Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Pixie Dust wrote:
Ancient languages aren't for everyone, Le. Hitler found appealing what many found terrifying. Nelson Mandela was a similar lone wolf. Those who tap into something different usually are misunderstood by the sheep. Deviants are so mischievous.
With the right mind, any literature can become fascinating. To someone. Somewhere. Maybe you're just not that person, Le.
So on one hand I see your point about all types of literature resonating with someone, somewhere, but on the other hand that's probably exactly the kind of thing I would say if I had a child who had just gotten a D on their literature assignment for an English class but I didn't want it to hurt their feelings too badly.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
The most interesting ones are the ones who don't get caught.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Le_Regard wrote:
Pixie Dust wrote:
Ancient languages aren't for everyone, Le. Hitler found appealing what many found terrifying. Nelson Mandela was a similar lone wolf. Those who tap into something different usually are misunderstood by the sheep. Deviants are so mischievous.
With the right mind, any literature can become fascinating. To someone. Somewhere. Maybe you're just not that person, Le.
So on one hand I see your point about all types of literature resonating with someone, somewhere, but on the other hand that's probably exactly the kind of thing I would say if I had a child who had just gotten a D on their literature assignment for an English class but I didn't want it to hurt their feelings too badly.
True. That's also the same thing said to normal people trying to understand a psycho. Psychos aren't for everyone. We have our own flavor and personalities. We're super intense, passionate assh*oles.
Everyone appreciates people, culture, and literature in their own fashion. Admire the style you like and disregard the rest. If you don't like being let down then don't try new flavors. If you're looking for something more then try something new. Most mystery boxes don't have good things in them  but a few offer shiny treasure, so consider it a blind auction and find your comfortable risk level.
You may not like the gamble with mystery boxes but I absolutely love them. Then again, I have decent luck and my finds have been enjoyable. Hey, maybe you can find a way to convince Lady Luck to stand beside you as you bid on boxes? I dunno how to help you increase your odds 
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
serloco wrote:
The most interesting ones are the ones who don't get caught.
Right?! I agree, wholeheartedly.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Julio Juliopolis wrote:
Sure, my computer breaks and then I find this thread. Guess I'll start intending for it to still be around next week when I get my new one and I don't have to reply with just my phone. xD
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
I've got a better idea. How about instead I intend to remain around for just a couple days and meanwhile I fix my computer so I can at least do basic stuff with it, and then have the shiny new one arrive 5 days early. That'll give me a little time to play around with it before replying in here. Oh wait, that's what happened!
Was that my intent? Well, not consciously. I'd sort of assumed the laptop would get here on the expected date and didn't even think to try and intend otherwise. However I was pretty excited for it, (I've been using a computer on it's last legs for about a year now), so perhaps my energy and optimism helped it happen sooner. Which brings me to why I wanted to reply in this thread in the first place...
But first, just to be proper, hello Le_Regard and welcome to these forums. I hope the exchanges you find yourself in here are all mutually beneficial. Okay, now back to intent...
The first thing mathematicians do when they present a proof is to define their terms. The first thing the smarter logicians out there do when they present an argument is to define their terms. I'm going to copy them and start by defining intent. Intent, as I've learned to understand it, is a combination of imagination, belief, and emotional energy aimed at a specific result. It is important to note that the word intent as I, (and perhaps others) am using it here does not mean "wanting something to happen".
Le_Regard, (this whole reply is mainly for you), earlier in this thread you were challenging the notions of people really being able to intend things to happen, asking Serloco to give you all his money because he can just intend as much as he wants, talking about just intending for WWII never to have happened, etc. This could be analogized to a person who doesn't believe in chemistry challenging those who do by saying "Oh yeah? Well how about you show me cold fusion in a jar right now if chemistry is so real!" The point being, why start at such an extreme?
Like many other things, manifesting intent is probably easiest to understand if you start smaller. Once again, the 4 components are imagination, belief, emotional energy, and a specific result being aimed at. Let's look at all these components in a practical example.
Example 1. Johnny is a little boy who wants to learn to throw a baseball. So one day his dad goes out to show him how. He watches his dad throw it a few times and then it's his turn. After watching Johnny throw it a few times his father gives him some tips on how to do it better. Johnny then throws it again and is happy to see his accuracy has improved.
I think you'll agree that this is a perfectly ordinary scenario. One that's been played out many times, and something that fits perfectly within the normal bounds of what is generally considered to be physically possible. Let's look at how the components of intent are at work here...
Belief - Having seen his dad throw the baseball, (as well as many other people), Johnny has a solid belief that he can throw one too.
Imagination - As he watches his dad do throw it, he imagines himself doing so as well. When he throws it, his dad gives him tips. Again Johnny uses his imagination, picturing himself making the changes his father suggests to his throwing motion and the ball traveling more accurately as a result.
Emotion - When he throws it and it does indeed go straighter he gets excited, happy that he's learning what he wanted.
Specific Aim - Johnny wants to "learn to throw" a baseball. As straightforward as that sounds it is ambiguous. Does he just mean to be able to throw it into the strike zone? Does he mean he wants to have a variety of pitches in his arsenal which he can use to try and strike out batters from other little league teams with? Does he mean he wants to pitch like a pro?
Okay, so there's the 4 components of intent. But what do these things have to do with what occurs as a result of Johnny's trip to the baseball field with his dad that day? Plenty! Let's tweak these components and see what happens...
Belief - Johnny has been told he's clumsy all his life. He's therefore never spent much time at sports and when he has he's tended to do poorly against the other kids. He doesn't believe he'll be very good at pitching but he believes that spending time throwing the ball will somehow automatically improve his throwing so he doesn't embarrass himself in gym class.
Imagination - Johnny doesn't believe he could throw well so he doesn't imagine it happening. He sorta of half-heartedly pictures himself throwing the ball with the suggestions his father gives him but doesn't visualize the movement of the ball.
Emotion - Johnny doesn't feel much emotional energy when he's out practicing. He's sort of just "going through the motions" as the phrase goes.
Specific Aim - Johnny's goal is to get "less embarrassingly bad" at throwing the ball.
