down and say, "stare at it."
So what are you asking? How to go about it? How I went about it?
The most efficient way to go about it?
Those things I can share.
I'll just repeat what I said before:
When you tighten your techniques, open the process to critical overview and bow to it, begin to record objective data, start to develop experiments that can show other people reporting what you predicted, then you'll be doing science.
I am not sure as to exactly what you mean about 'prediction' but I have shown an image of the type of device and explained the medium used etc.
Apart from a comment about it being 'pretty' I have seen no obvious interest...even in how my device is so obviously not your average garden variety 'Ouija board'.
I can show how the data looks but anyone can simply look at the device to get some good understanding of how the data looks.
There is no necessity that I can see in sharing what the data says.
You can see by the nature of the design, that unusual and unknown symbols have been used.
Obviously those symbols have a meaning and I can say that they are specific to me in relation to ego self /true self communication process.
I can say more on this if you are interested.
Stare at the guitar and it will tell you how to play it. See how silly that is?
I have mentioned in a previous post how I used the device. It sounds to me like you did not see that.
In order to learn one must apply oneself. If I want to learn guitar I must pick it up and learn chords and finger positions practice practice practice.
Using the device is a bit less complicated as far as technique goes. Very little is required.
As to the learning, this is done through your interaction with the teacher, which as I have explained, is that which you will be communicating with through the device you create and simple technique you apply.
Would you like to know the technique I used?
This post explains it.
If upon reading that you still have questions about it, let me know.
A pattern of experience that is supported by many observers. A codifying of the terrain in to a standard language. A means to objectify the subjective experience.
More hands. More feet. More candles. More maps. Less implication, more explanation.
Okay so I am 1 individual. What you ask for requires many. I know I already explained that to you.
I do see, this is standard mystical (aka spiritual) dogma. Sam Harris is a fan. I'm not averse, it's just too fuzzy to know where to start or who to trust.
No it is not 'dogma'
"Something which can be done fairly simply and intelligently by most individuals" is simply the truth of it.
What comes form the process is a datum - but unless it can be replicated it is not data.
Okay - information then.
Well, yes - it is not science and it is not "true" in the sense that it's a confirmed truth. It is, in fact, only you. Other individuals have had similar experiences but it's hard to say to what degree they overlap or share any set with each other.
Most likely because the datum has not been collected into data.
...
so I know you're serious.)
