A Wanderer's Way

“A Wanderer’s way” is a collection of thoughts or concepts investigated by the author.
It is
shared with you, the reader, with the possibility of helping you along your path of learning.
With that said however, The title “A Wanderer’s way” suggests two things, the first being it was
written by or for “wanderer’s”. The second is that the text offers a “way” or path. With regards
to the first suggestion, both are only possibly correct. If we define a wanderer as an individual
who has ‘wandered’ into this realm and as such is searching for an understanding or meaning to
this realm, then it is possible the author may fit this category and it is possible the reader may
also. The reader may consider as appropriate. Such a title or label as ‘wanderer’ may be used as
there are those who this text is not for. This is not because the text is intended in any way to be
exclusive. It is a simple case that there are those who simply do not fit the category, that is, they
do not seek such knowledge, or perhaps refuse it in some way. Whatever the case or reasons it
is their choice and they may change such a choice in time. Perhaps ironically the text does
investigate why such individuals may not have the characteristics of seeking and how they may
develop or reclaim such characteristics. The second suggestion of a “way” is partially correct.
It is correct in the sense that the text is intended to be both sufficient to live by or work with, and
functional enough to be both practical mentally and physically. It is incorrect in the sense that it
is an incomplete way, or rather it is open ended. With application and analysis it may become
self evolving rather than a static system or way. These aspects are considered in greater detail in
the text.
Lastly some suggestions for reading. There are limitations to language and limitations or
inabilities on both the author’s and the reader’s part. Whilst care has been taken to try to ensure
an exactness to the writing so as to convey concepts as clearly as possible, there will perhaps
always be some loss or inaccuracies in the conveyance of concepts to the reader. As such it is
suggested that time be taken to attempt to understand concepts rather than skimming quickly
through the text. It is still possible with this in mind for the reader to obtain an overview or to
look at specific parts of the text by skipping through or selecting specific parts. However to gain
a fuller understanding of the text, a more detailed look will likely be required along with
applicable patience.
The text is not designed, nor could it be complete. The primary reason for this lies in change. It
would be closer to say it is a work in progress. What is intended for the reader is more akin to a
guidebook which the reader may use to test or as a stepping stone for their own investigations.
This is a lifelong process. It is suggested that in this way the reader develop their own
‘guidebook’, if not in text, at least in thought, which may utilize any parts of this text, none at all
with or without editing. This if done would be helpful to others, particularly in comparison to
others whom have done the same. On the other side it would be unhelpful to edit this text and
share it as newly developed by the self. Correction of the errors made by the author are
welcome, however in sharing, it is advised this text is shared as is complete as per the original
whilst any edited or self developed text or thoughts are shared separately. In other words correct
errors or make additions, but keep the original, regardless of any determined errors or lack, so
that any other individual may compare and study both the original and new for themself. This
also allows the observation of how one understanding in original form may lead to an improved,
clearer understanding in the future. It is the concept rather than the longevity of the text which
is of importance.
Wander forth, for all paths lead home in time.

CONTENTS
From Control to Freedom 5
Control 6
Pathways for control 8
Defined pathways
Examples of pathways 11
Methodology of control 17
Examples of control methods
Further considerations of control 28
Freedom 30
Pathways for freedom 32
Defined pathways
Progress towards freedom 36
I 37
I (Self) 38
Polarization 47
Steps 48
Aspects of I 54
Gazing into the pool 56
Dark side of I 61
Light side of I 63
Ebb and flow of lightness and darkness 64
Personalities
Progress 65
Formation of percepts
Generation of thoughts and emotions 68
Emotions and feelings 69
Aspects of being 73
The endless maze, the unperceived illusion
I and I 79
The self and other self 80
Percepts 81
Understanding 83
Identity 85
Interactions 86
Learning/teaching
Progress 88
Interactions with aspects of pathways for control 90
Immunity 92
Transferences 93
Negatively oriented interactions 96
Positively oriented interactions 98
Collective I 99
Societies 100
Progress 102
Unity 103
Momentum 104
The Collective 105
Cosmic I 107
Cosmos 108
Nature
Division
Change
Knowledge
Exploration 109
Mystery
Resonance
Duality
Learning
Time 110
Unity
FROM CONTROL TO FREEDOM
CONTROL
Control may be defined as basically anything which hinders, limits or constrains an entity or
many entities. It’s purpose is for consumption and for learning. Reasons for control however
may be anything one deems to be a reason, be they truthful or fictional. Two examples of
reasons are: ‘For entertainment’. Entertainment primarily serves as pleasure which provides
consumption. The form of which the entertainment takes is a matter of creation which is
learning. ‘For your own good’. This is a delusion in the sense that one cannot determine the
ultimate affect control will have on another. They may predict and they may perceive any
outcome as ‘good’ but since it is impossible to know where the entity to be controlled still
retains individual consciousness, it is a delusion. The reader may note this example and see
which pathways (see proceeding text) are active in terms of an individual controlling themself to
maintain such a delusion.
An entity out of balance or promoting/providing imbalance (by choice for example) will tend to
draw or pull others toward imbalance. Thus imbalance provides catalyst for further imbalance.
In the case of imbalance momentum may be greatly desired. As desire increases, imbalance
increases creating an exponential rate of constriction.
Both absence and excess may be used to control. One form of control may be used to establish
or enhance another form of control. Needs and desires be they illusory to any degree or not may
also be utilized for control. The possibilities are likely limitless, however a breakdown for
analysis may be helpful. This allows firstly the identification of control and possible control
both of the self of the self, of others to the self, of the self to others and of others to others.
Finally the concept of control may be seen to be a limited one, even if it contains some universal
validity. It is worth keeping in mind that for this reason, this text itself offers an avenue for
control – not intentional, but by the reader upon the reader or upon one reader to another.
To not be limiting is to be limitless, therefore any concept or groups of concepts or philosophy

in itself needs to remain open if it is to remain limitless. It may contain universal validity, but
even such, to be free from control and thus allow freedom, needs to be open to question,
consideration and contemplation at the least, otherwise it changes from limitless to finite - with
limit. In this way, the fear of being controlled or what may be interpreted as control, including
through an individual’s understanding of the concept/word may be an avenue for control,
primarily by the self over the self.
In terms of interactivity, control tends to fortify itself and to adapt or recreate itself where
necessary. How it does this is a matter of creativity and learning. In an individual for instance
control may tend to fortify itself first by denying identification. That is, an individual may deny
that they control themself. If identified, the control may attempt to convince the individual that
it is necessary for one reason or another or many. It is also this perception just exemplified of
control being either something external to the self or being an additional aspect of the self which
allows for certain rationalization as well as the demand that control itself must be controlled or
eliminated. This aspect or a similar aspect, depending on definitions and perceptions of the
concept has been called for one thing, the ego. What the reader wishes to name any such aspect
of themself is their choice, this text considers not the label nor the aspect itself, but the
characteristics, the purpose, the manufacture and the relinquishment of what is currently being
called control. As for the consideration of the mind and the origin of thoughts, this too is
analyzed in proceeding text.
When a form of control is identified and/or opposed or relinquished it may either change form to
attempt again to control an entity or if the pathway or form has become obsolete, a new pathway
will need to be developed. Reasons for a pathway of control becoming obsolete extend
primarily from the controlled individual(s) learning of the control and either opposing or
rejecting it as they choose. The reader may see at this point that both control in the form of
opposition for example can eliminate or disrupt another pathway for control by another entity.
However, it essentially only serves to replace or nest the control with a different or new control.
This is also an example of control changing form. As discussed in later text, control cannot be
controlled.
If an entity under control – with under being an optimal use of language in the sense it may
indicate an hierarchy of controller to the controlled – learns of the way in which they are being
controlled, their is potential for the control to lose its power and thus become redundant. The
control needs to either change form or be replaced. The options to do either of these are for the
controlled entity to make the change/replacement themself, for the controlled entity to be led or
influenced into making the change/replacement or for the change/replacement being fed or
forced to/onto the entity. This learning by both the controller and the controlled forms an
evolution. It is this expansion of knowledge which actually attempts to ultimately constrict
which facilitates change that may proceed at an exponential rate. It may be noted that the
methods used to control may be cyclical in that either alternating between methods or utilizing a
set pattern of methods may suffice.
It may also be noted that in order to maximize control effectiveness, a task of primary
importance to the controller is to inhibit and/or limit the cognitive ability of the one to be
controlled to the extent that prevents recognition of the control and thus opposition or
relinquishment, whilst maintaining sufficient cognitive ability for any necessary purposes of the
controller.
An example of maintaining sufficient cognitive ability of the individual to be controlled may be

when a task that is intended to be performed by the controlled individual is no longer able to be
performed due to a breakdown in mental or cognitive ability. Thus for the controller, the
situation requires further control so that the individual being controlled may have the ability, the
desire or other requirement in order that they perform the task or be controlled as originally
planned.
PATHWAYS FOR CONTROL:
Ultimately the number or ways to control another are limitless. If a control may be deemed
successful or even partially successful depends upon those to be controlled. Therein lies the
power of the individual for all pathways for control essentially begin and end with the self. The
pathways to control of another are threefold. This is because there may be seen to be 3 entities
interacting, although the third may be in potential. The three are the one wishing to control, the
one to be controlled and what we may call the ‘environment’ which may actually be the
environment, or another entity or entities. So with this in mind we may see the one intending to
control may work directly, indirectly through the environment or indirectly by effectively
leading the one to be controlled into controlling themself. Either way, remember the goal is for
the benefit of the one seeking to control.
Defined pathways:
1. Alteration of perception
This pathway of control is aimed at creating and/or distorting an entity’s view of
their perceived reality and/or perception of any given concept or topic.
[A] Adaptation
Control may take the form of having an entity adapt without question or
complacently accept their current state of being and/or future states of
being. The states are possibly more likely to be negative – that is the
conditions or state of the entity being controlled or their environment is
progressively getting worse – however they may also be positive. In this
latter case Illusion or falsity (false gifts) may also be active.
[B] Illusion
Illusions as a pathway for control can be seen to be more than alteration
of perception. But in terms of perception, there is the alteration of the
environment, alteration of another entity (including the one intending to
control) and there is the creation of a sub illusion (or sub reality, fictional
story etc) which may then alter the controlled entity’s perception of either
themself, their environment including others entities.
[C] Falsity
This pathway of control could have been grouped with illusion. It may be
seen to be illusion by inference – that is the illusion is essentially self
generated by the one being controlled.
[D] Difference
This pathway of control seems to take the form of a dividing line. A
difference or division is perceived and thus allows for any number of
distortions to be implemented or allowed to flourish. Ultimately this form
of control is through limitation.
2. Alteration of understanding
This pathway of control is aimed at distorting current knowledge/understanding
of the controlled entity, including the addition of distorted/incorrect/meaningless
knowledge for purposes of confusion or dilution, or subtraction of knowledge
which may aid the entity or be perceived to be a potential aid by the one
attempting to control.
[A] Direct
A direct alteration or distortion of a current understanding, including
removal/forgetting. This includes all forms of programming.
[B] Inversion
The intention with this pathway is to take the current knowledge and
convert it’s meaning to the opposite of what it was previously. Confusion
may be the intended outcome.
[C] Dilution
This pathway intends to ‘muddy the pool’ with information which may
contain elements of truth/helpfulness/usefulness but usually contains a
majority of the opposite elements. The more that is added, the more
diluted the pool of information becomes. The information may be that
which is being received by the entity, that which is being sent or that
which is stored (memory). “Disinformation” falls under this method as
well as “bombardment” or excess information inflow.
[D] Limitation
Any barrier set up to prevent or hinder expanding upon a current
understanding or as yet unknown/undiscovered piece of knowledge.
Limitation of awareness is included here as well as limitation of attention.
3. Alteration of the physical entity

Control in this form is aimed at altering or limiting in some way the physical
body. In particular the functioning of the physical body which directly
inhibits/alters the mind or the capability of the entity to utilize it’s mind.
[A] Physical needs/desires

These include such as food intake, exercise, intimacy but may also be
additional or become excessive or addictive. It also includes physical
aspects which may be accessory or not required for survival.
[B] Direct (Body complex)

This is straight alteration of the physical body.
[C] Direct (Body/mind complex)

This is alteration of any portion of the body which affects directly the
functioning of the mind of the entity.
4. Alteration of an entity’s environment
The environment may be seen to include the entity or entities attempting to
control if necessary. In this way the control of the entity to be controlled stems
from controlling that which is around the entity to be controlled. Thus all the
methods outlined for controlling an entity may be applied to the environment,
with some obvious exceptions depending on what the environment consists of.
[A] Time
This form of control is an option, however see alteration of perception of
time and alteration of the physical with respect to lifespan and
functionality.
[B] Space
Alteration of the physical space in which the entity dwells, resides or
visits.
[C] Physical/chemical environment.