Now is there any question that the results of practice that day for Johnny will be different when the components of intent have been changed in this way? Perhaps Johnny's belief will manifest... as a result of him spending time throwing the ball he'll automatically get slightly better. If not the problem is likely that he didn't have enough emotional energy about the idea of getting slightly better. It's easy to imagine that Johnny would not improve his pitching on that day. In the first version though, it's much harder to believe his pitching wouldn't improve. If he paid attention to the components of intent he could deliberately tweak them himself. Perhaps he'd look at his specific aim to "pitch like a pro" and ask himself if he even knew what that meant. Then he'd watch videos of professional pitchers going frame by frame to see exactly what motions they make for their different pitches so that he could improve his ability to imagine himself doing those as well. As he did them he would pay attention to his emotional energy keeping himself curious and excited to do these precise movements and make those pitches work for him, (while avoiding being distracted by the emotions themselves). And all the while he would be unwavering in his belief that this would result in him pitching like a pro.
As this example shows, the components of intent can have a major impact in what is manifested in ordinary situations. If you pay attention to these factors as you go about your life, you're sure to notice how those times you excel and the times you don't do so well tend to be very different in regards to them.
I hope I've convinced you, (if you weren't already convinced), that there is at least something to this whole "intent manifests reality" thing but you certainly want an example where intent alone directly changes the physical reality. The truth is you've already got examples. It's well known that phobias can in severe cases cause people to break out in hives. You might not have realized this is a manifestation of their intent.
Remember earlier when I specified that intent doesn't mean "wanting something to happen"? Look at the components of intent wrt an arachnophobe breaking out in hives because there's a spider in the room. Belief? He has this belief that spiders are a major threat and will cause damage to his body in some unspecified way. Imagination? He imagines the spider to be about to attack him at any moment, visualizing it much larger than life and seeing an ambiguous threat. Emotion? There's a ton of emotional energy at play here. Specific aim? Unfortunately for the arachnophobe, the way specific aim works with intent is whatever future your focusing on is what you're influencing to manifest. It doesn't matter whether your focus is because you want it to happen or because you don't want it to happen. This is easy to see in an arachnophobe who breaks out in hives at the sight of a spider. On a grander scale I'll refer to your earlier criticism of the idea that everything is a result, (or manifestation), of intent by saying "then the result is a surreal world where people are the victims of wars or violent crimes because they wanted to be, and I don't think anyone wants to say that." The truth is it isn't because they wanted to be, but it was the result of what was (collectively) intended.
Another example you'll probably allow for manifesting intent to directly cause change in physical reality would be placebos. It's ironically sad that many people nowadays think that placebos only work on less intelligent people and that they're personally too smart for that to work on them. In effect, what they're saying is that those other people are able to miraculously cure themselves with their minds and they cannot... because they're smarter! With placebos, a patient has a belief that he's been given medicine that he thinks will cure him. He has a lot of emotional energy available. Although he isn't experiencing named, conventional emotions at the time people's energy is often highly active when sick. Perhaps it's why we say we're "fighting" the illness. Especially if he's in pain, he's probably got the specific aim of being well, with a lot of focus. And he may imagine what that's like, and if told when he'll start to feel the effects of the medicine he probably imagines it as he's being told.
These last couple examples have some things in common. First of all, with both the phobics and the placebo placated patients the physical change manifested by their intents alone occurred in their own bodies. Secondly, for each of them manifesting their intents was not a deliberate act. This suggests 2 things. 1 - It's probably easier to affect our own bodies with intent than it is to affect other physical objects. 2 - If people can cause things such as this without doing so deliberately, a person who practices deliberately using their intent should be able to cause physical changes using their intent that are at least as impressive.
If we are to continue down the scale from what's generally accepted as perfectly physically possible to what's considered impossible we would next look at examples of affecting other people with intent and talk about people knowing when someone was staring at them, knowing who was about to call, knowing their grandma whom they hadn't seen in years just died, etc. If we went past that and further down the scale we'd eventually find people manifesting unicorns to come visit them from the fairy world. The further we went in that direction the more you would doubt the feasibility of each example, until at some point you'd believe it not possible, nor anything further than it down the scale. But note that this is a belief, and belief is one of the components of intent.
Let me suggest for a moment that you were to see something you believe is impossible. Suppose you were to be walking around your neighborhood when all of the sudden a house just floated up off the ground, spun around and then set itself back down in the same spot it started. What would you do?
I have a feeling I know what most people would do in that situation. Most people would immediately try to find a way to fit this event they believe impossible into their worldview somehow. They would look at the house and say "What the hell?" They would stare curiously at it for some time, trying to imagine a way they could have seen this. They would pull ideas like reflections from their experience and try to determine what they "really" must've seen. They may decide that something they'd eaten must've contained some sort of hallucinogenic which made them "imagine they saw it". It wouldn't be long before they'd be saying to themselves "I don't know what I saw but it couldn't have been that". They would do this, one might say, to protect their sanity. But is it really sane to believe you didn't see something you did? Of course not, so it isn't their sanity their protecting. In actuality it's their worldview; the complete collection of all their beliefs which they are trying to protect. After questioning and disbelieving they saw the house levitate and spin, the average person would cement their defense of their complete belief set, (worldview), by forgetting all about it.
I would guess that you've never seen a house levitate and spin. But I would also guess that you've seen other things beyond what you say is possible which you've convinced yourself you didn't see and then later forgot. Perhaps you might try intending to remember if you have? Should you do so you might find Serloco's claims to be a bit more plausible than they seemed at first glance. Of course, it's up to you.
I was going to get into the importance of language next, but I think I'll save that for later, (this has taken me too long to write already!). Once again welcome to the forums.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Will is what you want to happen
intent is what actually happens
intent is replaceable by will to a certain extent.
will however is the less immpeccable force.
the trap of sobriety is such that the world conforms to the will
but come the riddle of death when intent reveals itself
the bulk of the actions in recapitulation are less powerful or true
than they would have been had they been carved by intent.
If we intend to break our will
our will will be broken.
if we will to break our intent
at best we can ignore it and tailor our worldly effects
until the riddle of death reveals it is only intent and will
a wasted action.
I chose a long time ago to break my own will with my intent
and spent a number of years as a socially unable casualty
of modern psychological resistence.
I begged for the truth as around me were only lies
that destroyed my will further.
i wanted to defend my self from the world with my will but could not
as my intent was the more powerful pressure
and i had already set that on self destruction of will.
the BOOK i would write as such cannot contain any desire to communicate
in a way which defends my desires or needs for social position
it cannot have any motive for recognition
it can only be a declaration of intent
it is confounding that with so much will in the world
that the niche remaining for fabrication of intent
is very narrow in terms of purity.
will is the inflating of a balloon around oneself according to social conditioning,
a constant pressure exerted by your consiousness to uphold a barrier between yourself
and the others effects upon the way you want it to be.
intent is a hollow preexistent steel sphere within which you inhabit a similar position
cept it is a vacuum, the steel is the way it is and cannot easily be changed.
death pierces the peripheryof both models, the willfulls balloon pops or deflates around its
denizen.. leaving the occupant subject to corporeal intent or environmental intent.
death pierces the periphery and the intent sphere ruptures. the
other rushes into fill the vaccuum, assaulting the denizen with
corporeal will or environmental will.
collective corporeal intent and collective corporeal will are huge forces.
the basis of using intent to break ones own will is simply a method to tackle the model
in a slighty time phased manner so as to undersatnd the model better when it ruptures.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
rosygyro wrote:
Will is what you want to happen
intent is what actually happens
intent is replaceable by will to a certain extent.
will however is the less immpeccable force.
You make a good point that we should distinguish between intent and will. Intent, as used above in post #106 is defined as a force with 4 components that dictates what will manifest. I would say that what "actually happens" is the result of intent, as sometimes what happens is what someone else intended and might go against what we intended but our intent wasn't strong enough. Will on the other hand it looks like you've accidentally given 2 definitions to. The first is "what you want to happen" and the second is "a force". In order to avoid any fallacies of ambiguity we should only use one definition per term. The easiest thing to do is to use the word preference for "what you want to happen" an use the word will exclusively to refer to the force you mean.
I believe I know what force you're referring to with the word will, but I would suggest it is in fact the same force as intent. The difference being will is the attempt of ordinary people to use intent deliberately. Things like rolling a dice and trying to "will" a certain outcome. Or using willpower to quit smoking. That sort of thing. If we look at the components of intent when people are trying to use their will, it tends to look like the following...
Example 1 - Willing an outcome on a dice roll,
Example 2 - Quitting smoking.
Beliefs -
1. Conflicting belief that people can't control dice rolls with their will. Yet there's also a belief that maybe they can do it if they just focus and hope enough. Any previous examples of anyone successfully doing it though have probably been written off as coincidence as will this next one if it succeeds.
2. Quitting smoking is tough. It takes a lot of effort and willpower.
Emotional Energy -
1. A person might put a lot of energy into their hope that the dice roll turns out to be what they want.
2. Again, a person might be putting a lot of energy into their attempt to quit smoking. They're also likely inadvertently putting a lot of energy into making it hard to do.
Specific Aim -
1. The die roller is usually aiming to get a specific result, perhaps a 6 on a 6 sided die. Alternatively they might just be hoping to get "higher than 3". Another possibility is they are accidentally aiming for a number, (let's say 1), by focusing on getting "anything but 1".
2. Usually the would be non-smoker is aiming to win a battle over the urge to smoke for a specific time period. The time period varies continually, (I'm trying to make it through this week... if I can only make it past my lunchbreak without a cigarette, etc.).
Imagination -
1. The die roller is probably imagining a 6 showing up as a result of the roll, (assuming that's what they're trying to will to happen), but could be distracted by quick imaginings of other results. These sorts of things do affect the aim.
2. The quitter is most likely imagining themselves having a great battle with their smoking habit, comprised of a number of smaller battles.
When we look at the way people ordinarily attempt to cause change using their willpower, (which again is just a rather uninformed way of attempting to use intent deliberately), it's easy to see why the force intent is the more powerful force as it's what will really manifest as a result of those 4 factors, (see post #106 above). If instead people would use "will", (or deliberate intent), in an informed way, knowing the factors which influence it and choosing to align them with their preferences they would find their attempts much more effective. Doing it in the ideal way; which means to have the right beliefs, apply the right emotional energy, imagine only the exact desired result, and be unchanging in your aim is what I believe is meant by "unbending intent".
My stuff in red.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Julio Juliopolis wrote:
rosygyro wrote:
Will is what you want to happen
intent is what actually happens
intent is replaceable by will to a certain extent.
will however is the less immpeccable force.
You make a good point that we should distinguish between intent and will. Intent, as used above in post #106 is defined as a force with 4 components that dictates what will manifest. I would say that what "actually happens" is the result of intent, as sometimes what happens is what someone else intended and might go against what we intended but our intent wasn't strong enough. Will on the other hand it looks like you've accidentally given 2 definitions to. The first is "what you want to happen" and the second is "a force". In order to avoid any fallacies of ambiguity we should only use one definition per term. The easiest thing to do is to use the word preference for "what you want to happen" an use the word will exclusively to refer to the force you mean.
I believe I know what force you're referring to with the word will, but I would suggest it is in fact the same force as intent. The difference being will is the attempt of ordinary people to use intent deliberately. Things like rolling a dice and trying to "will" a certain outcome. Or using willpower to quit smoking. That sort of thing. If we look at the components of intent when people are trying to use their will, it tends to look like the following...
Example 1 - Willing an outcome on a dice roll,
Example 2 - Quitting smoking.
Beliefs -
1. Conflicting belief that people can't control dice rolls with their will. Yet there's also a belief that maybe they can do it if they just focus and hope enough. Any previous examples of anyone successfully doing it though have probably been written off as coincidence as will this next one if it succeeds.
2. Quitting smoking is tough. It takes a lot of effort and willpower.
Emotional Energy -
1. A person might put a lot of energy into their hope that the dice roll turns out to be what they want.
2. Again, a person might be putting a lot of energy into their attempt to quit smoking. They're also likely inadvertently putting a lot of energy into making it hard to do.
Specific Aim -
1. The die roller is usually aiming to get a specific result, perhaps a 6 on a 6 sided die. Alternatively they might just be hoping to get "higher than 3". Another possibility is they are accidentally aiming for a number, (let's say 1), by focusing on getting "anything but 1".
2. Usually the would be non-smoker is aiming to win a battle over the urge to smoke for a specific time period. The time period varies continually, (I'm trying to make it through this week... if I can only make it past my lunchbreak without a cigarette, etc.).
Imagination -
1. The die roller is probably imagining a 6 showing up as a result of the roll, (assuming that's what they're trying to will to happen), but could be distracted by quick imaginings of other results. These sorts of things do affect the aim.
2. The quitter is most likely imagining themselves having a great battle with their smoking habit, comprised of a number of smaller battles.
When we look at the way people ordinarily attempt to cause change using their willpower, (which again is just a rather uninformed way of attempting to use intent deliberately), it's easy to see why the force intent is the more powerful force as it's what will really manifest as a result of those 4 factors, (see post #106 above). If instead people would use "will", (or deliberate intent), in an informed way, knowing the factors which influence it and choosing to align them with their preferences they would find their attempts much more effective. Doing it in the ideal way; which means to have the right beliefs, apply the right emotional energy, imagine only the exact desired result, and be unchanging in your aim is what I believe is meant by "unbending intent".
My stuff in red.
But the stages of development i.e. puberty, the ceaseless beating of the heart and breathing, the intake of nutrition and expulsion of spent material are intent.
intent is with you from day one as the perpetuating force that keeps you alive in the corporeal.
This is why intent is so closeley linked with totality- i.e. the componants and keynotes of your entire life over time- because it is rooted in those parts of you without which you would be dead and which have always perpetated behind the scenes up until the point you learned the word intent.
and even then your new word "intent" is superceded by the invisible continuity of your entire life up until the point of learning the word.
its damningly tricky.. that such a force of intent , which is straight and true to form.. cannot suddenly be subject to decision of belief or applied emotion..
can only be changed with articles of your totality that have also ridden the distance behind the scenes,
furthermore- so as to be back on track with current global concerns and not the art of impressing people at the casino..
much like the heartbeat there also exists intent in the sexual energy and tantra.
there is a dual intent.
namely that the perpetuation of physical health is linked to the closing of the gap and tantric gates when not physicly in use.
but also that the deeper intent drive of the perpetuation of mankind has an intelrocking intent of sexual union.
what we have in current day earth is a liminal energy without clear intent which allows sexual energetic attachment to exist with people when they are not in sexual physical union,i.e. abuse damage.
when really as individuals we should all be able to have cast iron sexual tantra when not involved in sexual activity.
much like the heartbeat and breathing perpetuates, the perpetuation of physcial form should be as individual as our own heartbeat.
the totality of our mortal sexuality should be our own.. as its default mode, subroutine, behind the scenes base programme.
of course we dont want humans exuality to end - that could mark the death of the species.
but also it cannot continue to be described by inheraent awarness or inherited sexual traits.. as with these our species will also becon destruction.
i am aware that males and females have periods of time when they are engaged in sexual intercourse..
but this is not their totality and is more alied with the "potential" totality of their progeny, or indeed the potential progeny of any involved in such an act.
must demarcate the polarities.
the intent of the individual and the intent of the group.
must not sound like want to write a crappy lampstand book.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
of course in the very modern EASTERLY world we have more than CAST IRON.. we also have the manifesting fabric of the TECHNOSPHERE.
[a picture of female genitals has been edited out by watergaze]
gotta make own material and not just weird pastiche of existing acceptable " literature".
must admit that even the written language is at its base -THE INHERITED KNOWN.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
It was not a picture of female genitals.
it WAS a CGI computer generated image of female genitalia EXTERIOR.
in this case representative of the easterly feminine as found in the
evolving technosphere.
exterior as in OUTSIDE the human bodies interior.
tantric protection etc..
It was intended to be no different in inhuman quality to a cast iron or bronze nude.
although was diametricly opposite in terms of orientation around the corporeal.
the dense physical bronze of malkuth
and the CGI potential of netzachs path to it.
sorry if when you removed it it changed something
it was quite well balanced.
makes the chewed up pelvis man seem a bit without a reason.
FOREBEARANCE.
Posts: 20
Threads: 16
Joined: Feb 2019
sorry rosy. I have to say I liked the picture (I did not mean it was a photo, a picture for me is broader and computer generated pics are still called pictures in my language).
You are welcome to link to pictures, you can say, see an interesting pic of vagina here. You use the button in the editor that looks a bit like a strange infinity symbol. People can then look at your picture by clicking on the link - it is not displayed in your post. I think that is a good compromise.
Btw , reading your explanation in your last post... I cannot but wish you would accompany your other pictures with some little explanation like that . But hey, that is just me . Thnx for sharing...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
My unbending intent is to expose the habitual assemblage point to the easterly nagual.
my unbending intent is to expose the entire corporeal to the easterly nagual
my unbending intent is to keep only the consensual power of time as root in the westerly nagual
my unbending intent is such that "lateral" communication i.e. between me and another cannot convey my intent.
Some belief systems call it the teacher saviourship model..
a basic problem that exists when a student loses the power of knowing as they project it onto a teacher
who thinks they know it all.
I am condemned to be half i.d.i.o.t. til the shift is made
and then we will all be half i.d.i.o.t.
I would love to explain my pictures more eloquently.
once i read a passage by Theun Mares who said the TOnal is a bit like a log of wood that will oneday become a chair.
and that in order to make it we must whittle away the un necissary.
In my youth i made some very brave decisions of intent in order to shift the habitual as it is my unbending intent
and i LOST a whole bunch of skills when i started carving.
its not that i dont have acess to them
its just i do not have the intent to use them.
equality is a see saw in a strobe light.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Eloquence is nice. But, what about simple clarity?
"Will is what you want to happen
Intent is what actually happens"
It seems me that this is the crux of the issue....the epicenter around which all explanations could revolve. It's epicenter around which the recapitulation accomplishes its intended purpose. The epicenter of why inner silence from moment to moment is so important. The epicenter of the whole notion of "forbearance". The epicenter around which that which is "unnecessary" simply and progressively falls away and the chair builds itself from the log all by itself (or, rather, by the power of intent which is already at large in the universe). Its at the epicenter of what Don Juan was talking about when he said that all the seemingly stupendous feats of magic and awareness he and his cohorts where exhibiting were a by product of him and his cohorts simply and clearly acquiescing to and aligning with the force of intent. That's it. It's at the epicenter why its obscene and ridiculous to indulge in self importance to take credit for what's already at large...what's already in motion. And it's at the epicenter of why DJ said that indulging in this kind of stupidity actually, perforce, either insidiously or quickly cuts one off from the force of intent allowing for the whole self indulgent charade to fall apart under its own inherent lack of support.
Simple clarity. Why bury it under layers and layers of metaphor, arcane diagrams, impenetrable artwork....though all this stuff is fascinating. It certainly draws attention through fascination.....but, then what?
"I am the introverted , crippled shy kid who begs to be on stage yet loathes to have an audience"
I wonder if all the personal esotericism is a way of keeping your "audience" at arms length (and I'm not sure I'm buying the whole "introverted, crippled shy kid" bit. I've seen the force what's behind your configuration and it is not shy, crippled or introverted). I'm assuming you're up on stage because you have something to say....something to convey born of the knowledge gained from all your hard work. Why not meet those listening eye-to-eye and say it loud and clear?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Will is a crucial element of personal energy for the simple reason that when we exercise intent, we naturally apply will to the effort. One cannot form and execute intents without will, but one can apply will without intent. If intent is the gun, then will is the trigger. Will, as a separate part of our personal energy, is crucial in the process of linking the larger rational mind with the more primitive and unknown energies of the hidden sides of our nature. If intent is the sword of reason, then will is the forge of the soul.
If intent is the sword of reason, then will is the forge of the soul.
Intent and will are like this in relationship: if you intend to drive a nail, the hammer and your muscles are the vehicles of the intent, but how hard you hit the nail is a function of will. The decision to hit the nail is the intent, but the actual animation of the intent to strike it is the will. Without the will, nothing moves. It's a hard distinction to make. They seem the same, but they are not. As you work with intent, you will discover that there is a subtle but very powerful difference. Let's take an issue of self-improvement for instance. Say you had temper and anger issues that certain situations were sure to trigger. The intention to become more detached and handle these situations by not reacting the same way would be the intent. Applying it daily and reinforcing it would help make the intent strong, but when the situation arises that would normally trigger the anger issues, it is will which is applied to trigger the intent, allowing it to work as energy in the situation. In other words, "I intend not to let this make me angry", then the circumstances occur, and in that moment, you apply will to not become angry, thereby triggering the intent. The process of learning to control that is also one of learning to apply will to your own energy, which if you are lucky revolves around an intent.
https://www.shamanscave.com/seer-path/intent
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
IN other words intent is to aim and hold the gun, and will is to fire it.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
serloco wrote:
IN other words intent is to aim and hold the gun, and will is to fire it.
So here’s the thing-
To me your description of intent is actually power and not intent.
Your description of will to activate power in accordance with will is fine.
But there is no activation of intent in accordance with will.. intent and will are at times diametrically opposite forces.
For instance people’s wil is often triggered by a social conditioned response whereas intent will always destroy social conditioning in order to clear a path.
The intent to be a warrior is the decision to destroy own social conditioning and much of the time it’s effects will be to make you unable to make will work in accordance with that social conditioning as the greater intent is revealed.
Intent is the long term plan of the music, will is the peaks And the troughs of its pitch, amplitude, decay and sustain.
Intent is to throw the dice and will is to try to effect its outcome.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
glance left wrote:
Eloquence is nice. But, what about simple clarity?
"Will is what you want to happen
Intent is what actually happens"
It seems me that this is the crux of the issue....the epicenter around which all explanations could revolve. It's epicenter around which the recapitulation accomplishes its intended purpose. The epicenter of why inner silence from moment to moment is so important. The epicenter of the whole notion of "forbearance". The epicenter around which that which is "unnecessary" simply and progressively falls away and the chair builds itself from the log all by itself (or, rather, by the power of intent which is already at large in the universe). Its at the epicenter of what Don Juan was talking about when he said that all the seemingly stupendous feats of magic and awareness he and his cohorts where exhibiting were a by product of him and his cohorts simply and clearly acquiescing to and aligning with the force of intent. That's it. It's at the epicenter why its obscene and ridiculous to indulge in self importance to take credit for what's already at large...what's already in motion. And it's at the epicenter of why DJ said that indulging in this kind of stupidity actually, perforce, either insidiously or quickly cuts one off from the force of intent allowing for the whole self indulgent charade to fall apart under its own inherent lack of support.
Simple clarity. Why bury it under layers and layers of metaphor, arcane diagrams, impenetrable artwork....though all this stuff is fascinating. It certainly draws attention through fascination.....but, then what?
"I am the introverted , crippled shy kid who begs to be on stage yet loathes to have an audience"
I wonder if all the personal esotericism is a way of keeping your "audience" at arms length (and I'm not sure I'm buying the whole "introverted, crippled shy kid" bit. I've seen the force what's behind your configuration and it is not shy, crippled or introverted). I'm assuming you're up on stage because you have something to say....something to convey born of the knowledge gained from all your hard work. Why not meet those listening eye-to-eye and say it loud and clear?
Firstly I don’t think there is much simple clarity in any of the works purporting to be Toltec - it seems a tad unfair to demand it of me as if it is a failing to not have it.
By that measure you will have failed all the Toltec masters for their confounding use of metaphor etc..
Not sure what you should do once you bounce off the depthless veneer of fascination, certainly don’t look any deeper if you have prejudged my work to be content less ego driven psychobabble.
Begs to be on stage - but is not on stage..
Begs to be on stage so I can burn it to the ground or at least invoke the hidden mystery of the trapdoor, itself a step closer to the ground.
