Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2007
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 174
This is a article from Michael Topper who got a lot of this channeled info. I'm not a fan of channelled info as it goes but this is his own extrapolations from his own source material. I think the info. is fascinating and fits with much of the old Gnostic thoughts and alchemical treatise on reality though couched in terms that are using notions of hyper-dimensional physics.
He also uses particularly obtuse and complex jargon as a way to put off those who are looking for a quick fix. I don't agree with that and think it is utterly pointless and elitist. So, I’ve paraphrased some of it – not much – just the odd sentence, phrase and word for ease of reading. So, it does require careful reading – perhaps a few times and then some time to think about the statements.
These statements are all assumptions of course. He may think he KNOWS but whatever the quality of channeled material and unless he has died and come back to life no one can ever know with 100% accuracy. That said, in terms of quantum/hyperdimensional science it seems to fit very well. It won't be to everyone's taste I'm quite sure. But the ideas behind the verbiage are well worth pondering on in my view.
What he talks about has resonance from the ancient past up to the present day. Hopefully folks will find it useful in the context of recent discussions and how we perceive reality generally. Bold and italics are mine and are not present in the original.
Why You Don't Create Your Own Reality - an antidote to fatuous New Age paradigms
By Michael Topper
A paradigm that is currently running amok through the New Age community, and which is depriving them of their last bit of common sense, is better known as "You Create Your Own Reality" (short: YCYOR). This insidious half-truth is usually placed into a very misleading context and is never completely true.
Let us just look at some basic facts that we can derive if YCYOR would be completely true:
1.) Every war victim, or rape victim, etc. must have wanted to draw whatever misfortune upon itself, since that victim "created his own reality".
Common sense tells us here, that this is nonsense, and that not all war victims, etc. ever wanted to that war to happen them. For me, common sense simply wins, and cuts a long discussion short.
2.) We would live in a solipsistic * universe wherein we could do whatever we wanted without further consequences.
But pretty much obviously, we do not live in such a utopian universe, and no, even on higher densities, there is no such universe.
* the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist. Or, extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.
There is not one thing about ourselves and the environment that we perceive that comes from any idea of a self-creating “you.” Before self-reflection, you are spontaneously endowed and already manifested as a particular pattern of Being - in its totality. This happens without personal interference on your part. The patterns of perception and the modes by which you move and think take place without any conscious effort on our part, or at least without much notice. This amazing creative process is so easily accepted as an inherent expression of your being that you claim it as yourself without even observing that you do so. (i.e., these are "my" thoughts, "my" words, "my" perceptions, "my" ideas, "my" movements).
Wait, we hear the protests: perhaps I don't actually create the basic patterns of Being or the functions of existence, but I do seem to individualize them. I make them my own. I synthesize all these "given" features as personal contents from my unique angle, so that "my" expression of the common pattern is distinguishable from yours and so very intimately identifiable as me. In that sense I create my own reality out of the given materials, which really aren't anything in particular until I endow them with the unique expressive life that is "me".
This ordinary qualification is acceptable, as long as we notice that the vaunted "personalization" or "individualizing" of the general creative endowment of Being is also a function of that endowment, not something privately assumed. The creative pattern of Being, of which we are expression, individualizes. That is its attribute, not ours. It can only be considered innately "mine" insofar as "I" come after the fact, along with the perspectival endowment of individualization. In that sense, I am the process of individualization; but I don't create it.
"I" exist in reflective and receptive relation to that process which takes its point of departure from the total, given Pattern of Being. My "knowing" comes structured. It is a function of conscious self-awareness, but it uses a particular interpretive mode or syntax of cognition to that consciousness. It possesses an inbuilt grammar of structured variables.
In other words, all my instrumental processes, modes of action and so forth, are patterned terms of this "knowing". The overall function of my being with its sensory and motor, autonomic and conscious systems is that of knowing. In reality, there aren't a lot of different "systems", diverse organs and instrumental complexes, some for physiological processing and life-sustenance, some for acting and responding, some for perceiving and some for knowledge. There is only an overall system or multi-dimensional Pattern of differentiated currents, properties and phases serving the single common function of Knowing; for the whole pattern is an expression of consciousness.
[...]
For example, take the idea of a developer bent upon the "personal, positive affirmation of success." He takes it upon himself to reshape his reality according to his heart's desire by speculating on the huge increase of profits through “low rent” savings and to convert them into mega-buck bungalows for the "upwardly mobile," and anticipating the inflow of even more upwardly mobile folks into that particular district. He then, without hesitation, and as an expression of the faith and supreme confidence he has in his aim, evicts all the low-rent tenants on the spot (who, if we are to believe YCYOR must have wished such misery on themselves). A month later, he's mugged in a back alley by one of those he'd peremptorily displaced, and who'd therefore had no recourse to any but the life of the multiplying homeless.
In both "hypothetical" cases, was it the lingering doubt, the persistence of some conditioned hesitancy or especially in the latter case, a misguided atavism of "compassion", guilt or empathy which secretly served to undermine the perfect correspondence of desired effect, thereby producing an accurate reflection of the "negative" belief-structure?
No that just doesn't account for it. We can say for the sake of "hypothesis" that the given developer had no such remorse. But there's that word fatuous! What makes him fatuous? Evidently, not taking into account the obvious context! Remember, we said the potential viability of the term "fatuous" had to do with context! What makes the "you-create-your-own- reality" evangelist fatuous…is precisely the fact that all such "personal decreeing", "positive thinking" and confident imagining takes place in an inevitable context. There are implications! There are repercussions! No one "decrees" in a personal or private, solipsistic vacuum.