Alteration of all other aspects of an entity’s environment if the
environment is being defined as that which does not have the
controllability of another entity or equivalent.
[D] Connection(s)
This involves the alteration or limitation of an entity’s connection or
dependence on any part of it’s environment, including other entities. It
also involves the creation of systemized ties/dependencies.
[X] Nested control (see advanced concepts for additional information)
5. Alteration of communication
Whilst perception is defined here as that which an entity interprets of it’s external
environment including other entities, communication is any available means to
transfer/receive information from the environment or other entities, excluding the
information received via perception.
[A] Direct
This pathway is aimed at altering how communication takes place,
eliminating or limiting it either one way or both ways (input and output)
[B] Medium
This may be alteration or limitation of language or the form of
communication.
All pathways are provisional in that all situations are unique, all understanding and truths may
be seen to be spectral rather than correct or incorrect or probable/possible. However, the
reader’s understanding of truth, understanding, correctness, distortion and the like may be used
for understanding the text. It may be interesting for the reader to note the control and freedom
of one’s mind is present even as one reads this book, just as it was when it was written. In
particular, the pathway of communication (book and words/ language) is already ‘in play’ as this
book is currently written/read.
Examples of pathways
Simple examples:
[A] Adaptation
An entity (person) is introduced to a new law which prevents them from
leaving their home after a particular time at night. The entity cannot do
certain activities previously done outside the home after the set time, but
adapts to the new situation by altering their schedule.
[B] Illusion
An entity reads a fictional novel or watches a fictional film. This is a sub-
illusion example. This in itself is only potential control, unless pathways
to control are utilized within the film or book or by reading the book or
watching the film another pathway is being utilized (such as the limitation
of time). Even if no pathways to control are active, the potential pathway
may still be the alteration of perception by the nature of a sub-illusion.
[C] Falsity
An entity dreams up another entity which instructs the dreaming entity
what to do or think.
[D] Difference
An entity perceives a difference in another entity which may be irrelevant,
but is not perceived as such.
[A] Direct
1. An entity is programmed with the understanding that it must serve,
replacing the previous, possibly less distorted understanding that serving
was optional.
2. An entity understands it’s thoughts to be beneficial to it’s being when
they may not be.
[B] Inversion
1. An entity perceives power in the hands of many is potentially
dangerous, therefore power in the hands of few is ideal is adopted as a
new understanding.
2. An entity receives information directly opposite to the currently held
understanding. The entity may accept the new understanding or be
confused.
[C] Dilution
An entity holds a given understanding, but is given several new
understandings on the same issue/topic/concept and thus is unsure if it
should discard the new, adopt the new, merge the new with the old,
discard all or other.
[D] Limitation
An entity understands that an offering shall only be made to those which
the entity perceives as deserving of such offering.
The entity is altered to require additional food intake for general being.
The height of the entity is altered.
The brain chemistry of the entity is altered via electromagnetic induction.

[A] Time
The entity’s environment increases in rate of change.
[B] Space
An entity is confined to a small room void of light.
Various chemicals are introduced to an entity’s immediate environment
[D] Connection(s)
All entities apart from the entity to be controlled are altered in form. The
entity to be controlled loses (a perceived) connection with the newly
formed entities.
[A] Direct
1. An entity adopts a new form of communication with greater limits than
the previously used one.
[B] Medium
2. The language used by an entity is morphed to the point where the
words/symbols/concepts are less understood collectively by all those
communicating.
Combination examples
1. 1.[D][B][C] Difference + Illusion/Falsity

An entity views a given situation as either being one way or another,
wrong or right when in actuality the situation is variable over time within
a set or unlimited spectrum.
2. 4.[C][D] Physical/chemical + Connections

An entity’s environment is damaged via chemicals which in turn creates
feelings of lack of connection or a (perceived) necessarily generated
connection to the environment by the entity.
3. 3. [A][B][C] Needs/desires + Body complex + Mind/body complex

An entity ingests a particular chemical on a regular basis which in turn
alters it’s brain chemistry, altering the capacity of the entity’s thought
which in turn alters the body complex of the entity.
Complex integrated examples
1. Overview:
An initial group of entities are programmed with an understanding of a perceived
problem which must be corrected for the well being of those with the perceived
problem. In this case the problem is ‘the risk of disease’. The ‘solution’
generated by the group involves altering the body complex of those deemed to be
at risk of the proclaimed disease. The group to be ‘treated’ in this case have
divided in two. Those that have accepted the understanding and hence accept the
treatment and those that reject the understanding of treatment but adopt an
inverted understanding of the necessity for correction by the initial group. This
third group rejects the proposed ‘solution’ then protests. The situation remains
open for further control.
Breakdown:
2. [A][D] Direct + Limitation, 1.[B] Illusion
The initial group is directly controlled as well as controlled by limitation with the
understanding of a perceived problem and the understanding that they must fix
such problem and by doing so they will be helping the other entities. The illusion
is the perceived problem which contains sub illusions or distorted understandings
of risk and disease. Note this may also be seen as a nested control in that the
distorted understandings of risk and disease are created first and then used
unknowingly within another pathway to control.
2. [A][D] Direct + Limitation, 1.[A] Adaptation, 3. [B] Body complex,
possibly 3.[C] also.
The newly formed group which accepts the treatment: Understandings from the
initial group are transferred to this group. This may be seen to be adaptation.
Limitation may be seen to be the understanding of the option presented is the
only option or only perceived viable option. This control may have been present
previously or adopted from the initial group. The treatment then alters the body
and possibly body/mind complex. This in itself may or may not be control,
depending on the alteration of course. An example would be if the treatment had
negligible or nil effect on the group. It is also possible in the scenario that the
treatment provided some benefit. Also note a dependency may have been created
in that the group to be treated now may depend upon the initial group for further
treatments.
(Breakdown continued)
2. [A][B][D] Direct + Inversion + Limitation, 1. [D] Difference

The newly formed group which rejected treatment: Some understandings from
the initial group may have been transferred whilst the understanding of the
necessity of treatment is inverted to become no treatment is necessary. This
inversion of the understanding may actually purify the understanding or it may
control in another way via limitation – that is, no help is required, it was the only
option, the first group can no longer be trusted, etc. The provisions to what
control is ultimately generated from the scenario depends also on other
understandings, perceptions and awareness of the entities involved. An example
of difference in perception as a control pathway in this scenario is the third group
defining the treatment as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Then with the protesting, the
distorted understanding is thrust upon others and the pathways to control
continue.
Additional:
Within this scenario control may be considered interlinked. The initial group
attempts to control another group, of which some are controlled more than others.
One group out of the divided group then attempts to control others (via
protesting).
Examples of possible resultant control:
4. [D] Connections, 1. [D] Difference

The groups may now perceive differences in each other which
may generate further control by altering understanding. For
example, the protesting group may see the initial group as
untrustworthy and the group who were treated as gullible or
foolish. Both the initial group and the treated group may see the
protesting group as ‘disturbances’ or ‘troublemakers’ or similar.
So there may be disruption or alteration to the connections
between the groups and/or there may be alteration to the perceived
differences of the groups.
4. [C] Physical/chemical
The treatment, be it applied to the treated group or not is a
possibility for further control of the chemical/physical
environment. An exception to this may be if the treatment has no
possibility of residue.
5. [A] Direct
The changes that may take place by the three groups may also
affect communication. An example being one group refusing or
limiting communication to another group – likely due to alteration
in connections and perceived differences.
2. Overview:
Entity >A< has an occupation within a building beside entity >B<, with a
separate occupation. Due to the type of occupation of entity >B<, entity >A<
suggests to entity >B< the installation of ‘security measures’. Entity >B< accepts
the suggestion of entity >A< and installs the ‘security measures’. The proposed
reason for the suggestion and subsequent installation of the ‘security measures’
was to prevent stealing or damage from/of the business of entity >B< by other
entities perceived as ‘criminals’. Entity >C< is one such being. Noticing the
security measures, entity >C< who has no occupation or business subsequently
decides to steal from the business of entity >A<. Aware that the newly installed
security measures in the building adjacent may help learn more about entity >C<,
entity >A< seeks help from entity >B<. Entity >B< refuses to help with the
notion that the security measures required considerable expenditure by entity
>B<, so since entity >A< did not have the burden of such expenditure, entity
>A< was not entitled to utilize the security measures in any way. Entity >A<
however could not previously afford such expenditure and now the incident with
entity >C< prevents affording such in the near future.
Breakdown:
1. [A][B][C][D] Adaptation + Illusion + Falsity + Difference, 2. [A][D]
Direct + Limitation,
4. [C] Physical/chemical environment.
In this scenario, since entity >A< only suggested the installation of the security
measures there is no real control of entity >B< by entity >A<. The control is
external to both entities and/or is generated/adopted by entity >B<. The
pathways may be seen as an adaptation to a perceived environment, a possible
illusion if the ‘criminals’ do not exist or are not present, falsity in that either
entity >A< or >B< may be generating such illusions, be they complete (no
‘criminals’ at all) or partial (less criminals than perceived). The difference
pathway may be seen to be an altered or distorted perception of the environment,
including other entities, such as >C<. The distorted understanding of ‘security
measures’, their requirement, their purpose and the change in the environment by
their installation are all examples of the an altered understanding. These are all
possible control pathways. One way in which the limitation pathway may be
seen here is in the concept of preventing theft by controlling the environment
and/or by such measures being the only viable solution to the perceived problem.
1. [A][B][C][D] Adaptation + Illusion + Falsity + Difference, 2. [A][D]
Direct + Limitation,
4. [C][D] Physical/chemical environment + Connections
The interactions between entity >A< and entity >C< serve to evolve or reinforce
the perceptions and understandings of entity >A<. This control is not direct from
>C< to >A<, but may be seen to be mostly a by-product of the interaction of the
two entities. In this case there is also the likelihood of an alteration to the
connections between the two entities, thus giving opportunity for further control.
An example being entity >A< feeling hatred towards entity >C<.
2. [A][D] Direct + Limitation
Entity >B< utilizes a distorted and limiting understanding to effectively control
entity >A< by denying entity >A< any help. Entity >B< justifies the control by
use of the limiting concept (you did not do a therefore you cannot have b).
Additional:
The reader may note from this scenario that control may not always be direct or
intended by the participants, although the pathways or possible pathways may
still be present.
Possible additional pathways include alteration of connections between all

entities, alteration of communication, the alteration of the environment and
perceptions of either the environment or other entities.
Advanced Concepts of control:

Nested control:
A pathway within a pathway. A simple example using the illusion pathway would be an
illusion within an illusion. Any pathways may be combined and the level of nesting is
essentially limitless.
Sequential control:
Utilizing one pathway or simply a suitable event for creation or accretion of another
pathway. This in turn may be used for another ad infinitum.
Hierarchical control:
Utilizing any pathway or form of control on others which in turn control others in an
hierarchical structure, ad infinitum.
Interdependent control:
A situation where one entity is dependent on another or any number of entities, either
real or perceived/illusory, which may be controlled and/or allow for further/greater
control.
Compounding control:
Similar to sequential control, however the pathways used do not have to be in sequence
or with the same entity. A simple example of compounding control is control which is
automatically passed from a parent to their children.
All of these concepts may be combined.

METHODOLOGY OF CONTROL
Ultimately the methods used to control are unlimited. Essentially any method must be pre-
thought in linear time and as such, creativity - being a fundamental aspect of thought - allows
any method to be used, as well as those methods to adapt, evolve and combine with other
methods. There is also the study of the individual(s) to be controlled to establish which
pathways or how the individual(s) may accept/reject an attempt to control and proceeding
(re)actions. Thus attempting to control is essentially a learning process, just as is the seeking to
escape/avoid control. This alone is indicative of the ‘importance’ of control/freedom with
respect to progress of an entity. It is also integral to teach/learning or helping.
With this in mind examples of possible and observed methods of control utilizing the previously
defined pathways are shown below.
Examples of control methods

Simple examples:
1. Aim: Create a sense or feeling of self doubt in an entity.

Chosen method: 1. Utilize or create a perceived difference in the physical
appearance of the entity to other entities. 2. Reinforce or amplify
the perception via alteration/distortion/limitation of the
understanding of the entity. This activity takes place by generator
feedback which alters the perception. (Concepts detailed further in
proceeding chapter)
3. Create or add the physical desire for the entity to alter it’s
physical appearance.
Pathways used: 1.Perception, Difference
1.Environment, Nested control – either alteration or use of
existing differences in physical body. Alteration
could be the use of cosmetics for example.
2.Understanding, Direct
3.Physical, Desire
2. Aim: To create or amplify ‘warlike’ thought forms in an entity.

Chosen method: 1. Create or use an existing sub-illusion which involves the entity
having a goal of generating peace by destroying an enemy. The
concept of peace being obtainable by violence is programmed,
likely by bypassing the entity’s perception of such.
2. Amplify by repeating, via levels, and alternative sub-illusions
utilizing same goal/concept.
3. Apply the same situation or opportunity for such a situation in
the external environment.
4. Utilize chemical additives which the entity may ingest or come
in contact with which promote violent tendencies.
Pathways used: 1. Perception, Illusion
1. Perception, Inversion
1. Understanding, Direct
2. Understanding, Dilution – excess specifically
3. Environment, Nested control – A situation is either
present or previously generated which holds the opportunity for
further programming.
4. Environment, Chemical
4. Physical, Direct – body/mind complex
3. Aim: Create an emotional tie to a particular topic for future

manipulation
Chosen method 1. Create interlinked distorted understandings. In this case the
entity believes that another entity supporting a particular
viewpoint is barbaric or at least incorrect in their thinking, which
must be corrected.
Pathways used: 1. Understanding, Direct (interlinked)
Combining methods and pathways by integrated example with simultaneous analysis:
All Entities have a designation by a letter. Example “>A<” is an entity (person in this case).
Pathways and methods are in square brackets [ ]
Notes and analysis are in italics
>A< is a middle aged man who lives with his family; >B< his wife and >C< his young boy. >A<
defines himself and other perceive him as what they term ‘religious’. >B< has a passion for
nature and does not see herself as religious in anyway and nor do others. >C< is young and
learning, he has not chosen any particular path but he is rebellious to both parents.
It is early morning.
“Finish your breakfast” commands >A< to his son >C<.
In this simple statement lies multiple elements of control and possible alteration of personalities.
It may be seen that the statement is an order which in itself is an intention to control, although
not necessarily directly for in this case refusal by >C< to comply may not elicit any change in
>A< or action taken by >A< .But in this scenario which of course is unique to these individuals
for the purpose of example, we have the following: [Alteration of perception [A] and [D] – by
>C<. Alteration of an entity’s environment – (>A< being the environment with respect to >C<)
[D]. Alteration of communication [A] and [B]. The alteration in the environment of >C< may or
may not have taken place. If it is the first time such a thing was said to >C< or the way in
which it was said or any additional body language for example, there is alteration. If it or
similar has happened before but perhaps only once or twice, there is a compounding affect.
Note also adaptation to the perception of the situation may take place. In the mind of >C<, here
are some possibilities: 1. The command is not perceived but is accepted – i.e. >C< does as
ordered. 2. The command is accepted, but adaptation has either not taken place or is rejected.
3. The command is rejected, an adaptation may or may not take place at this time.
The triad outlined in the proceeding chapter may be recalled here: 1. Perception, 2. Awareness
and 3.Generator (thought).
In the case of >A<, he has the perception of NOT being an authority over >C<, by the
generation of reason which tells him he must discipline his child and that such discipline is not
authority, but a form of love by his definition for his child. His awareness is that >C< may
dislike being told what to do, but his reasoning negates that and any ill effects are perceived to
be non-existent or negligible.
So control is not intended by >A< but is present without his awareness of it’s presence. It might
be seen to be working through him. Basically the pathways for such control to take place are
the perception of >A< towards >C<, his understanding, including his reasoning and the use of
language, including any body language, including tone of voice for example.
>C< has heard similar commands previously, not for his breakfast, but for other things such as
washing his hands before eating. He is also aware of the language used – it is not a question or a
suggestion, but a direct command to do something. Though he does not actively think of it, his
underlying understanding is that father or not, he has no right to order him what to do.
He is also aware or perceives the possibility of his father getting angry if he shows via body
language or verbally any refusal.
So for now he accepts the command, but there is change within his mind, even though there is in
this instance, none or negligible change in the mind of >A<.
The communication or transfer of information if you like first passes through the filter of
perception. It is then added to awareness and the generator. In the case of >C< in this
scenario, he perceives the statement and the act of making the statement as a command as
something which is against him, which is brought about by his understanding of the
situation/event. Additionally his perception is changing with each time a similar event occurs –
that is the command from his father – in his case it is moving towards further rejection of the
command. Recall that control cannot be removed or eliminated by control. Alongside the
alteration in his perception, the understanding of >C< is being cemented or amplified if you
like, largely due to the fact it is not being challenged by his conscious mind – that is most of the
output of the generator is from the unconscious portion of the mind in this case.
Now at the same time >C< carries a latent fear of possible anger from >A<. This is a control
that is already in place. >A< has used it previously in the life of >C< to control >C< - that is
to have him to do what >A< wanted him to do. ( There is more, which will be evident later in the
scenario) So there are two pathways for control which are crossing. The crossing of pathways
affords the possibility of both pathways being diminished or one pathway being diminished or
negated. In the case of >C<, the previous pathway of fear is being diminished. The pathway of
accepting the command is essentially being rejected – (note not necessarily in action, but in
thought) a key here is the rejection is in effect self control. So in reality control is still taking
form, but not by any of the ways one might see on the surface of things.
At this point the reader may have observed the seeming over complexity of a simple activity – 3
words spoken – to the amount of change and depth of interaction that is taking place underneath
the physical reality of the event. Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not if one gives a little thought to
such situations in their own reality, thus seeing less complexity with the repetition of observation
and analysis. In another light, perhaps it shows the depth to the colors of our reality. With
seeing such depth, the portrait of our reality might be seen to be ever more wondrous.
The next interaction of consideration occurs between >C< and >B< (his mother). >B<, having a
passion for “all things green” attempts to eat healthily as she understands such, which in this
case involves her breakfast containing a large quantity of plant based foods mixed into a drink.
Seeing >B< prepare her breakfast, although he has seen it before, >C< asks rhetorically: “What
do you drink that stuff for?”
In this scenario, it was not a simple question nor one without any intention behind it (aside from
regular curiosity and learning that is). The rhetoric is in the intention – that is there is an
underlying intention to sway – control – by inference. Inference is listed as an advanced
pathway to control (see previously in the text). The question, including in this case the way it is
said, is inferring that ‘drinking “that stuff”’ is unacceptable or unusual or a similar word with
the same prefix. This inference is derived from a common understanding of the tonal variations
on the words used in speech.
Begin with perceptions. Firstly both >C< and >B< have adapted to this form of communication
and have adopted the same understanding of the form of the communication. However, >B<
perceives it as hurtful to her in this case and when used on others as a possible attack on them.
>C< is aware of the concept of it being an avenue for attack on others, but in this case at least,
he does not perceive it as being as such and nor does he perceive the hurt felt by his mother.
In this case there is no direct intentions from either >B< or >C<, so >B< simply returns the
answer of “Because it’s healthy”.
Further Analysis: In the scenario thus far >C< played a part in two situations where pathways
for control were evident. The reader may observe the possibility of sequential control being
present, though not likely utilized directly. This takes the form of a temporary emotional change
in >C<, through interactions with >A<, which may (help) generate the pathways present in the
interactions with >B<.
Following >A<, it is later in the day when >A< is at work. >A< works at a company which
employs approximately 30 people, of which >D< is one. In the morning, >A< observes >D<
treating another employee unkindly. In the afternoon, >D< requests help for a work task from
>A<. Based on the earlier incident, >A< refuses to help, but does not offer any reason nor any
sign to >D< as to why he has refused.
Here, >A< is utilizing an awareness of the incident with >D< to effectively control >D<. It is
not the refusal in itself, but rather the reasons based on understandings stemming from
awareness and perception which create the pathways. The following pathways may be seen to be
active: 2[B], 2[D], 4[D], 5[A]. It is suggested to the reader to pause reading momentarily to
evaluate the situation for themself, considering the pathways listed to conclude how the situation
is one in which control is present. Once this is done by the reader if chosen to do so, an analysis
is in the next paragraph.
The pathways previously listed were 2[B], 2[D], 4[D], 5[A]. First, limitation of understanding
is present in multiple forms. 1. There is a lack of awareness, thus a lack of understanding from
>A< regarding >D<. This may be the interactions/connections between >D< and the employee
>D< was unkind to, it may also be a more complete picture on the nature/behavior of >D<.
The unkindness may have been a rare occurrence for >D< for example. 2. >A< is limiting
awareness and thus understanding of >D< by intentionally with-holding knowledge of why he is
refusing to help. This is related to pathways 4[D] and 5[A]. 3. Limitation is present in the
concept by which >A< is refusing help. In this case it is also inverted 2[B] from the
understanding of >D<. The understanding is that a ‘wrong’ deed must be punished –with a
‘wrong’ deed considered ‘right’(a limited understanding in itself) is inverted to the absence of a
good deed when required is met later with the absence of a good deed received. Sequential
control as one of the advanced concepts may be seen here also. The reader may fill in any
pathways not considered.
At the same time, back at the family’s home >B< has some experiences which are worth
considering. In her home she reads a newspaper which advertises a “charity event”. This event
involves those taking part to purchase a wearable token, with the money from the purchase
advertised as going towards research for a ‘cure’ for a ‘disease’. >B< decides she will take part.
Since there are numerous pathways, some possibly quite obvious to the reader at this point, only
a few have been selected for consideration. In particular, there is the absence of knowledge
pertaining to what actually happens to the money which is received from the charity event. In
this scenario, part of the money is being used for research, however it will be research which
will be used to develop new pharmaceutical drugs to suppress symptoms of those with the
‘disease’. Any new drugs which are developed in this case will likely incur a considerable fee to
those with the disease as well as multiple side affects. Aside from the lack of awareness of the
activities and intentions of those running the charity and the pharmaceutical and research
connections (and control) >B< has developed first a distorted concept that she is helping, of
which there may be seen to be minimal, whilst in reality she has helped to increase the control of
others indirectly. Pathways in use include 1[A], 1[B], 2[A], 2[B], 2[D], 3[B], 3[C], 4[C].
One more event in the day of >C< is the task of going to school.
It is not the concept of learning itself that acts as a pathway for control, but the structure and
content primarily that opens pathways.
Alteration of the perception and understanding, including all eight pathways listed are the most
recognizable ways control may take form. Since the school itself – or more accurately those
running the school have no awareness of such pathways and/or have such an understanding that
acknowledgement would be denied, control is not from the school itself, but acts through the
school.
The reader may consider other possible pathways the schooling offers or examine in detail the
ways in which the perceptions and understandings are altered in the school, as well as the
perceptions, understanding and awareness the teachers and those running the school must have
in order for the pathways to be active. It may be worthwhile to explore what a school actually is
as well as it’s set-up as to the nature of the pathways which result.
With the analysis of all the preceding examples, the idea is not to get ‘bogged down’ or
absorbed with the details and complexity. What the analysis provides and allows is a mapping
out of the way in which control and self servitude is facilitated firstly by the self, secondly
between individuals in small, local groups and thirdly on the larger scale between groups of
societies and a civilization. The mapping out of the details allows for a greater understanding
and awareness of the reality when analysis of such details has ceased and the ‘larger picture’ is
again being focused on.
Later, >A< returns home where he communicates the event previously mentioned of not helping
>D< to his wife >B<.
Here >A< in communicating the event provides also a particular bias to the event. This is done
by a choice selection of portions of the story to tell as well as particular words which determine
the concepts used by >B< in interpreting the event. Perhaps a particular slant was used to
portray >D< in the story. Perhaps an aspect of the story was missing – such as the seeming
unkindness of >A< refusing to help >D< as may be perceived by >D<. In this case the
perceptive qualities, the possible additions, alterations, exaggerations or omissions to/of/from
are largely unnoticed by >A< and/or those that are, are ‘justified’ within his mind via the
understandings he holds. So aside from actually occurred between >A< and >D<, there is the
semiotic aspect of the communication which has in inherent connection to the actual
concept(s)/understanding conveyed to >B<. In other words the communication contains a
transfer of understanding or concept which may be formed (in part), added to or colored by the
words chosen (concepts in themselves), the mannerisms used by >A< (such as an intonation or
emphasis) as well as (less readily considered) the omissions. For the most part all of this is not
considered consciously by >A<. The communication takes place – perhaps it is seen as a
‘venting’ of inner turmoil, perhaps it is merely communicating the days events to make
conversation. Regardless, it is the underlying percept(s) and understanding(s) which are passed
to >B<. At this point it depends upon >B< as to what degree those percept(s) and
understanding(s) are adopted if they are at all. Most importantly to note here is that the current
understandings, awareness and percepts of >B< will determine what will occur next. There is
possibility for protection from adoption of any distorted percepts or understandings, there is
possibility of unknowingly adopting the same or similar percepts or understandings as >A<.
In terms of control there is no intentional control by any of the individuals in this example
between >A< and >B<. What may be seen is a programming or transfer of necessary percepts
and understandings which open pathways for control to work through both individuals.
Essentially it is the inability or the choosing not to perceive the ways in which the programming
or control is facilitated which allows the programming to take place or the pathways to be
opened.
Example of method of controlling a civilization or empire:
First, begin with an individual or pair of individuals. Create a purpose for control – seeing
others as less than themselves or as a false service of helping them by creating an artificial
utopia in this case. To do this, distort both understanding and perceptions of those to be
controlled and of themselves, including minimizing or blocking positive emotional generation.
Next, via these new rulers, program others with the same control pathways, however, to keep
those above them in an hierarchy, do so without them being aware of the programming, nor of
their controllers. The purpose and/or the illusory goal which invites the control needs to be self
propagating.
To create a utopia and control all, control of the area is required. In this case the land area of an
entire planet. The guise of progress (towards utopia) and the need to defend against other
groups of entities of the same species is used in this case. The rulers have no need to rule the
groups. Instead they rule behind the groups, without the groups having any awareness of them.
The secrecy facilitates pathways for control. At this point, the initial rulers may be more than a
few or may have a secondary level of entities who are both controlled but more importantly
controllers. Efficiency is required in the controlling network – if it cannot be maintained with
secrecy, requiring as few as possible, a new level of hierarchy needs to be created. These rulers
whom consist of as few levels of power as possible then influence the groups. The goal of these
groups is to control the area of the planet and vie for control of such. The more, the more
control by the rulers.
Next, the challenge is the populous. The goal is to have them defend their land, thus making the
land owned by the groups rather than being free for all. This in itself is a purpose for individuals
to unite with a group to help defend ‘their’ land. At this stage the concept of defending their
land is enough for defense and enough to begin building infrastructure which individuals and
sub-groups may be controlled into doing. This is also progress as understood by all those
controlled. At the same time as this, an interdependency within each group is set up by some
form of monetary system. This allows for individuals to be free from basic tasks for self
preservation such as food gathering and construction of shelter for example.
This may also be programmed as ‘progress’ toward a utopia. The monetary system also allows
for nested hierarchies to be set up based on the quantity of money and perceived or illusory
value of the tasks and items which gain money for an individual. Other factors determining the
positions for hierarchy may be perceptions of the body complex and education. These may be
dependent on money also.
The next step is to facilitate trading of resources using the monetary system between the groups.
This may also be done under the guise of progress. Meanwhile, the groups must still protect
their land from the other groups. It is both the progress and the protection from another group
which will continuously build greater infrastructure. “Protection” of course, may be more
effective in perceptions of ‘fear of attack’. All of this infrastructure creates an imbalance
between the group and their environment and eventually all the groups and their collective
environment. This is a pathway for future control. For now though, the infrastructure as well as
the societal interdependencies of the individuals is built up.
At this stage a basic system of control is in place due to a monetary system which builds
interdependencies, growth and utilization of power (exerted primarily through money). By this
stage, it is more controlling for the rulers if all land within a given group is owned by individuals
and the rulers of the group, or offering greater control, if all land is owned by the rulers of the
group only. With sufficient interdependencies and control over basic resources including land,
the system becomes self propagating.
The final step is to introduce a common enemy to all the groups so that they will unite under one
leadership, at which point the original rulers, or those directly under them may be revealed to the
populous. One choice for the common enemy could be the environment, since the requirements
for resources and land area would likely have disrupted the environment’s balance. Again, it is a
situation of imbalance, brought about from control which will be stabilized, albeit temporarily,
via greater control.
Example of methods and pathways of controlling a planetary civilization by integrated
example with simultaneous analysis:
1. Create the perception/illusion of the need to control. This involves the concept of one
ruling over another, for their protection, for their well being, to prevent conflict, to direct
the collective pathway. Utilize the parent/children relationship and the mankind/nature
relationship as methods for convincing – a ‘natural’ (perceived) hierarchy.
If outright ruling is not accepted, then partial ruling. Let the people have a say or play
their part in the decisions. Gradually reduce the part they play if allowed and/or
introduce the illusion that they are playing their part/having their say. Create ‘false
hands or voices’, create individuals or groups which speak for the people. Create two or
more opposing sides which whilst opposing each other or at least appearing to do so,
promote or continue the planned agenda.
The conceptual understanding once held allows the percept to remain. Protection for
example may be extended to the acceptability of removing the freedom of another
individual in order to (seemingly) maintain said protection. The concept of freedom,
with the addition of security and protection (both distorted) is inverted to actually
produce control. The individual(s) of course believe they are somehow working towards
freedom. If it is their concept of freedom then indeed they are – their concept having a
basis in control. All of the pathways via understanding are utilized, perhaps with the
exception of dilution, which then allows all the pathways via perception. It may be noted
that the pathways active via alteration of perception consequentially allow for further
alteration or distortion of understanding. The use of power, the illusion of power,
opposition, progress and the like are all straight forward ways in which to control or
build control. In a society, those that have the least awareness and knowledge and whom
are the most easily altered/changed to the controller’s will are the first to be recruited so
that numbers may be utilized as (apparent) power.
2. Keep the population pre-occupied. Create the perception that a) all is well b) even if it is
not others are taking care of it c) the population are not qualified/intelligent enough,
informed enough to help or change anything. Work and recreational activities to
consume as much time as possible. These are also encouraged, in particular
entertainment, pleasure/leisure. When a), b) and c) fail or change due to the
environment altering perceptions of the population – i.e. they begin to perceive things as
progressively getting worse, create new perceptions thusly: d) all is unfixable, or all is
lost. e) even if it is others are taking care of it or nothing I the individual can do f)
things may be corrected but none, or none in power at least are intelligent or
knowledgeable enough to turn things around. The resultant (promoted) activities will be:
a) apathy b) protestation c) rebellion d) demand.
Focus of attention. The percept (Illusion/delusion) that all is (relatively) ok, all that can
be done is being done (by others primarily), the daily news informs of all that is of
importance. The percept coupled with the patterns of content of thought are the primary
ways in which control is facilitated here. An individual does not perceive the calling for
any change – primarily internally starting with thought. With this in place others who
‘make decisions’ may implement further measures to control, additionally attempts to
‘help’ or ‘improve’ things may be ensure - for the greater picture at least - to maintain
the status quo.
3. Work will become due to interdependence primarily. To survive, including to live
anywhere will require ownership of land and the purchasing of products to build shelter,
plant food etc – at the very minimal. All of these require money, in particular a
considerable amount for land which is owned by those that govern, even if it is
‘wilderness’. Primary producers, that is those that either provide food or shelter for the
people will become less of a portion of the population as other superficial needs are
created within society as it gains complexity. These include insurance and law firms,
taxation and bureaucratic firms, communication companies, entertainment and sports and
many more. These aside from their perceived purposes have an additional purpose in
their being, that is to reduce the portion of population that serves in the primary needs of
the population, which creates a greater interdependency within the population.
The primary occupations for the people are:

Food production (and distribution)
Shelter creation
Education (teaching of primary information)
Healing
Note these only include the primary aspect of each for example:
-Food production is only those that actually grow the foods (and collect/catch for fish for
example) and secondary to those are those that actually give the food to others if required
– i.e. for those that perform another task and do not grow their own or those incapable of
growing/getting their own (old, children for example)
-Shelter creation is only those that provide structural shelter not beyond requirements for
acceptable survival. Additional materials or excessive structures are all accessory and
are thus not primary and not included here.
-Education (Teachers) are only those that offer teaching to those subjects of true value to
the individual. Preaching or indoctrination is not included here. Subjects of true value
begin with philosophy, well being, food, awareness, survival/health, moving to
mathematics, sciences with lesser value. It is the subjects of true value which need be
first priority and upheld with any other subjects being built upon the foundation of the
primary ones.
-Healing is actually an auxiliary occupation. If the first 3 occupations are all to a
standard high enough, healing will take place by the individual, at least the majority of
the time. The other times a healer may be required. Their education and resources will
all be available to any individual at any time however. Instead of an individual who is
seen when one feels one needs help, the healer may be an individual who observes others
(including through communication) and where imbalance is to be seen offers help. This
is a different approach then the repair (band-aid) approach. The pathway for control in
such methodology is if the healer becomes ‘police-like’.
It is the interdependency and the hierarchy (‘advanced’ concepts of control) which

ensure slavery of an individual. Only by returning to independence and as much as
possible a removal or non-participation with the societal structure may an individual
relinquish this control. However, even if this is done, with respect to the planet the
structured society still influences (and potentially controls) the individual(s) by
affecting/altering the environment, including any individuals who maintain
contact/communication with those who have segregated themselves.
4. Awareness will be satisfied by news. This will be controlled and filtered as much as
possible whilst still retaining the illusion that it is both relatively or satisfactorily
complete in content as well as factual/accurate. Danger and disaster, the negatives will be
highlighted. Followed by sport and entertainment which will become the news also.
Weather will also perform the task for the individual so that they no longer need to
observe for themselves that either. Utilize technology to bring the news, maximize
exposure and promote the need/requirement (illusory) that the people must watch/read
the news.
Illusion/delusion. Fabrication of percepts. Regulation of thought patterns. Promotion of

apathy, conformity, normalcy, docility. Limitation of thought capacity.
5. Have justice, a term understood in itself by the people as the mechanism which is
demanded by the people to enhance control over the population. It will also be used as
revenge, with some help from warlike characteristics which are also promoted by
entertainment.
Utilization of a distorted concept of freedom/control with a fabricated necessity for

punishment/revenge. All of these concepts may be derived from a distorted
concept/understanding of division and perception of the same. Thus the control or
attempt to control is “justified” with an ignorance or choice not to seek an alternative
conceptual understanding or learning from each situation.
6. Social conditioning will come largely from mass communication – that is largely from
television shows. These will then flow into public activity which will in turn generate
further social trends along the same paths. The “norm” and socially acceptable behavior
will serve as methods of control.
Norms, etiquettes, codes and requirements, including those that are openly stated, those
known yet not usually spoken of and those unconscious will serve aside from providing a
degree of helpfulness in terms of peacefulness within the society will also serve as means
to control, leading to segregation, isolation, class creation, hierarchy and division.
Physical means, communication and perception are primarily used here. By physical, an
example of a difference in physical appearance or a physical characteristic may be used.
Whilst the difference may be physical however, it is still the perception of that difference
which begins the process. Communication as one example would be individuals choosing
to communicate in a particular manner to those they deem to be of ‘their class’.
7. Progress for increasing control is done at a pace which is accepted by the population. In
gradual stages control is ‘ramped up’ primarily to evade the awareness of the majority.
The two main requirements to ensure adoption of any new measure to control are a
sufficient level of receptibility by preceding measures of control having been
implemented and lack of memory of past events and experiences. Most effective to
diminish memory is perhaps using the tide of time with generations of the population. A
new generation if it has not been taught or shown the happenings of the previous
generation(s) and in addition if repositories of knowledge of the past are lost, inaccurate
or distorted is more easily imprinted with the latest measures to control, the guise of
progress being considerably effective. The limitation of perception and thus awareness is
the primary pathway to control here. The perception has adapted – this may be
unknowingly/ unconsciously for an individual, especially if there is nothing to compare
to previously – no memory or knowledge of previous states. In addition the environment
has changed which may lead to further changes in the individual, such as further
alteration to percepts. The concepts of sequential and compounding control are also
present here.
8. The hierarchical structure provides imbalance. Those towards the top take or demand
more from those below them. The resources used to provide for others is taken from the
environment. Thus the pyramid/hierarchy is imbalanced with respect to the
environment. This is another area in which control may be ‘justified’. At the point
where the imbalance begins impeding directly on the individuals in the society to a
degree which concerns the individuals, the level of control may be increased to degrees
which would previously have been unacceptable.
Here, control may be utilized further to dominate the population. The level of control at
this point may be sufficient to have the population begin either determining more directly
their own fate or the fate of others, within the select choices of those governing. In
others words to restore some degree of balance, actual or illusory, the population or
individuals within the population may be forced or convinced to make (further) sacrifices
including at the extreme end of their life.
All the ways in which control has been facilitated has led to this level of control.
9. With the instinct for survival, the percept and understanding of division/separation and
additional programmed/adopted percepts and understandings of blame, punishment,
revenge, justice, right, wrong, good, evil, fairness, equality, peace and morality – to
name perhaps current main concepts – the population will, provided a basic level of
awareness may be reached and maintained, most likely rebel against the situation.
The final illusion is that the civilization could never and was never intended to do as
what was thought by the population, including those that governed thought and even
expected it to do. The civilization was created to teach the population, including those
that governed through the implementation of control to the individual and the collective,
the ways in which they may minimize or relinquish control – by either ascending the
ranks of the controllers or learning true freedom.
FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS OF CONTROL
Dependence as an aspect of control may also use time for the generation of dependence or at
least perceived dependence, including by inference. An example is using the future to determine
a course of thought or being. There are of course situations where control is not present, the
situation logically calls for particular action. An example is working with extraordinary vigor in
order to re-establish a food supply due to unforeseen circumstances disrupting supply, such as
alternate weather conditions. There is not likely control in the previous situation based on the
information given. In another situation however, individuals may have been programmed in that
they work with extraordinary effort or perform activities which would normally not have been
performed, based on the programmed understanding that these activities and excesses are
required of them. The programmed understanding in this case is that the individuals involved
must or are required to work how they do for the future. Note it is not the activities or excesses
in themselves. It is possible that these may well be justified if the circumstances do indeed call
for it and that is the option consciously and freely chosen by all involved. It is the programmed
concept which utilizes future time and dependency (even if only perceived) as a pathway for
control.
Similarly, via the use of perception, the very concept of control may be justified by the self
serving entity. This perception is then transferred to another – normally by convincing. The
reader may note the same word root – convince and control. A simple example of this is another
entity who has done something which has hurt another or caused damage/destruction. The
perception of this entity arises from the facts of the matter – the hurt (which includes perceptions
and subjectivity) or damage – which then either forms or reinforces the understanding for the
necessity for control. This of course is an incomplete/distorted understanding which paves the
way for imbalance. If what has been stated proceeds as is, the distorted understanding may only
lead to greater and greater means to control, furthering imbalance and if applicable, collapse.
The role of perceptions will be considered in depth in a following chapter, along with social
dynamics of imbalance/balance. An understanding of control would be incomplete without an
understanding of freedom, so that is the discussion to follow.
The occupation of time is a possible means to control. This runs alongside the attention or focus
of an individual. It is quite possible (in linear time) to occupy an individual’s attention/focus on
any one thing, creating essentially limitation in that the individual does not look up to see other
happenings. Essentially this is limitation of awareness (awareness discussed later) although the
pathways of perception and understanding may be used to map any active control. The
occupation of an individual’s focus works with keeping an individual busy (occupying their
time) on tasks which do anything but allow them to make progress which would help them or
hinder the controller. Likewise, repeating patterns may do the same thing with a number of
‘things’ which occupy an individual’s attention. It may be noted that all experience may be
learnt from, so the absence of meaningful progress or the occupation of an individual’s focus
does not necessarily mean an individual may not see the situation or patterns in retrospect. The
patterns, being cyclical themselves would tend to work within a cycle. For example an
individual spends the majority of their time focused on thought and activity which is related to
several things. There may be some variation, however in this example, each day (cycle) focus is
maintained upon things related to those several things. Over a larger cycle (years for example)
those several things may be replaced with a new set of ‘several things’.
Association, which is largely perceptive, is another pathway to control worthy of consideration.

This example, which is basically the acceptance, consideration, or determination of one thing
based on another, utilizes perception and understanding. The pathways listed are still
applicable, the example shows how expansive perception and understanding are in an individual
with respect to attempts to control. Perception and understanding will be considered later in the
text. The point here is there is much more than the basic words listed in the pathways to control.
It is a matter for the reader to consider and observe carefully, remaining as open as possible to
any number of ways, rather than trying to fit what has been listed onto a given situation.
Basic ways to control, if considered sufficiently may be seen to originate from pathways listed.
These include straight forward ways - often with fear as an emotional component – such as
absence/removal of food/water for survival, removal/disconnection/harm to those an individual
feels connected to such as loved ones and fear of harm to the individual themself or death. Fear
and dependency are main aspects in these. Fear is usually of the unknown or simply of pain.
Dependency is always available for leverage for those seeking to control. Fear of loss in some
way is usually present. Thoughts and feelings, including fear is derived from any or all aspects
of the triad of perception, awareness and knowledge/understanding. This will be looked at in the
next chapter.
Since the discussion will be focused more upon the mind in the next chapter rather than the
conceptual understanding here, programming, conditioning and the like will be explored in the
proceeding chapter also.
The pathways listed previously are not so concrete. There is some adaptability as well as
potential for limitless combinations. In addition not all situations are due to control, or not all
from external entities. Control also may be generated by the self. Essentially though, as
previously stated, the self is the gateway. This means regardless of whence the control or
attempt to control originates, provided the self is capable in body/mind/spirit, the choice, the
potential, the ability to relinquish (or destroy, although a negative approach) rests with the self.
As will be discussed later in the text, the means to determine attempts to control or active
control are observation, consideration, analysis and intuition.
Overall, the concept of Illusion followed by the concept of limitation principally open pathways
to control. It could be said that illusion is a form of limitation itself whilst any limitation, with
respect to an infinite universe is an illusion itself.
It may also be helpful to the reader to differentiate between a conceptual understanding of

control/freedom, possible/probable actuated control and actuated control. Only to the degree the
knowledge and concept is grasped may limitation and hindrance be removed.
FREEDOM
Freedom is the absence of control. It is also the resultant of those that tend towards balance. An
entity that is balanced or approaches balance will tend to share with others and help others where
possible, suitable and/or asked for*. An entity that is balanced will tend to have no need to
control themself or others, nor any desire to do so. This may seem paradoxical in the sense that
an entity must exert control over themselves in a situation where they may potentially control
another (example of physical or psychical hurt). This is not the case and the understanding is
conceived from an unbalanced or self serving understanding. Whilst it is still possible for hurt
to occur no pathway for control is accessed or used by a balanced entity. Control may occur
only by the self upon the self of the other entity only if it is insufficiently balanced.
An entity approaching balance is one with less and less need to control themselves, just as they
have no need to control others. The seeming paradox to the reader may be that in order to
progress along this path one must make effort, one must control and discipline themselves to not
control themselves and/or others. Recall that one cannot control control. This is simple control
nested within control. Now to ‘let go’ or relinquish as a deliberate attempt by an entity to rid
themself or others of control is also an effort. Balance, and the resultant freedom cannot be
caught, they cannot be grasped. One cannot truly hold onto that which is free. Hence freedom
is a state of being, that is, for lack of a better word, discovered. One may choose their path and
one may envision their destination, but one will arrive when they arrive, no sooner, no later and
hence it is either of no value or counter-productive to anticipate or expect.
Those that serve themselves as noted previously build the walls that imprison. Conversely those
that serve others remove the walls that imprison or show the walls of the prison to those willing
to see. It is hindrance versus helpfulness.
Freedom is a place one may always return to.
It may be noted that the concept of freedom may also be used to control. Note it is the concept
only, for as stated previously true freedom cannot be controlled. An illusion of freedom, a falsity
of freedom and necessities for apparent freedom are examples of control under the guise of
freedom. An example of an illusion of freedom is the use of laws or restrictions with the
promotion of freedom being present. An example of falsity of freedom might be the same in the
mind of the individual or an escaped prisoner believing they are free when in actuality they have
escaped from one prison to enter another as yet unrecognized. An example of a created
necessity (an illusion) for apparent freedom would be security. ‘To maintain freedom, security
must be maintained.’ In truth, security is the freedom itself. The only necessity to obtain
freedom (a misnomer) is to remove all forms of control. Freedom between entities and between
groups of entities results when both entities/groups are free from control.
It may be seen at this point that one cannot instill freedom in another for this is control. This is
quite impossible in terms of freedom. With a pointed finger a pathway may be shown to another
entity, however it is the entity who must choose the path if they wish.
*Technicality:
1. The serving of others may technically be an imbalanced entity which may provide balance.
2. We may say that a balanced entity whom also provides balance is one who knows freedom.
3. Those that sufficiently serve themselves may potentially be in balance in themselves, but promote/provide
imbalance.
A society largely in balance will tend to have immunity against imbalance. By virtue of being
balanced, an entity finding themselves out of balance, for example with an excess of one thing or
another, would tend to restore balance – that is shed or give the excess or ask or seek out in the
case of deficiency. This stability along with others of the same caliber is that which maintains
balance and provides immunity against imbalance. This is both imbalance of individuals, the
group and the environment of the group.
Freedom, by example has the potential to indicate to others the merits of such path. The lesson
may be learnt, at least in part, from observation which in addition may be compared to an
observation of control for example. Thus a balanced entity tends to provide catalyst for
progression towards balance.
Elements of balance and thus freedom are:

Acceptance, forgiveness and relinquishment.
They are the opposite for the elements of imbalance:

Control, resentment and restraint/constraint.
PATHWAYS FOR FREEDOM:
Freedom is the state of being which results when all pathways for control are first identified then
relinquished. Freedom for a group of entities only results when all members have identified and
relinquished all pathways for control. Naturally in contrast to control, the greater the portion of
the number of pathways to control that are relinquished, the greater the ease with which the
remainder of the pathways may be relinquished. Likewise in a group of entities, the greater the
portion of members of the group that approach balance, the greater the probability that the
minority members will follow towards balance.
Defined pathways:
This pathway of control is aimed at creating and/or distorting an entity’s view of
their perceived reality and/or perception of any given concept or topic. An entity
approaching balance will tend towards perception with utmost clarity.
[A] Adaptation
Control may take the form of having an entity adapt without question or
complacently accept their current state of being and/or future states of
being. The states are possibly more likely to be negative – that is the
conditions or state of the entity being controlled or their environment is
progressively getting worse – however they may also be positive. In this
latter case Illusion or falsity (false gifts) may also be active.
An entity approaching balance will tend to choose to adapt where the
adaptation may promote balance or will reject adaptation if the
adaptation will promote imbalance.
[B] Illusion
Illusions as a pathway for control can be seen to be more than alteration
of perception. But in terms of perception, there is the alteration of the
environment, alteration of another entity (including the one intending to
control) and there is the creation of a sub illusion (or sub reality, fictional
story etc) which may then alter the controlled entity’s perception of either
themself, their environment including others entities.
Illusions will most likely be identified and understood and if possible
avoided/relinquished, otherwise accepted where required/necessary.
[C] Falsity
This pathway of control could have been grouped with illusion. It may be
seen to be illusion by inference – that is the illusion is essentially self
generated by the one being controlled. This pathway approaches non-
existence as an entity approaches balance due to clarity in understanding
and perception.
[D] Difference
This pathway of control seems to take the form of a dividing line. A
difference or division is perceived and thus allows for any number of
distortions to be implemented or allowed to flourish. Ultimately this form
of control is through limitation. This pathway is relinquished as an entity
perceives no true difference and understands illusory differences.
This pathway of control is aimed at distorting current knowledge/understanding
of the controlled entity, including the addition of distorted/incorrect/meaningless
knowledge for purposes of confusion or dilution, or subtraction of knowledge
which may aid the entity or be perceived to be a potential aid by the one
attempting to control. The opposite which potentially frees an entity is the
gathering of knowledge as well as the discernment, analysis and understanding
of knowledge gathered such that the understanding of the entity is as complete,
balanced and free from distortion as the entity is capable of.
[A] Direct
A direct alteration or distortion of a current understanding, including
removal. This includes all forms of programming. Discernment coupled
with current knowledge forms a shield against this pathway for control in
an entity approaching balance.
[B] Inversion
The intention with this pathway is to take the current knowledge and
convert it’s meaning to the opposite of what it was previously. Confusion
may be the intended outcome. Discernment coupled with current
knowledge forms a shield against this pathway for control in an entity
approaching balance.
[C] Dilution
This pathway intends to ‘muddy the pool’ with information which may
contain elements of truth/helpfulness/usefulness but usually contains a
majority of the opposite elements. The more that is added, the more
diluted the pool of information becomes. The information may be that
which is being received by the entity, that which is being sent or that
which is stored (memory). “Disinformation” falls under this method as
well as “bombardment” or excess information inflow. Knowledge forms a
shield against this pathway for control in an entity approaching balance.
[D] Limitation
Any barrier set up to prevent or hinder expanding upon a current
understanding or as yet unknown/undiscovered piece of knowledge.
Limitation of awareness is included here as well as limitation of attention.
An entity approaching balance gains the ability to perceive such
limitations, either internal or external and may then relinquish such
limitations.
Control in this form is aimed at altering or limiting in some way the physical
body. In particular the functioning of the physical body which directly
inhibits/alters the mind or the capability of the entity to utilize its mind.

These include such as food intake, exercise, intimacy but may also be
additional or become excessive or addictive. It also includes physical
aspects which may be accessory or not required for survival. Of those
which may be changed, an entity approaching balance will tend to opt for
those choices which promote balance and well-being.

This is straight alteration of the physical body. Knowledge and awareness
of a balanced entity will shield against changes where possible.

This is alteration of any portion of the body which affects directly the
functioning of the mind of the entity.
Knowledge and awareness of a balanced entity will shield against
changes where possible.
The environment may be seen to include the entity or entities attempting to
control if necessary. In this way the control of the entity to be controlled stems
from controlling that which is around the entity to be controlled. Thus all the
methods outlined for controlling an entity may be applied to the environment,
with some obvious exceptions depending on what the environment consists of.
An entity approaching balance will tend to be aware of the alterations and the
possible affects of such. This awareness and knowledge allows the entity to
‘bend with the wind’ or accept the changes to the degree suitable.
[A] Time
This form of control is an option, however see alteration of perception of
time and alteration of the physical with respect to lifespan and
functionality.
[B] Space
Alteration of the physical space in which the entity dwells, resides or
visits.

Alteration of all other aspects of an entity’s environment if the
environment is being defined as that which does not have the
controllability of another entity or equivalent.
[D] Connection(s)
This involves the alteration or limitation of an entity’s connection or
dependence on any part of it’s environment, including other entities. It
also involves the creation of systemized ties/dependencies.
[X] Nested control (see advanced concepts for additional information)
Whilst perception is defined here as that which an entity interprets of it’s external
environment including other entities, communication is any available means to
transfer/receive information from the environment or other entities, excluding the
information received via perception. An entity approaching balance will tend to
have an awareness at least of the characteristics and limitations of the modes of
communication and as such will tend to ensure as clear and open a form of
communication as possible.
[A] Direct
This pathway is aimed at altering how communication takes place,
eliminating or limiting it either one way or both ways (input and output)
[B] Medium
This may be alteration or limitation of language or the form of
communication.
PROGRESS TOWARDS FREEDOM
Unlike control there is no method to freedom. This may seem incorrect at first glance. If it
does, it is likely the reader still utilized the concept of control as a means to freedom. Granted,
in a heavily controlled society, individuals may not be able to comprehend this and/or may
refute it outright. The book may be abandoned and categorized as nonsense or false. Both
options are acceptable in this example being described. There is that which does not make sense
to any individual, that which does not make sense universally and that which simply does not
make sense to the individual in question since they do not understand at that point in time. That
which is deemed false may indeed be false or it may oppositely be true, yet perceived as false.
Now all these points contain pathways to control. The reader may see the first hurdle. Control,
where already present may be seen to have the ‘upper hand’. An individual heavily controlled,
by themself or others or both, might be seen to be unable to begin, unable to progress towards
freedom. It might be seen they may chase an illusive concept of freedom or seek progress, yet
they either run in circles or take one step forward for every two steps backward. An individual
always has the opportunity to begin and may always return to freedom. Freedom cannot be
contained, not even by time, it will wait forever for any individual to return when the individual
chooses to do so. There are no short-cuts to freedom. There is efficiency, that is a maximization
of progress with respect to perceived linear time, however attempting to skip ahead or cheat will
result in repeating the lessons. With this in mind, it is suggested, in view of a balanced
approach to take ones time, have patience, yet strive without effort or strain. If you let it, time
will become your friend rather than your foe.
Now, to return to the beginning statement. The english language does not seem to have an
antonym to the word method. Perhaps there can be none. Probably the next logical question the
reader may ask is; “If control is to be relinquished for freedom to result, how do I relinquish
control?”. This may be the first puzzle to the reader, perhaps stemming from the meaning of
words more than anything else. If a set course was laid out before the reader or a student on the
following page or a lecture was given, the same to the reader/student as to any other person, it is
open to, and would likely, with any (additional) workings of other individuals seeking to control,
result in failure to some degree.
Interestingly, this helping or attempting to help is still a success in its offering and is also
successful in an inverted sense in that it provides opportunity for those that seek to control.
However, it is possible to still serve those who seek to control, without offering any opportunity
for them to ‘get’ what they seek. A final solution for freedom is as impossible as a final solution
for control. The reason for this, if the reader does not understand the previous statement will be
considered later in the text.
A true pathway to relinquishing control has as a fundamental requirement to remain open. This
concept has as its meaning being used, an unset path, one with the property of selective
changeability.
I
I (Self)
An entity will learn by choice or by necessity. That which is not learnt now, may be repeated
later. The form may change, the lesson remains the same. We will begin with the conscious
choosing to learn, or for this discussion the conscious choosing to learn about and thus progress
with oneself.
The concept of progressing oneself at first glance offers two paths. The first is a seemingly
random, haphazard approach where experience is simply tallied up and considered after the
experience or collective experiences. The second approach is one with a preset plan, that is a
formula which is intended to give set results to those who apply it as intended. Both paths may
also be adopted together, either in part or full. Both paths may be seen to have merits, but both
paths may be seen to have limits. For the limits, examples include an inability or high degree of
difficulty in substantiating progress for the first path, conformity and inflexibility for the second
path. The commonality to both paths is that they seek both awareness and knowledge which
will inherently lead to being. So to begin with, what is required is an investigation into the way
to knowledge or epistemology.
Knowledge is infinite. Knowledge is both ever present and ever available. There is nothing
which cannot be known, yet simultaneously there is always something new to know, since
knowledge is infinite. The ways to knowledge are one. To learn is to gain knowledge.
Learning is a function of the mind and thus knowledge essentially stems from within, even if
that which to be learnt enters from the external. Neither the internal or the external in providing
substance to learn is greater than the other. In actuality they are always equal in value. To
maximize potential progress (in linear time) it is helpful to consider both the internal and
external as well as one’s capabilities allow. This does not imply equal time must be spent on
both, for there are circumstances where one may be seen to subjectively offer more potential
learning than the other. It is simply helpful to not disregard one – internal or external –
perceiving little or nothing may be learnt from it.
Thought is the equivalent of physical investigation. At least thought which seeks or questions as
a physical investigation would. If one derives knowledge from a physical investigation or one
derives the same knowledge from intuitive, thoughtful investigation, one has done in effect the
same thing and may see that the knowledge is one and the same. With a little thought progress
is made.
The study of the external environment includes the study of that which will be or may aid in
studying, via measurement. Hence the tools used to study are improved, allowing for greater
study or greater capacity to learn. Similarly the internal – the mind – is both the tool used to
study and the object of study. Giving thought to thought is – just like the study of the external –
an exercise in objectivity.
If an individual chooses a program or formula they may likely do so often because they want
something. Either they want to change or they want a particular result, which for example may
be an individual’s concept of happiness or peace.
Secondly they may not be willing to put any effort in, they may expect the work to be done for
them rather than doing anything themselves. In actuality progress is only made when work is
done by them. It is necessary to move beyond being a slave or a follower to being independent.
There are no requirements and no single path to being individually balanced. An entity
approaches balance as the more of that which provides imbalance is relinquished. All control
promotes imbalance, at least potentially. An entity need not be defined as controlled either by
themself or others for imbalance to be the dominating aspect of an entity’s being. Confusion,
simply not yet having discovered particular knowledge or displacement are examples where
control may be absent, yet imbalance still reigns. In this way, control as defined by this text
may be adopted as a limited percept in that something that is perceived as providing imbalance
is immediately assigned the status of control. A subjective portion of the concept of control is
the aspect of the entity’s consciousness whom we are applying the concept of control. For
example if an entity has yet to, or is unable to become aware of what is being labeled as control
– such as inability for self observation – and the pathway to control has not been intentionally
used, it may be considered either confusion, choice or unknown. An example might be an entity
which tends to behave in a repeated way due to the physical body in which it inhabits. If in this
case we subtract the possibility of the design of the body, then the entity may be acting out of
confusion – that is, experiencing the behavioral tendencies but not yet grasping their meaning or
relativity; out of choice – for example either choosing the body (unknowingly or knowingly to
experience any tendencies or attributes) or choosing the behavior or attributes, tendencies etc; or
simply via unknowing – which at minimum would be zero awareness of all entities involved or
at least the entity being considered. Now out of these three options given, the first it was stated
the possibility of the physical body not being designed. Whilst it may not be designed, it must
still be created. Perhaps in this light, such a situation – that is a creation without any intent to
control - may be viewed as a pathway to control in potentiality. Thus any control is created,
primarily by the entity by utilizing select pathways to control which may or may not be or have
been present. Likewise in the second previous example, a choice, conscious or unconscious may
be made by an entity which would allow the exploration of for example the
behaviors/tendencies/attributes of a particular physical body. It may be seen that a pathway for
control is thus opened which would allow an entity to control themself or control to flow
through them. The choice may be made (for one example) to create a situation or experience(s)
which would facilitate learning either due to the choice itself or the affects the choice will
produce, or both.
In summary of this paragraph, that to readily consider would be the following: To make moves
toward balance, it is necessary for an individual to identify pathways which are and may be in
use to control, as well as the absence of pathways. It is the perception of seeing that which is
and that which is not which gives clarity to perception. It is also necessary for an individual to
begin to consider the reasons and purpose for any active or potential pathways to control and to
also consider the affects of control or absence of control.
Now, to consider more closely an entity which cannot (yet) begin to identify pathways to
control. To do so, it is necessary to examine a concept of the self. This, the reader may see as
their identity or their “I”. Perhaps over simplified, at least at this point in the text (it will have
additions later) the following is a diagram outlining the aspects of “I” being considered.
“I”
Perception
Awareness Thought
The diagram is simplified at this point. Basically from the diagram, information enters (into the
mind through senses) which is then perceived. The information adds to awareness before
passing into knowledge or the individual’s capacity for thought on the information. An
individual existing in such a way might be seen by others to be reactionary or mechanical in
nature. They see, they respond. Some thought may or may not occur concerning the information.
Such an individual would not usually be aware of control. This includes self control, control
flowing through them and control of them. The first type of control registered by such an
individual would likely be the most primitive - direct physical – of them, then of them over
others. An individual may also range or vary between durations of mechanical reactivity and a
degree of greater conscious awareness. Thus states of consciousness do not (necessarily)
proceed linearly nor remain stagnant at all times.
“I”
Perception
[Filter]
Awareness Generator
[Peripheral
knowledge]
Thinking
In the next diagram there are a few additions – a progression of the individual. The thought
aspect is now labeled ‘Generator’. The sun/star symbol represents information entering the
thinking faculties of the individual. The looping arrows represent the thinking as it may be just
that – looping or continuous thought. The thoughts themselves may be different or the same,
that is each may be a new thought or the same thought may simply be repeated. Perception has
also been defined more in the diagram by the sub definition of ‘filter’. The reader may consider
the diagram and the meanings for the moment if suitable, all of the above will be looked at in
greater detail shortly.
This individual, more so than the previous, puts more thought into their being. They instead of
simply reacting, they give it some degree of thought. Perhaps they are more likely to consider
abstract thought over thinking based entirely on the immediate physical reality. These qualities
developed may be to any degree and variable at any one time. There are still missing
components, however, what is being considered are the elements and their qualities thus far.
The purpose of the consideration is to allow the reader pause for analysis of themself as an “I”
and if necessary the consideration of the “I” of another self.
Now, to consider in more depth the three elements.
Perception is, the way in which ‘things’ are viewed. This is a somewhat limited or incomplete
definition. However we may consider a physical object. The “I” perceives the object in a
particular manner. It may be positive, negative or neither. It may have biases or tendencies.
Perceptions are essentially unique although many may repeat with similarity or as replications.
Even if a perception is seen to be an exact replication of a previous perception, the vantage point
of the perception has changed. Returning to the object, in this example, the “I” may define not
one but many perceptions of the same object. The perceptions are combined and form a percept
of the object. The percept is not necessarily in stasis, although it may be in for some time. It
may change gradually as well as change rapidly. Everything perceived thus may be seen to have
a percept at any moment. It may be varying at that moment, it may be unchanging. It may not
have been considered or the individual may not have any awareness of the percept.
As a subtitle, there is the word ‘filter’. If a percept is to be defined as a ‘thing-in-itself’, then it
would be these things which determine the color or biases of the collective percept of an “I” at
any moment. The word color gives the closest proximity to the subtitle of filter: when a
particular filter (percept) is applied, certain colors may be seen, others may not. An example
may help further here. Suppose an “I” has three percepts active in this particular moment. The
“I” is in a room, there is one object and the air has a particular quality which gives rise to a
percept. The perceptions of these three things in this situation form the three percepts. Each of
these percepts combine into the “I”’s collective percept at that moment. In this example the
overall percept of the room is an ‘oppression’, the object is ‘ordinary’ and the air as ‘sickening’.
All three may be seen to be subjective, yet also potentially objective if they could be quantified
and repeated. Regardless, it is the sum of these percepts which gives the overall percept at that
moment to be a ‘negative’ or ‘unhappy’ percept. The text is considering perception at this point,
not emotion or feeling, they will be considered later in the text.
With the three percepts, it is possible that only one needs to change and the collective percept
will change, including dramatically. Alternatively, one percept may dominate over others, in
which case changing all others may have negligible change on the overall percept of the given
instance or moment. A further note, percepts are certainly not limited to objects or physicality.
A concept, a notion, an idea, an impression, all of these may also have percepts to one degree or
another, depending on the individual. An individual may perceive many instances of the use of
italics, bold font and ‘other’ forms of punctuation to be “excessive” or “ridiculous” for
example.
Awareness is both sensory and knowledge. It is defined not as detailed or deeply considered
knowledge, but that which an individual has gained some idea of. It is that which is on the
frontier, the new, the plausible, the fractional, the indefinite or indistinct. This element may be
perceived to be lacking in importance to the other elements. It is also possible to ‘lump’ it with
the generator. However, once the importance is recognized, then the decision to allocate it to the
thinking element may be discarded. Now to recognize the importance or value of awareness as
an element, it is necessary to have an idea or inkling of why it might be important if it is indeed
so. To find that idea, an awareness is most helpful and efficient.
The Generator, as it is being called in this text is where thought arises. That is if it does. An
activity can be done entirely without thought. The experience is still absorbed, it is just that the
activity itself, or the aspects of the activity are not considered with thought, which may also
include upon completion or cessation of the activity, that is in reflection. It is for this reason the
reader may find small prompts which suggest some thought on the text just read. Is it more
efficient to read each sentence and contemplate extensively each sentence or read large portions
or even the entire text before giving it all some degree of thought? Is it more efficient to read
quickly through a text and read it more than once or read it slowly yet carefully just the once?
Are all of the previous choices all over simplified in that, for some text it may be helpful or
necessary to read it more than once or slowly, and some parts of the text may require much
thought, other parts little to none? It’s just a thought. In using the word ‘just’, might that be
seen as diminishing to the value of thought? After all, if it were not thought, nothing may have
been gained as there may have been if there was from the thinking itself.
Information inflow
“I”
Perceptions
Percept
[Filter]
Awareness Generator
[Peripheral knowledge] Thinking
The diagram now has a few additions. The individual may be seen to have progressed further
than previous examples. In all three elements are smaller “I”s. These represent the “I” itself. In
other words, this individual has become self aware, self perceiving and self thoughtful. The term
becoming may be seen to be simplified. In probability, an individual will likely have moments
of self awareness or self thought to begin with, with those increasing in terms of time and in
terms of depth or content. The first stages may be an awareness of thoughts, emotions and a
perception of the physical self. The order and the exact way in which an individual progresses is
always unique, although there may be a common pathway. The consideration at this point in the
text is not the pathway, but the destination. If the destination can be defined, a pathway will be
created to get to that destination, one way or another.
Now each element contains all elements of the self. This is important to consider. It is not
simply a case of the individual thinking about themself, being aware of themself or taking a look
at themself – at least not in the conventionally understood way which the reader may relate to.
To consider a fully perceptive individual at this moment; the individual is forming percepts – or
has formed them – of their own thoughts, their own level and content of awareness and their
own percepts – including the one(s) currently being formed. Awareness; the individual has an
awareness of their own percepts – their content, qualities, number, etc, an awareness of their
own thoughts – their qualities, the quantity, clarity, value, concepts, etc and also an awareness of
their own awareness – amount (including relativity – to others, to the past e.g.), value, particular
area, etc. Generator/Thought; the individual (potentially) gives thought to their percepts, their
awareness and to the thoughts which they have, including the thought they are currently having.
With the above in mind, information may be divided into the external and the internal. An
individual may contemplate their current percept of another individual. The process is internal
and is examining the internal, with reference to the external. Likewise the external may be
examined with reference to the internal. The former is ideal for progress of the self. The latter
for helping others progress or learn.
Information inflow
“I”
Perceptions
Percept
[Filter]
Awareness Generator
?! C
------------
U
[Peripheral knowledge]
Thinking Emotions and Feeling
In this new diagram, there are some additional symbols. The symbols are not so much
meaningful as symbols in themselves, but are there for understanding of the processes or there to
remind of the processes of each element. In the perceptions element box an eye is depicted. Of
course perceptions includes all sensory input as well as all mental perceptions. The latter is the
focus as all physical input converts to mental input or percepts. In the awareness box is a simple
question mark and exclamation mark. The initial question, be it within or without may be a step
to gaining awareness. The exclamation mark may imply the surprise or shock when something
unknown appears in view or is brought to attention. Attention and awareness are close friends.
The generator box includes two suns now, one for the thought side and one for the emotion side.
On the emotion side we have two heart shapes one dark and one light with alternate arrows.
These are simple representations of emotions which give energy outwardly and emotions which
draw energy inward. Reality is not so black and white, the shades are not to be forgotten, but
again, the symbols are more there for memory and representation. The thinking loop now has a
dividing line with two sides representing the conscious thought and unconscious thought of the
entity. The idea here is to give an overview rather than attempt to break everything down with
exactness. An example is that in reality, thought and emotions are one, they simply have
different qualities and functions. It is helpful to consider some parts of the “I” in isolation,
attempt to understand them to some degree and then combine with others to see interactions and
the collective functioning which results in the total parts all working simultaneously, thus
providing at least to some degree, an understanding of the “I”.
Two more diagrams and then some investigation into “I”.

“I”
Information inflow
Perceptions
Percept
[Filter]
Awareness Generator
?! C
------------
U
[Peripheral knowledge]
Thinking Emotions and Feeling
In this diagram, we have a self aware, self perceptive and self thoughtful/emotional entity.
“I”
Percept
Awareness ?!
Thought/Emotion
Here we have integrated the aspects of the “I”. The reader may contemplate on the information
given thus far at this point.
Knowledge is all of the aspects. Intelligence is knowledge, including accessibility to
knowledge. There are no inputs for information as information may enter the sphere at any
point, through any aspect, including from inside the sphere itself, represented by the suns/stars.
There is no conscious or unconscious like the previous diagrams as all aspects or elements may
contain unconscious aspects, as well as conscious aspects. An ‘unconscious sphere’ hidden
behind the sphere in the diagram may represent this.
POLARIZATION
An entity does not begin to make self progress. It already has begun, conscious of progress or
not. At some point a choice is made. It may be conscious or unconscious. It may also be
changed. The choice is between progress towards balance or progress towards imbalance. Either
state is capable of providing catalyst for others to progress toward either state. Thus the choice
is transferred to others also. An entity whom approaches or is in balance will develop a ‘natural’
tendency to be helpful to others (providing balance) or a tendency to control or dominate others
(providing imbalance). Thus we now have two diametrically opposite polarities.
An entity approaching balance must either evade control by ruling over others or renounce
control through self progress. In other words the entity who serves themself and thus seeks to
provide imbalance by ruling or controlling others works primarily on others and when
unsatisfactory results are obtained, only then works upon them self in order to retain or further
their position in the hierarchy. Of course the self serving entity will also tend to work heavily
upon themself when the opportunity is there or anticipation of future requirements call for self
development. The rest of the text at this point will primarily focus on progress for those moving
towards balance and serving others, though usefulness to both may be noted.
STEPS
An initial question might be – which may be given priority - helping others or self progress?
Helping others would be the answer given, though it has a provision. To help another requires
sufficient progress to have been made by the individual in order to be truly helpful. An example
of this is an individual whom calls for help and requests a food or substance to alleviate some of
their suffering. The food or substance is given in an attempt to help. The food or substance is
harmful or kills the individual. Help was given but was not truly helpful. It may have been
helpful to not give the individual what was requested. Of course a reason why could be
communicated also. What is lacking in this example for the instance of help being harmful (thus
not being true help) was knowledge and/or awareness. An entity will likely provide imbalance
if they are lacking awareness and knowledge of their environment (including others).
An individual progressing towards balance will also be free or at least relatively free from
control. An helpful individual will provide balance to others who require it and ask for it. An
asking does not necessarily imply direct communication, in particular in the verbal sense. An
asking may be evident by other means. To be certain, one may always query if help is indeed
required. An individual may actually be in need of help, but may reject offers from others. It is
a valid rejection, for the individual shall be free to seek to help themself without assistance if
chosen. It would be an imbalanced percept/concept to see the individual as “wrong” or
‘hopeless’ or similar. A more balanced percept would be viewing the individual as making a
valid and acceptable choice, regardless of outcome, yet reserving the offer to help if at any time
the call is made. Understanding and acceptance are key aspects to a balanced individual.
Awareness is another key aspect. If an individual is unaware of another individual who is
having difficulty, they are unable to help. Likewise if the opportunity to help is not perceived,
they are unable to help. Thus ability to one degree or another depends upon for two things,
awareness and percepts. The reader at this point may consider how control (of either individual,
internal or external in origin) may affect either awareness or perception, or both. Thus a
connection may be seen between balance/helpfulness and control/freedom.
Some further considerations at this point. With thought, the concept of a percept, which is here
defined as the sum of perceptions has only been defined minimally. It will be looked at in more
detail shortly. However, the reader has already produced a concept of what has so far been
written and is thus attempting to be conveyed or communicated to the reader. It is concepts
which are the counter-part to percepts. In the diagram they form part of the generator or thought
processes. They do not stand alone or are self contained as they are tied both to awareness and
to the percepts of the “I” or individual. Concepts, including multiple related concepts produce
an understanding. If any concept forming the understanding is distorted, the understanding is
distorted in one way or another. It is not only helpful to question one’s understanding or at least
be open to questioning an understanding with the input of new knowledge but to question the
concepts which hold the form of the understanding. It only takes one key supporting concept to
remain unquestioned for a distorted understanding to remain steadfast.
A step backwards can be at times as helpful as a step forwards. Step forward and see in greater
detail. Step backwards and see the greater picture. Many steps make a journey.
1. Notice perceptions. Observe thinking, in this case that which contains any perceptions or an
underlying percept. Observe communication as well. Again, see if possible any perceptions
contained within the communication or the thoughts that produced the communication. The
newly identified becomes aware of.*
2. Once a perception or percept is identified, consider or question it. In the identification

(conscious awareness) and then consideration and evaluation of a percept there is the
opportunity for the percept to change either intentionally or unintentionally. An example of an
unintentional change or relinquishment is when a percept has been identified which is counter
to current understanding, such as an ideal. The understanding – the ideal in this case –
overrides the apparent value of the percept. However it is also possible the understanding may
be unconscious, in which case until the understanding is questioned or altered, the percept has
value.
3. The observation of a percept or perception provides many options for proceeding thoughts.
How often does such a perception occur? What might the perception be if it were different or
altered? What might the affects be of holding such a perception? There is a provocation of
awareness as well as thought. There may be little to consider or there may be a great amount –
depending on the perception(s) and the individual’s perception of such perceptions.
4. Observe the perception of the previous percept or perception. This perception may be neutral.
It is this second perception which gives clues to the concepts held by an individual which
utilize the first percept.
5. Consider the concept of perception. Is it simply the view of something external or material?
Is there little value in considering one’s perceptions? What about emotion or feeling – are
they not part of or at least linked to a percept?
>> Let’s say an individual was feeling frustrated as they felt or thought they were not understanding what it was
they were seeking to learn. We will break it down – we are in the middle of something. In this case, the
individual perceives that which is seeking to be learnt as something that needs to or should be learnt. Notice how
this perception and understanding is distorted in that it sets up for the possibility of frustration or at least
discontent. The individual then perceives a lack of understanding at some point. As one consideration of this
perception, there is likely some degree of limitation since although the perception of a lack of understanding may
be correct, it may be for a particular portion of that being learnt and/or it may disregard that which has been
understood in favor of that which is not or perceived to be not understood – at this moment. The initial
perception may have been a product of any number of understandings or prior perceptions. An example is the
‘pressure’ of another individual in a demand or requirement – including through implication – for the individual
being considered to fully understand that being learnt.
To the reader considering more deeply the text at this point, the pathways to control may be seen here, in
particular the use of time and the possible aspect of compounding control.
6. In considering the concept of perceptions or a percept, consider any limitations. Consider if

the same or similar percepts re-occur even in different forms. A form may be a slight
alteration to some portion of a percept which may hide or obscure it intentionally or not.
7. Observe percept of the current moment in its entirety.
*Thus awareness may be seen as the most primordial and ever-active of the elements.
It is not entirely necessary to follow the previous steps in order or exactly as read. The steps are
presented, not as a ‘solution’ but as an helpful ‘guide’ to progress. An adept or an individual
attempting to teach anything written would benefit more from adaptation and addition to the
steps – particularly for any relative uniqueness of the individual or circumstance of the student
of time/place of teaching. The concept here is that anything taught to another is helpful when it
adapts to the student rather than the student having to adapt to the teaching (this does not imply
they shall not change themselves) or possibly even less helpful – the student simply trying to
master some rigid process or program. This is one set-back with this text. There is no feedback.
For this reason the reader is required to develop their own feedback, which to be effective
requires careful consideration of the text, considerable patience with themself and a will to
persevere. It is quite helpful to work with another who is also seeking to benefit from at least
some portion of the text. Lastly, it would be unhealthy to conclude the text is complete or must
be followed in it’s entirety. If an individual determined only a portion of the text was worth
reading or utilizing for self development, that is their choice and in the case of another
individual only being interested in a part of the text, it would still be helpful to view the
possibility of work on the portion of the text both individuals have in common.
1. Observe current or previous emotion. Consider the validity of any emotion. Consider any
lack of emotion. Consider an alternative to any (lack of) emotion. Contemplate the (likely)
presence of such emotion in an individual whom approaches balance.
2. Consider the observation of emotional state. Question its usefulness and value. Consider the
awareness – the continual monitoring/observation - of the emotional state.
3. Contemplate observation itself. Question or probe for bias, limitations, exclusions and the
like. Consider absence of observation, including any affects.
4. Contemplate thought processes. Ponder value, any affects (such as tiredness, difficulty,
emotional response – e.g. dissatisfaction).
5. Contemplate awareness. Awareness of the external world. Awareness of the self. Consider
anything new which has been brought about from text just read or the current exercises.
Consider how that which is new may affect the self.
>> As an example, an individual may have not understood some of the points of the exercises or skipped over them,
giving little thought or not grasping the exercise to a sufficient degree. The individual may have, if it is
seen/considered noticed some portion of the exercises being skipped, ignored or not understood. This awareness
may result in numerous affects upon the individual, largely produced by the percept of the experience. The
percept alone will likely produce an affect that is largely unconscious. An example being frustration or
perceiving little value in any amount of the text based on the experience. The individual, as an example may stop
reading the text or take a break. With awareness of the percept or simply awareness of the experience with a
neutral percept (at least at this point in time) the individual has gained the ability to correct or let go of any bias.
In the example, this individual is aware that their grasping of the text is lacking (although may be to some degree
subjective) and acts accordingly and logically, rather than out of an emotional or unconscious response. In this
case the individual either re-reads a portion, perhaps with greater care or puts down the text, perhaps to be
returned to when ready, and takes on another activity.
6. Observe patience or lack of. Is there a rush to get something done, to make progress? What
drives this impatience if it is present? Could the activity be paused without any resentment or
discontentment? Consider the patience of the self in general.
7. Contemplate that which has yet to be observed or considered.

Memory. Recall. It is helpful to be capable of remembering. Memory is never truly lost. If an
individual is able to remember an event and in particular, the thoughts, feelings, emotions,
perceptions and any other qualities of the self which were present at that moment, the individual
then has the potential to consider the state/moment and compare the state/moment to another in
linear time. The degree to which an individual remembers is also of consideration. For the
adept, if an individual may go further along these lines and collate at minimum an awareness of
all or as many moments (in a lifetime) as the individual is capable of, an overview of the
balance/imbalance of the entire (life)time is able to be seen. The benefit of this is the collective
percept of all moments in comparison to the regular percepts which occur moment by moment in
linear time.
The counterpart to memory is maximal self awareness at every moment. This is the continual
monitoring, without effort of all aspects of the self, including percepts, emotions, awareness and
thought activity. With this monitoring, comparisons and considerations may be made in ‘real
time’ (in the moment) and biased thoughts, percepts and unhealthy emotions in particular may
be ‘caught in action’. In many cases the ‘catching’ of the percept, the thought or the emotion is
enough to ‘deter’ re-occurrence. The catching also allows for conscious evaluation and choice
to be made. For an entity approaching balance, an acceptance and acknowledgement of the
thought/percept/emotion having occurred is the first step. For an entity seeking to provide
imbalance in order to remain in such a state it is necessary to control any
thought/percept/emotion which is counter to that which is unsuitable/unhealthy/uncalled for. In
particular, it is the emotion which contains the most energetic content. It is also the emotional
center which reacts fastest in general.
>> Awareness, being the most primordial function of the mind is fundamental to any progress. First there is
awareness of the external. Then there is a general awareness of the self. The reader no doubt has these functions
active. The degree is worthy of consideration however. Further, there is awareness of the thoughts/feelings of
others and the thoughts/feelings of the self. For the latter this is more than a fleeting moment of consideration of
a thought/feeling. A variable state of being self aware of the activities - including lack of - of the mind, along
with an awareness of those states being noted, recallable. This also includes what the mind has, is and will likely
give attention to.
Awareness may be seen to be the accessibility of knowledge at any given moment in (linear)
time.
A thought or pondering without any emotional attachment to the thought is of little harm in
testing possibilities. The greater the emotional attachment to a thought or percept, the greater
the strength it will have and hence the greater the potential for harm. An experience is in
probability more likely to produce a greater emotional content than the pondering of an
experience.
Desires will take any of three paths*. The first is via experience. The desire is fulfilled or at
least momentarily. This path has the possibility of fortifying the desire, either the same or in a
new way – the same basic desire in some new form. The second is the experience of the desire
in thought only. This path will tend to be healthier than the first, the possible pitfall being the
thought then leads to a greater desire for the desire to be fulfilled in reality. The third path is
simply relinquishment of the desire without thought/experience. This is the healthiest although
not necessarily the easiest, although easy may be seen to be subjective to the individual. In
general, at least some thought of the experience or some thought of the desire itself is considered
even on this third path. Regardless of the path taken, it is helpful to observe, and to contemplate
desires, including their origin. All has a purpose, so it is helpful to understand or at least begin
to understand why the desire(s) are present or occurring. All paths and all experiences,
including non-experience and an apparent non-path (such as confusion) provide value in the
*An illusion or sub reality in which desire/experience occurs may be seen to be a mixture of the first two paths.
form of learning. As such it is not possible for one choice or path to be “greater” than another.
Helpfulness is determined by each individual. Thus the concepts of “better”, “greater” and their
opposites will in time, the reader may see, become redundant.
At this point it may be helpful to the reader to do at least some of the following before
proceeding:
Review what has been discussed thus far in this section.
Determine which parts if any are of significance and if helpful determine what may be put into
practice – that is anything that may be repeated for the sake of learning.
Consider the ‘upsides’ and the ‘downsides’ to having steps or a regular routine to follow.
Determine a balance between the two. As a suggestion, if the reader is in effect a beginner
(which matters not) some degree of routine may be necessary for progress to be made. If the
reader is, shall we say, more advanced, a routine may not be necessary or rejected and thus self
monitoring of any progress made from casual reviews of portions of the text may suffice. A
blend of the two options presented may alternatively be chosen.
ASPECTS OF I
Here, practical suggestions are put aside for a closer consideration of various aspects of the self,
beginning with those previously described.
A percept is not defined in this text as simply a momentary view. An “in-grained” or

“imprinted” percept which may be quite elusive to observation or notice is also part of the
description/definition. There is a link between an understanding and control/freedom to any
underlying percepts. The understanding may vary in distortion/clarity, depth/shallowness and
conscious/unconsciousness. The last of the three just stated is a matter of awareness – that is
how consciously aware an individual is of the understanding and in addition any awareness of
any flaws or correctness in the understanding. Here faith may be utilized to support any
understanding (including beliefs) which fail to prove themselves in reality yet insist (via
programming essentially) that they remain and not be discarded or replaced. The concept of
faith is fine in itself, however it is most helpful if any faith be derived from both reality and
practicality in addition to any intuitive feelings. Essentially a truth should prove correct both
internally – via thoughts, feelings and observations - and externally. The primary reason for this
is the possibility of error from within and the possibility of error without. This is not that error
may be expected or even likely, but if the possibility is there it is worth being aware of. An
understanding which proves itself both internally and externally has earned its keep.
A Program may be defined here as an awareness/percept/thought complex which is intended to

control an entity and in most cases protect itself from removal or deletion. It is the latter part
which is of consideration here. In terms of control here, a created state or reality may be the
objective, not necessarily control per se. An entity need not be consciously aware of an installed
program (self installation included).
Conditioning may be defined here as the events and environment(s) which have shaped the
awareness/percept/thought complex of an entity. In linear time those events and environments
most recent tend to have the greater affect, though some past situations may have been heavily
ingrained in an individual. Emotionally those events and environments which had the most
intensity tend to have the greater affect. Conditioning may or may not, to any degree of both, be
intentional by other entities. A condition generally implies limitation of some sort –
conditioning may be seen to be the application of particular limits.
Memes may be recognized as primarily the product of either a program complex (multiple
programs) or a singular program, conditioning and a third additional element of choice. A
choice may be conscious, primarily unconscious or it may be preset if the capacity for choice is
absent. A meme includes in additional to the mental aspects, any (resulting) external or physical
aspects, such as behavior, habits, tendencies, ideals etc. Memetics also looks at the transmission
of memes, however the field does not appear to cover sufficiently a consideration of the
factors/aspects/qualities of the mind which produce and allow for meme propagation. The focus
of the text however is upon the aspects of the self/mind, with a philosophical reference.
If an individual identifies and considers sufficiently their percepts, this may lead to identification
of an underlying programming or conditioning. Similarly if an individual identifies and
considers (possible) programming or conditioning this may lead to identification of (underlying)
percepts. Other aspects of the self may also be brought into question when aspects of control are
newly discovered, however an individual’s percepts are the focus here. Memes may also be
‘back-tracked’ to look at programming and conditioning, both within the self, the other self and
the collective self.
The heaviest of programming may likely have the following qualities: It seeks seclusion/to
evade identification. Denial and justification are often employed to do this. It seeks to reinforce
itself where possible. Any concept/percept which is aligned with the programming or may be
distorted in order to be aligned may be highlighted, intentionally recalled, repeated or similar.
In this way a feedback loop may be created. It will fight to survive or to be kept/retained. This
may be done by perceiving anything which threatens the programming as exactly that – a threat,
with associated sub-programming of ways to control or deal with such a threat, including
retaliation, resulting fear etc.
A feedback loop has the potential to reinforce programming and quickly compound control. An
example is a negative percept of a particular situation. In a state of mind in which the percept is
present, a thought adds another perception to the percept. This in turn leads to recall of a
memory (selected for similarity perhaps) and is viewed with the same perceptual context. This
is added to the first. The individual is continuing to add the negative perceptions together to
build the percept. The percept of this one situation may then flow to other situations or
concepts. For example that one situation, now being perceived as negative in some form
progresses to all situations primarily being negative for the same reasons. Primarily it is
utilization of the limitation pathway for the individual will likely be limiting themself to a
particular perception (negative based in this case) and selecting thoughts/feelings (usually
recalled) that fit that perception. Thus the initial percept is added to, continually if chosen,
compounding the programming or at the least thought patterns. It is also possible to have a
feedback loop for a positive percept. If, like negative percepts they differ from reality/actuality
then they are effectively delusions. This of course is not the same as simply exploring the
possible ways to perceive the same thing in either a positive or negative way.
Perhaps a helpful way to identify one’s percepts is either by observation or by a question.