Although I should mention that whenever I have been on stage doing roadying .. I have always looked for my own recapitulate trace amongst the crowd, knowing I have stood onlooking the wun wun tyoo and been both barred from backstage as well as waved through, knowing I have climbed fences as well as accessed all areas. Infinity loop.
Not sure if it’s the same with porno as I haven’t shot any.
Although of pornstars those who imagine themselves masturbating to porn whilst shooting porno are certainly my favoured compared to those who imagine other people masturbating to them while they shoot.
For an astoundingly obvious reason. Capixe
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
What's wrong with questioning what's gone before? DJ certainly did. The point of his questioning lying in the motive behind burying what is clear and simple, in terms of anyone's capacity to return to power, behind mountains of metaphor to the extent that the crux of the matter gets utterly lost. Toltec wisdom held by Toltec masters. Certainly not content-less. But certainly possibly ego-driven, masters though they may have been. Diverting the source of power and caging it in complex systems which seek to hide and hoard...in order to dominate. It's was kind of his whole point behind attempting to forge a new direction for the "new seers"....or "modern seers"....or whatever. In order to save the lineage from its previous trajectory of dark ego-obsession.
I don't see that you 're driven by ego. I see you trying to incite a change to a direction that is more wholesome for anyone attempting to reconnect through their own connecting link with intent. That's why I don't understand the sheer complexity of your presentation. From my limited perspective, it diverts attention into a maze which implies importance about core elements that might help engender that change, but the import gets lost in all the swirling/shifting/changing twists and turns. Maybe you're trying to ensnare that aspect of attention that's actually a liability to seeing things clearly, leaving the reader with only one recourse....to go simply within a find that link and attempt to clear it on their own.
That's kind of what I'm left with, so I'll simply extract myself and get on with it before I'm inextricably enmeshed in what's clearly over my head. The stage is all yours.
Capice
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
glance left wrote:
What's wrong with questioning what's gone before? DJ certainly did. The point of his questioning lying in the motive behind burying what is clear and simple, in terms of anyone's capacity to return to power, behind mountains of metaphor to the extent that the crux of the matter gets utterly lost. Toltec wisdom held by Toltec masters. Certainly not content-less. But certainly possibly ego-driven, masters though they may have been. Diverting the source of power and caging it in complex systems which seek to hide and hoard...in order to dominate. It's was kind of his whole point behind attempting to forge a new direction for the "new seers"....or "modern seers"....or whatever. In order to save the lineage from its previous trajectory of dark ego-obsession.
I don't see that you 're driven by ego. I see you trying to incite a change to a direction that is more wholesome for anyone attempting to reconnect through their own connecting link with intent. That's why I don't understand the sheer complexity of your presentation. From my limited perspective, it diverts attention into a maze which implies importance about core elements that might help engender that change, but the import gets lost in all the swirling/shifting/changing twists and turns. Maybe you're trying to ensnare that aspect of attention that's actually a liability to seeing things clearly, leaving the reader with only one recourse....to go simply within a find that link and attempt to clear it on their own.
That's kind of what I'm left with, so I'll simply extract myself and get on with it before I'm inextricably enmeshed in what's clearly over my head. The stage is all yours.
Capice
There seems to be an awful lot of using the power of the nagual, very little of using it in conjunction with own corporeal.
I am very much of the school “ healer heal thyself” and don’t understand the absence of stories of ruthlessness with the self via application of nagual to that self.
When all is said and done the nagual alone is not a stream to infinity, it requires the corporeal in order to evolve awareness and if you only cultivate the nagual portion you risk in the final moments becoming bound to an unresolved corporeal previously ignored.
I myself don’t know what I think I am trying to achieve by saying this other than I wish people would be more introspective with both the power of the nagual and also sexual violence.. if only so the world has peace..
Will try again in a different topic.. riddle of death next me thinks- to talk about
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"Will is what you want to happen
Intent is what actually happens"
Yes, rosygyro/exactly/smile... but I reiterate, the two are hardly related.
On intent's path there is no use whatsoever for will. Why would one use will when SEEING clearly, KNOWING unambiguously? Intent is the perfect unfolding of fabric. One would have to be stubborn, wilful and ignorant to cross intent.
A response to Julio (and serloco):
First of all, 'unbending intent' is redundant. Intent is unbending.
Julio, belief, imagination, energetic emotion, and specific aim are integral elements of will, but not intent.
1) Belief is not part of intent whatsoever. Intent is SEEING. One KNOWS the vision.
2) Imagination has nothing to do with intent either. An idea pops out as a seedling from the unconscious ground of being. One SEES it. Early on (without input), one is privy to the vision revealing both its foundational roots and foreseeable fruition.
There are obvious tells common to intent---> synchronicity, connective auspicious thrums, sensation of guidance, equanimity, evenness, and confidence. There is immediate and unequivocal overrule of momentary doubts, a recurrent, reinforcing, auspicious 'key,' a spaciousness for 'watching,' and a crescendo. (There are other traits, but all experiences of intent include the elements mentioned).
3) Energetic emotion is not germane to intent. Intent is autonomous, such that ordinary conditioning becomes moot. In fact, one witnesses, mirrors, and mimics intent. Intent is steady and sure, and the one increasingly acquires the same demeanor as the intent. Intent is never rash, heavy, or given to emotional swings.
While intent extraordinarily lifts (and one can be excited), the intent itself retains qualities that are matter of fact. Intent is always conducive to objectivity and reason come examination. Instead of energetic emotion, think of a pervasive fluid movement with certainty. This is not to say there isn't bumpiness altogether, just not in approximation to the intent.
4) Specific aim is not the property of intent. True, the person with intent recognizes a matured outcome of an idea is forthcoming, but the essential nature of spiritual/sorceric view concerning intent is that it has no limitations. While there are descriptions, none limits the heights. Besides, the awesome manifestation of intent always supersedes whatever was perceived.
what are you?
The secret to dynamic separation is to be instantaneous to the opportunity. If experiences get hold of you first, you will lack energy commensurate to flipping those situations. Emanation's energy must be tapped in full on arrival.
Later, you will discover that in detachment art form, manifestation is second to initial emanations. The reason I can now head off any existential weightiness, is because I mark off 'troubling' emanation(s) with conscious pause as it arrives. I am ahead of time.
For example: if the dregs of angst suddenly visit with CLOUT, it is not foreign to me. It is at once my angst and my clout. I am very POSSESSIVE.
The attributes are perceptually negative, and the formidable angst is distinctly there before me.. LIKE WHAM!! Nevertheless, beyond the initial emanation, its moment of arrival is my moment.
That is I have already positioned myself as an observer simply by seizing that position (point of unconcern).
Imagine holding a very negative emotion as an object in hand, and SEEING that object as it is. Now, pretend you could play with the object as if it were a stuffed huggy bear. THAT
The novitiate in detachment muddles through opportunities, and the practice yields minor energetic gain. Later, one recognizes what needs attention in this art form---> the SELF mastery of awareness.
I cannot emphasize enough, that in earlier development of the detachment art from, most need heavy duty tonal/occupational structure. Exercising of objectivity belongs there, and no dichotomy between tonal and spiritual activity exists. You pursue accessible conventional avenues, with optimum focus, standard achievement measurements, and tonal goals. The simple caveat is that you choose spiritual growth as the permeating focus.. not the material gains (though they are both to be tonally and spiritually appreciated).
In effect, you lead with the body. One's vision is habitually the chosen driver. Each move of your body in tonal occupation is a reinforcing awareness of the spiritual intent. You choose this pathway of objectivity until it is habitual.
The occupation will not consume you, so long as you are mindful of sorcery and controlled folly and spirit. And it should be mentioned, that success in a compartmentalized structure of a specific occupation is not success whatsoever if its disciplines are not carried into broader tonal balance and tonal/spiritual integrity. You are not changing your self; you are becoming wholesome.
Jiddu Krishnamurti: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
I have this dream where an Asian master instructs me on delivering the highest orgasmic pleasure. The dream is unusual, as I am told in immediacy to sucking another man's cock. There is no further manifestation of such act in the dream, though it seems I was to resume. It is the 1st time in dreaming for this Still, I've indulged cuckold fantasy for sure.
[As you discern by my wanting/needing to explain, I'm a bit homophobic/lol].
The master began by naming the technique (I could not grasp the name). It pertained to taking charge of edging by ruling the other's breath. This involved utilizing my own awareness without verbalization (though, my interpretation would be that there would be no restriction on words).
Once I am locked in, HOW the man or woman is breathing is irrelevant. It does not matter if the other's breaths are full and oxygen providing, or stilted to the point of restricting air. It does not matter if the person is relaxed or strained. It is immaterial if I am, or am not, responsible for any specific change or aspect of respiration.
The whole of the technique is transmission of awareness to the other that I now them.. their breath, mind, and body.
My focus is met with reciprocating anticipation. There is increasing intensity here (from start to finish), that accompanies an unspoken plea in desperation. I will see it in their eyes and facial expression. As the other surrenders will, I am empowered.
The stakes get higher.
The sexual edging is merely the form. An orgasm is no longer the person's focus, because this person is reduced to erotic neediness enveloped by hysteria. Anguished autonomy has given way to begging dependency.. and so, acute perceptual craving is responsive to the sharpened edge of my sword, my power, my own desire.
The person's craving is now blind, unconditional, and reflexive.
I have taken them to the primal void. Several minutes here is an awesome eternity. This person will meet an abstrusity of exquisite primordial stimuli. Yet, the concurrent angst of this abyss is unbearable sufferance without conscience. So the entity must bottom out (be released).
Then, there is a phenomenal bath in ecstatic closure, followed by the euphoria of purified SELF awareness.
While being projections, these are not just descriptions.. I know this place empirically. I know of it subjectively, objectively, and corporeally. Taking charge of edging by ruling the other's breath, is just one procedure in domination. All Top/bottom methodology is objective and accessible to me.
(glance left says) "You previously implied that the new position of assemblage is a coming inevitability. It seems that the only way to prepare is to simply acquiesce to the moment at hand and align with whatever force is carrying us to the position of inevitability."
If something is 'inevitable' there is no reason to prepare for what is already set in stone. I would remind you to make a distinction between emanations and life's moments.
I acquiesce to emanations.
I choose the next moment(s) unfolding. I often acquiesce next, but I may choose to throw the emanations away or PLAY (recreate) with them.
I would have you reconsider about aligning with 'whatever' force.
Even in my intent, which is so deeply grounded as to be unconscious, I do not forget that intent is MY force. AND, in all other ways I see to it that is MY force carrying me [unless I choose to allow an alignment with seemingly 'whatever' force (as I did 1st with serloco, and 2nd with 'the' ____ )].
Sorcery is much more about objective decisiveness (if not SEEING) than mysticism.
Answer correctly, or I'll completely ignore you tonally. You'll end up like Emoto's 3rd container of rotting rice.
Djete says: maybe she needs to find you I'm fed up with you.
Le_Regard- "I don't know. Why do I exist? I have no explanation at all except that it's happening, but if I'm quite honest I do actually feel an incredible sense of purpose, like I have IMPORTANT THINGS TO SAY before I die."
I will realize that futility is real {because it is} I CANNOT make it not futile/lol. The stickiness of repetitive meaninglessness is part of having to exist.
I enter the futility's angst deeply enough so as to arrive at indifference, but my clarity is only become sharper.
So is being then poisoned by futility. Well............ sure it is...... necessarily so.
In the conventional world, one goes to a spouse, the psychiatrist, a clergy person, the pharmacist etc. to cope.
And, most anyone will forward a version of meaning.
My honesty refuses remedy. I create meaning.
In developed detachment as the 'way', the entire span of emotions can be what they are; that is, there is no REAL 'insecurity' about ANY. In one sense, the mind is allowed to run wild, yet there is no fluctuation of being, no threat of dementia. One is held steady by awareness of simply being, waiting, allowing, and watching.
Occasionally, adherence or/and indulgence arises for self-action that is apart from the observer SELF ('normal' experience). It is what it is.. then reason finally executes detachment.. says, "next."
The way of detachment is akin to an algorithm, and reason is increasingly adept to identify self as image selves, and SELF as fluid SELF reigns authentic and true.. self-pities become flirtatious caresses that are exquisite expressions of emptiness. What is seen is seen; unseemly states drown in humble MEANINGLESSNESS.
I am in a super-duper way of being alive.
(Edit notes - I removed some comments to the mods that were pretty well irrelevant to the rest of the post. - Julio)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"don’t understand the absence of stories of ruthlessness with the self via application of nagual to that self"
I'm sure it has something to do with what DJ called "the nearly invincible laxness of the human condition". I mean, where is self directed ruthlessness going to naturally come from in that context? In that regard, he also mentioned that the function of the fully trained/fledged nagual, with respect to teaching his/her students, was to provide emphasis. So the pressure to ruthlessness, I guess, is an external one until it becomes a resource that can be called upon from within. Issue is, that was a phenomenon available within the context of a formal lineage. Naguals overriding the natural laxness of their students by tricking them into apprenticeship and then mercilessly riding them until discipline was developed. I'm not sure how something like this plays out outside of the formal lineage, though.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
So after careful reflection, and yelling about it elsewhere for an entire day and a half, I have not yet found the line separating sexual violence from just ordinary sexual anything.
I have utterly failed to locate "healthy, normal sexuality" anywhere on this planet.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
OK..
So
if over "TIME" a persons cocoon carries its habitual assemblage point and it stays in the habitual position.
That positions will be a single streak of light on the timeline , always relative to the same physical bodies machinations etc..
this is while they do any "normal" act as they are normal . right?
whilst a person who moves their assemblage position will over "time" have a wobbly streak of light along the time axis
as their assemblage point varies in position along their cocoons path as it travels the time axis.
these variences or wobbles have already happened and will have accompanied different perception at the time as well as be part of the accumulation of different tonal in the present.
The habitual assemblage point is fairly blind and you are correct that "ordinary" sexual anything is actually also casually sexually violent, in that the streak of light a normal assemblge point makes is environmentally a part of our worlds ill sexual health regardless of if the person whos assemblge point we are looking at has perpetrated any sexual/ethical crime at all.
Its rather like saying that to not move your assemblage point is a type of "negligence" to being part of positive change
and by extension even the most puritanical religious behaved if in normal assemblage are still a contributary factor in the worlds ill health, simply as their personal assemblage is not at "odds" with the worlds habitual assemblage problems.. regardless of vegan virgin charitable status.
If i am to accuse those who are essentially well behaved in normal awareness as being a part of the worlds problems it can only be through looking at their habitual assemblage position over time, all habitual assemblage positions are collectivly "the problem" regardless of the way such individuals contain or enact their lives.
the question is "How do we move our assemblage position to a place which negates the habitual "/
I will answer this question sorcericly rather than in terms of assemblage point move, by sorcericly i mean using deliberate work within the tonal to indirectly move the assemblage over time.
Earlier this year i tried to introduce the use of trees as articles of the east.
a tree today that is a seedling perhaps takes up 0.5cm3 of above ground space in your garden.
that same tree in 16 years will take up 1m3 of above ground space.
i.e. over time it will displace more and more empty atmosphere with its bulk.
If i am to intend to live in health and vitality for the next 16 years and envision myself as being perfectly anatomicly
balanced even youthfull in 2033..as well as frequently walk around my garden over that time then my vision of that day should take into account that there will be less and less space in the garden on account of the growth of the tree.
In this way i will avoid sending out intent for vitality today which subsequently will become ensnared by the trees own growth. come 2033 i will not find myself harpooned by unanticipated twigs as i will have made "room" for the trees growth in my intent to have safe passage till 2033.
Once you get that..
You realise that it is a little newborn girls right to grow to maturity without being sexually impinged apon by the improper intent of male sexual awarness via the habitual.
and should a newborn girl be in your garden.. then in sixteen years no part of your dick should be in her.. as you will have made "room" for her to grow unnassaulted into maturity.
you have now used your intent to demarcate over time the maturation of life and intended not to impose upon it.
basicly the habitual assemblge point already has us growing into each other over time in line with the current abuses of the world. the known is a gradually tightening fuckknot unless we deliberatly through intent choose to operate against its flow.
but you dont need to hear this stuff..
i am sure you prfer the wild tales of the MK ultra.
and the art of being so perverse that social conditioning doesnt matter anymore.
the very real truth as regards "breaking social conditioning" is that although it is hard work to breach the boudaries of human taboo and the debillitating effects of being bound by normal social morays and fruedian feelings..
breaking such boundaries is a temporary discomfort.
wheras when you pit your totality against the evolving force of life as it comes into manifestation you become a person on the warriors path and its effects are far more debilitating. you are not just free of normal awarnesses limitations as found in your fellow man.. but are also engaged in a "WORK" against the collective blindness which effects them.
taking responsibility for your people.. etc..
catheter twig?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-nz4pJDDsM
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I don't know much about these streaks of light, but I'll just give you credit for your perceptions being accurate and gloss over that.
This might not always have been true, and I'm certain it isn't even true for every person everywhere even right now, right this exact second, but most of us (in this case, I mean English speakers with access to the internet) live in so-called "liberal democracies". Liberal in this case means focused on INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS. There's nothing precisely wrong with that, individual freedoms are great. A woman's right to have an abortion, for example. A black man's right to not be shot at by the police for no reason is another good one, but since I think you're British that might not be your scene. The right to own property is a good one, and the right to own a business and not have the government just take it away from you and give it to someone else is one that gets a lot of attention, also.
This is the filter through which most people see the world. Most people don't know that because they're taught in school that all the alternatives are supposed to be worse.
Freedom, "liberal", "liberate", "liberated", freedom is freedom FROM other people. Freedom from outside interference.
Sexuality is "outside interference" by another person par excellence and is therefore incompatible with liberal democracy, and is therefore revolutionary. It just can't exist peacefully in the world that most of us live in, day to day, and having any sexual feeling at all is a political compromise.
|