_________________________________
Topal
He also uses particularly obtuse and complex jargon as a way to put off those who are looking for a quick fix. I don't agree with that and think it is utterly pointless and elitist. So, I’ve paraphrased some of it – not much – just the odd sentence, phrase and word for ease of reading. So, it does require careful reading – perhaps a few times and then some time to think about the statements.
These statements are all assumptions of course. He may think he KNOWS but whatever the quality of channeled material and unless he has died and come back to life no one can ever know with 100% accuracy. That said, in terms of quantum/hyperdimensional science it seems to fit very well. It won't be to everyone's taste I'm quite sure. But the ideas behind the verbiage are well worth pondering on in my view.
What he talks about has resonance from the ancient past up to the present day. Hopefully folks will find it useful in the context of recent discussions and how we perceive reality generally. Bold and italics are mine and are not present in the original.
Why You Don't Create Your Own Reality - an antidote to fatuous New Age paradigms
By Michael Topper
A paradigm that is currently running amok through the New Age community, and which is depriving them of their last bit of common sense, is better known as "You Create Your Own Reality" (short: YCYOR). This insidious half-truth is usually placed into a very misleading context and is never completely true.
Let us just look at some basic facts that we can derive if YCYOR would be completely true:
1.) Every war victim, or rape victim, etc. must have wanted to draw whatever misfortune upon itself, since that victim "created his own reality".
Common sense tells us here, that this is nonsense, and that not all war victims, etc. ever wanted to that war to happen them. For me, common sense simply wins, and cuts a long discussion short.
2.) We would live in a solipsistic * universe wherein we could do whatever we wanted without further consequences.
But pretty much obviously, we do not live in such a utopian universe, and no, even on higher densities, there is no such universe.
* the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist. Or, extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.
Why You Don't "Create Your Own Reality"
There is not one thing about ourselves and the environment that we perceive that comes from any idea of a self-creating “you.” Before self-reflection, you are spontaneously endowed and already manifested as a particular pattern of Being - in its totality. This happens without personal interference on your part. The patterns of perception and the modes by which you move and think take place without any conscious effort on our part, or at least without much notice. This amazing creative process is so easily accepted as an inherent expression of your being that you claim it as yourself without even observing that you do so. (i.e., these are "my" thoughts, "my" words, "my" perceptions, "my" ideas, "my" movements).
Wait, we hear the protests: perhaps I don't actually create the basic patterns of Being or the functions of existence, but I do seem to individualize them. I make them my own. I synthesize all these "given" features as personal contents from my unique angle, so that "my" expression of the common pattern is distinguishable from yours and so very intimately identifiable as me. In that sense I create my own reality out of the given materials, which really aren't anything in particular until I endow them with the unique expressive life that is "me".
This ordinary qualification is acceptable, as long as we notice that the vaunted "personalization" or "individualizing" of the general creative endowment of Being is also a function of that endowment, not something privately assumed. The creative pattern of Being, of which we are expression, individualizes. That is its attribute, not ours. It can only be considered innately "mine" insofar as "I" come after the fact, along with the perspectival endowment of individualization. In that sense, I am the process of individualization; but I don't create it.
The Cloud Of One-Knowing
"I" exist in reflective and receptive relation to that process which takes its point of departure from the total, given Pattern of Being. My "knowing" comes structured. It is a function of conscious self-awareness, but it uses a particular interpretive mode or syntax of cognition to that consciousness. It possesses an inbuilt grammar of structured variables.
In other words, all my instrumental processes, modes of action and so forth, are patterned terms of this "knowing". The overall function of my being with its sensory and motor, autonomic and conscious systems is that of knowing. In reality, there aren't a lot of different "systems", diverse organs and instrumental complexes, some for physiological processing and life-sustenance, some for acting and responding, some for perceiving and some for knowledge. There is only an overall system or multi-dimensional Pattern of differentiated currents, properties and phases serving the single common function of Knowing; for the whole pattern is an expression of consciousness.
[...]
For example, take the idea of a developer bent upon the "personal, positive affirmation of success." He takes it upon himself to reshape his reality according to his heart's desire by speculating on the huge increase of profits through “low rent” savings and to convert them into mega-buck bungalows for the "upwardly mobile," and anticipating the inflow of even more upwardly mobile folks into that particular district. He then, without hesitation, and as an expression of the faith and supreme confidence he has in his aim, evicts all the low-rent tenants on the spot (who, if we are to believe YCYOR must have wished such misery on themselves). A month later, he's mugged in a back alley by one of those he'd peremptorily displaced, and who'd therefore had no recourse to any but the life of the multiplying homeless.
In both "hypothetical" cases, was it the lingering doubt, the persistence of some conditioned hesitancy or especially in the latter case, a misguided atavism of "compassion", guilt or empathy which secretly served to undermine the perfect correspondence of desired effect, thereby producing an accurate reflection of the "negative" belief-structure?
No that just doesn't account for it. We can say for the sake of "hypothesis" that the given developer had no such remorse. But there's that word fatuous! What makes him fatuous? Evidently, not taking into account the obvious context! Remember, we said the potential viability of the term "fatuous" had to do with context! What makes the "you-create-your-own- reality" evangelist fatuous…is precisely the fact that all such "personal decreeing", "positive thinking" and confident imagining takes place in an inevitable context. There are implications! There are repercussions! No one "decrees" in a personal or private, solipsistic vacuum.
_________________________________
Topal
Last edited:
