(Reality Ruling) Why is it possible? - A theoretical basis
The aim of this post is not absolute truth. It is to present a model that produces the results we want.
The laws of physics do not require belief in order to work consistently. It is enough to take action (mental and physical), which is calibrated by taking those laws into consideration, in order to achieve our goals. However, it is also true that our mind needs a solid ground on which to base its decisions. If a model doesn't come with a clear rational explanation, then we are very unlikely to invest our time and attention in it. In other words, if we don't accept the Subjective Reality Metaparadigm as valid, we won't take the necessary actions which would produce the desired results.
That's why I'm writing this short theoretical introduction.
What I am sharing here is ultimately information. Now, information can be correct or incorrect. Either way it carries a certain meaning that we later express in the form of words. Usually when information is stored, we call it data. And when it's used to do or understand something, it's called knowledge.
What fascinates me is that people choose to put their trust into authority figures, instead of reality. Think about it for a moment - you want to find out whether baking soda and vinegar neutralize each other. What makes more sense? To blindly trust other people who have convinced you that they know better or to actually perform the experiment yourself? See, in my mind the ultimate "authority" is reality itself. While the opinions of 'clever' people may vary, reality will always respond consistently. Thus, it looks to me, it is much smarter to follow the experiential way of exploration.
It's good to mention the following - reality is eternal, while human thought is relatively new, even when compared to life on Earth. Science - even more so. Moreover, the scientific community is driven by economic and political motives, which are based in fear and limitation. This inevitably leads to distortions in the process of exploration and in the authenticity of the scientific consensus.
When we think and talk about Truth, this always happens on an intellectual level. But our intellect is limited. It can not perceive, understand and explain Truth in its entirety. The mind creates a map of the territory, it thinks in abstract terms and works with labels. It resembles a computer - it's easily programmable and thus prone to brainwashing. In most people's minds Truth gets quite distorted.
Until the age of around six or seven all the information goes into our subconscious mind unfiltered. There it crystallizes into a solid belief system that feels so obvious, that most of the time it doesn't even occur to us to question it . Thus the suggestions that we receive from a multitude of sources - family, friends, media, school, religion, government, etc. - define our worldview without our conscious participation.
I have no memory of a "beginning". All I know is I became gradually conscious of my life experience around the age of six. My memories before that are scarce, vague and distant. I do not remember how it all began. All of the intellectual knowledge I have received in childhood has come from other people. Of course, later on I have come to many conclusions based on experience and logical processing, but the underlying basis for them is still my initial programming.
It is obvious that humanity has not reached a complete understanding of absolute truth yet. This is not only seen in the heated conflicts between different belief systems, but also in the somewhat chaotic state that the world is in. There are a lot of stupid people, and mainstream media, education and authority are clearly not helping. Given the current state of mass brainwashing and the fact that all of my "default" programming comes from that same mass... who can I trust?
In a way, I am clueless. I don't know what I don't know. But I do know that I exist in a consistent reality and that I can trust my own experience. So a good option would be to choose a starting point, open my mind and begin exploring reality through the eyes of a newborn - by questioning everything. By implementing different models and coming to conclusions based on the results I get.
As a base I choose my consistent subjective experience. The word 'consistent' here is key. Ultimately, it may turn out that Truth is unfathomably strange - in one moment I am myself, in the next - I'm an alien on another planet, then suddenly I'm a flock of birds somehow swimming through space, and so on. Of course, all of that is nothing compared to how weird and chaotic it could become, but you get the general idea. Now, the fact is that this is not my conscious experience. From my current perspective my reality seems pretty stable. For instance, I can go for a walk outside and after a few hours I'll still be in the same city. And so this stable subjective point of view is what I choose as my starting point.
Now let's see what I can easily agree upon.
"I exist."
That's pretty obvious. Let's assume that I didn't exist. Then what are all these things that I experience? There clearly IS something. This something exists and I witness it, so clearly - I exist.
"I'm having a consistent experience."
"I can't get outside of myself and perceive Absolute Truth in its entirety."
"I want a useful model that produces consistent results."
That's about it. Everything else is part of the model that we choose to trust - the map that we use to navigate our life experience.
A brilliant author and a good friend of mine - Dimitar Krastev - published a neat little table which is a very useful tool for recognizing Truth. Here it is:
1)Logic - The statement has to be formally logical and not contain any contradictions.
2)Intuition - The statement should feel right. If you don't have a close relationship with your intuition, this one can be left out for now.
3)Laws - The statement has to be aligned with the proven laws of reality. If that is not the case, it is either false, or a motivation for new discoveries.
4)In practice - it has to have some practical applications, f.e. solve a problem. It also needs to work in practice.
A statement is only true if all of the above are satisfied. In addition to that you have to honestly look inside yourself and see if you have any filters. When you are emotionally dependent on a certain belief you may resist letting it go and thus remain ignorant to a more effective belief system.
It is also necessary to differentiate between (blind) belief and knowledge. In this particular context the former means 'hoping' that something is true, while the latter is a feeling of knowingness which comes from a systematic observation of a phenomenon or the results of a certain activity.
No matter how much you try to convince yourself, you will never truly succeed. Where there is a place for (blind) belief, there is also a place for doubt. It is not that doubt is directly detrimental to the results we get. It's just that when we feel doubtful, it is highly likely that we will change our mental strategy and start acting in opposition (mentally and physically) to what we want, way before it has manifested in physical reality. This is why trust that is coming from knowingness is very important in manifestation.
Many of the doubts in this respect come from a misunderstanding of the principles. People have a vague and superficial idea about the law of attraction and they give it a try but then discard it because it doesn't produce the results they want. But as in any skill, time is needed for the proper understanding of the underlying principles and the respective "resoldering" of our "mental circuits". The Subjective Reality Metaparadigm describes these principles clearly and elegantly.
Does this mean that the scientific description of the world is completely wrong? Not at all. Believing that would actually be a masterful self-deception. Modern science has given us much. Technology eases our lives in many wonderful ways and it is worthy of sincere appreciation. The Subjective Reality Metaparadigm actually integrates very well with our current understanding of the world. It enhances it by describing what lies beyond.
The problems arise when we confuse science with scientism. Scientism is basically a religion which insists that whatever has not been formally and officially studied, published and approved by scientists is wrong. The biggest assumption that scientism holds on to is that reality is fundamentally material/physical. It also supports the belief that science already understands the nature of reality and the only thing that's left is for the details to be filled in.
As with all religions, freedom of thinking is not welcome. Anything that stretches beyond the comfortable boundaries is declared as "pseudo-scientific" (at best) by clever-looking authoritative figures. Fortunately, not all people fall for that and many become curious explorers at the forefront of the evolution of human consciousness.
How do we develop the confidence to do just that? As Richard Bandler likes to say - 'Confidence comes from competence.' Jesse Elder often mentions something similar - 'Confidence comes from evidence.'
Thus, our goals is to both understand the Subjective Reality Model really well and, at the same time, prove its validity to ourselves through careful practice.
The main reason to why we want what we want is the feeling that it will give us. So on a core level, feelings are a very important manifestation. The first exercise is to be aware of how the implementation of the principles makes you feel AND to also observe how able you are to produce the desired state (feeling) whenever you choose to.
The second exercise is to buy a beautiful diary and begin writing down all of the positive results that you get out of your practice. It is namely your own personal experience that will prove to you the validity of this model. You can then confidently state that you base your trust in manifestation on your personal research and experimentation.
The third practice is optional - it is to learn to lucid dream. Lucid dreams are an amazing training ground, because the manifestations are instantaneous there. It is highly likely to receive many deep insights while exploring the dream world.
The next post will focus on the Subjective Reality Metaparadigm and how it describes reality.
Here are some useful links:
'Fundamental Assumptions of Science'
'Scientism'
'Skeptics'
'Lucid Dreaming'