Observation may seem self explanatory, which it is to one who knows the experience. The
observation at first may arrive upon reflection of a previous moments thoughts. Further as one
progresses, it is a matter of observing the thought whilst it is occurring. This is the perception of
one’s perceptions which is shown in the previous diagrams. At first when an observation is
realized, it is helpful to simply observe. It is suggested that attempting to control or eliminate
the perception at this point not be considered. It is helpful to observe all the qualities of the
perception or percept. An example is it may occur at particular moments or in particular
environments. These qualities which may be helpful in understanding any programming,
conditioning or simply underlying thought patterns may be missed if the observation is ignored
or the percept is simply controlled. Even for those on a path which seeks complete self
servitude, it is not simply a case of control but also understanding. Understanding requires
knowledge and the first step to knowledge is awareness. For those approaching balance it is
helpful to first accept any percepts and any perceptions of those percepts. An example might be
the thought (derived from the percept) of “I was such a fool to view it in that way”. In this case
the perceived foolishness is based on a percept of those relative to the individual (based on
awareness/knowledge) as well as the concept/understanding of foolishness/wisdom/intelligence.
Once any percept is accepted as being the case, the other side of the process is understanding.
This process for those approaching balance is the same for other aspects of the self – in
particular thoughts and emotions. Once both sides of the process have been sufficiently
completed, relinquishment of that which may now be seen to be incompatible, dissonant or
incongruent. If relinquishment does not occur there are three likely reasons. The first is
insufficient acceptance and understanding. The second is a conscious choosing to retain the
percept/thought/emotion/other pattern(s).
The third is an attempt to force or induce, including by expectation or anticipation
relinquishment and thus progress. In the case of the second or third possibilities, there will be a
connection to the first possibility. In other words, essentially, insufficient ‘work’ has been done
either on the specific percept/thought/emotion/other or those percepts/thoughts/emotions not yet
considered/investigated. All percepts/thoughts/emotions are linked to some degree to all other
percepts/thoughts/emotions. An analogy might be a ‘pool’ of water. Clearing or muddying one
section of the pool inevitably affects the entire pool – it would be unreasonable to expect that
clearing mud from one small section should make the entire pool clean. Cleaner perhaps, but
the whole pool must be attended to.
GAZING INTO THE POOL
Work
If work may be defined as that which demands effort or that which must be done, then this may
be seen to be an unhealthy percept. Work as a potential in ability may be seen to be closer to
neutral. Essentially progress is inevitable principally as it is a function of learning. Thus
progress including the activity of making progress defies the commonly understood concept of
work. Progress may be made without effort. It is not that large amounts of time, energy and
dedication may be spent making progress, it is that slavery to the self or to the notion of progress
is required or has place. There is healthy discipline and there is discipline which stems from
control – either by the self or by others. Healthy discipline may be related to the individual who
chooses to remain steadfast – having the self discipline and will – in the face of an oncoming
storm, knowing that it will pass; the other individual, controlled to one degree or another may
flee the storm in fear or may also remain steadfast in opposition to the storm or as demand of the
self whilst lacking understanding of the purpose and virtues of the aspects of the event and/or
the self. If considered further, the first individual is quite capable and open to the decision to not
remain steadfast but to leave the area. The ‘discipline’ is derived from will and understanding
rather than control.
Being
In light of the above rendering the concept of work (as commonly understood) obsolete, the state
or activities of an individual may simply be referred to as their being. A balanced being might
be seen as one which is open and capable of both moments of inactivity or activity with little
substance and moments of activity such as a specific goal or service. In addition a balanced
being might also constitute activities chosen based on present circumstances, in particular the
states or conditions of others or the environment. The being will approach effortlessness in a
balanced entity rather than a constant battle or struggle. The word striving might be accepted
here for one can still move in great strides, yet do so without strain or struggle. This perhaps is
one concept/percept which may be grasped more completely upon experience rather than the
reading in some book.
Failure
It is essentially impossible to fail. All experiences and moments provide something to learn,
even if a miniscule amount in relation to many attempts. Since all moments and attempts both
provide and potentially provide, there is no moment or attempt without merit. In addition to this
that which is not learnt or grasped has essentially an infinite number of future opportunities to be
learnt or grasp. Mistakes are logical functions of those things out of place or misplaced. They
are also greetings of their respective lessons. It is most helpful to accept mistakes or errors,
seeing their value, the moment not ruined or scarred but complete in its happenings. An
unhelpful approach to accepting mistakes, including by others is a form of carelessness. This is
in effect a turning away from the situation, either by the self to the self or by at least one
individual in an interaction. Likewise an unhelpful approach to controlling mistakes, including
by others is a form of rebellion. For the adept, that which may be initially viewed as unhelpful
may offer help in a form below the surface of perception – usually to the other self.
Patience
In light of the above, patient progress is an healthy path. One may still move swiftly, but to do
so in haste or via agitation diminishes another aspect of the self. All things happen in their due
time, to attempt to force anything beforehand risks some form of breakage. Patience naturally
flows from understanding.
Suffering
All pain has the purpose of growth or learning. A simple example is a physical pain which
indicates an activity shall not be undertaken. Long term emotional pain would perhaps be the
opposite in terms of a deeper level of growth and learning required. Suffering is not essential, it
simply serves a purpose when the purpose has been called for. This noted, the alleviation of
suffering in another individual may or may not attenuate or undermine the purpose of the pain.
The more helpful choice may be made intuitively. A lesson may be learnt with memory, upon
reflection, not just during the time of suffering. In either alleviating or enduring balance is
required. Balance ordinarily provides immunity to suffering.
Courage
In the sense standing firm against all weathering, courage is of value. In the sense of relentless
or obsessive pursuit, courage imprisons. In the sense of aggressive determination, courage
hinders. The aspects listed are dependent on the concepts derived from the definitions of the
words and also the same for any of the words linked to or used to describe the aspect. Courage
is an example of this. Determination for one, which was used above may be understood by the
reader to be similar. Yet it is not the same, however if the (subtle) differences are not
understood (or even recognized) or the definition of one is understood in a distorted manner,
then it is evident how a misunderstanding may be derived. This is an example of the limitations
of communication, or written language in this case. For this reason, to seek a clear
understanding, the differences and the meanings of words are most helpful when they are not
assumed or ignored.
>>Failure/success is illusory. Patience/impatience all in time. Thinking/doing are one. Pessimism/Optimism are
angles. Balance/imbalance offer same.
ASPECTS OF I (continued)
A primary way to attempt to limit or delay progress is through the focus of attention on anything
aside from the active study both internal and external which facilitates progress. It is always
possible to begin progress, however in some cases the difficulty for the individual may be
pushed exceedingly high. The focus of attention which here being considered may be either a
function of control by others or essentially control by the self. In the case of the latter there need
not necessarily be a perception of control if the entity is simply yet to learn that their attention is
so constricted. In the former, the environment may also be used for control to flow through.
Finally there may be elements of all of the described, to varying degrees, both consciously
recognizable and unconsciously underlying.
If the limitation of attention is via control, two purposes of such are the limitation of awareness
and the consumption of time. To ensure an individual does not become suspicious of the
limitation of awareness or the consumption of time, the illusion that neither is occurring may be
employed. To create the illusion, the percept of the individual will be used to build the illusion.
Illusions offer prime opportunity for enslavement especially for those seeking the control of
others. So to run through this process which in this example via control to some degree, the
beginning may be seen to be the percept. The individual perceives that their time is used well
enough and they are sufficiently aware of principally their environment which may be aided by
the belief/thought/awareness/percept complex that others are the same as them which largely
determines their percept of ‘sufficient’. The adept may consider at this point the facilitating of
collective control by use of duplicate percepts of the populous. All aspects of I are essentially
interlinked or interconnected. Thus a consideration of limitation of attention will likely lead to
the ‘pulling at the thread’ which will at minimum raise questions about other aspects of I,
including percepts, awareness and thoughts/emotions. This is helpful and need not be
discouraging for any seeming enormity of the discovered/undiscovered.
If focus of attention is limited there may be minimal progress as previously stated. An analogy
might be helpful here. Consider an investigator, looking for clues to solve a mystery. The
mystery is life or the universe. The investigator may be put off their search by a sideshow –
something which provides entertainment. Likely the sideshow offers little or nothing for the
investigation. It does however consume time in terms of the lifespan or day of the investigator.
After the sideshow, the investigator has to feed themself and perhaps feed others or run errands.
Again, likely no closer to solving the mystery. Next the investigator finds a clue or a possible
clue. The investigator determines to learn everything about this clue and/or is convinced this
clue is key and spends all their time focused on this one clue. Another investigator on the same
mystery is convinced that individual clues are of no help, an overview is the only possible way
to solve the mystery. This investigator forfeits any possible gain from individual clues.
In the case of absence of external control, an individual may limit their own attention simply out
of ignorance, choice (including unconscious) or confusion. Choice may be due to desires or
habits/addictions and ignorance may be seen to include the lack of awareness of the focus of
attention of the individual. In this way in any of these cases it is possible to view the situation as
the individual effectively being a slave unto themself. This is part of the learning. Like the
individual whom consciously chooses to weather the incoming storm, with freedom an
individual may consciously choose to focus their attention.
The adept – that is one whom has at least some degree of experience or made some amount of
progress – will likely be making use of memory, focus and reflection. Reflection, not yet
discussed is the counter-part to focus – focus being sufficiently conscious and directing of
conscious in a or any given moment. To return to the investigator analogy it would be like the
investigator being maximally aware and observant at the scene where clues may be found,
utilizing their ability to recall as much as possible what was observed and present at the scene
and also utilizing their ability to review all that was observed, felt and recalled at a later moment
when no longer at the scene. If beginning it may be helpful to develop one at a time or one a
portion, then another a portion and repeating.
The first challenge perhaps is focus. Attention may be consumed due to distractions and
constant tasks required of the individual. Perhaps useful as a first step is to attempt focus
beyond the immediate activity. Basically the activity is still carried out (with sufficient
focus/attention to perform adequately) yet attention is also on the moment and state of being,
both of the individual and of others. It may be noted that in a heavily controlled society tasks
and events may be unrelenting in their demand for attention and time, one precise reason is to
prevent any progress of the self by means of limitation. In this situation where the tasks and
happenings are or near inescapable, it is helpful if the individual either splits their focus of
attention between that which demands their attention and that of their choosing which enables
progress and rejecting the demand for the focus of attention. With each situation being unique,
evaluation may be needed – a situation which demands full attention, without which may
increase the likelihood of physical harm or death, suffice to say would probably not be a wise
choice to cease/avoid/neglect. Naturally in a situation which produces pain or discontent, there
will be some form of seeking of a new avenue which may make use of altering attention. A
simple example would be thoughts of rebellion or escape.
Now if an individual is not remembering a moment, including themself in that moment, progress
may be made more difficult. For example an individual whom daily endures something which
causes discontent yet does not remember it by the end of the day or more specifically does not
readily recall the degree of discontent, it is less likely to produce any change in the individual,
either in mind or external physicality. If the individual did not recall yesterday that the situation
was the same or the repetitiveness of the many times in which the situation had been the same,
then again, there is a reduction in the capability of the individual to change in some form. In this
way, those things, be they pathways to control or the situation present, which inhibit or reduce
an individual’s capability to change are potentially hazardous by either attrition or
imprisonment. To extend the points a little further before leaving this discussion to move on,
awareness of possibility of change is another part, perception of no need to change or nothing to
change to, another part and suppression of thoughts and emotions another part. Counter-
balancing is also another optional part.
Provided some memory is retained, reflection is possible. This is made more useful if focus is
not so well developed or cannot maintain sufficient focus outside of the focus of attention
demanded by the activities of the time or day. Reflection also affords the opportunity to balance
those moments which may be seen to be out of balance, such as an ill thought or disharmonious
emotion. Reflection may be an alternative to or alternate with or be in replacement of
meditation. To help with recall and future reflection, an individual may decide to note either
mentally or physically the results of their reflective moments, viewing them as a summary or
review of the day or time, which may then be looked at with other reflective moments and
reflected upon. It is helpful to observe carefully percepts of the self, the environment (including
others) or the time when reflecting as the reflecting provides more collective information than
the percept of a specific moment or thought/feeling for example. Reflection also helps to
visualize or subjectively quantitate progress. There is also an objective quantification, however
this is through differentiation of the steps, the shades, via unified concepts. It’s measurement
would be much like the measuring of a spectrum.
Both pessimism and optimism are in themselves distorted percepts. A balanced percept is one
which sees things as they are with relevant probabilities of possibilities and remains neutral to
the probabilities. Either pessimism or optimism contain a leaning one way or the other which in
probability will contain upon inspection some degree of emotion or feeling, bias or belief or lack
of awareness, usually of one side or the other. Consistent unfounded optimism or pessimism are
both the same in the sense they are most often wanted, expected or anticipated, all of which are
limiting. Such a percept leads to restriction of possibilities/probabilities. If essentially all
possibilities are probable and there are infinite possibilities, there is always the possibility of a
worsening or bettering (both subjective) of the current situation. However, by virtue of the fact
that there is existence, of the self, of others, of the whole, whilst this appears the case which it
may always be, a fraction of optimism may also be balanced. Perhaps in actuality a
foundational percept of contentment would be most true to balance. Both optimism and
pessimism, aside from some commonality in concepts/percepts, are subjective. One individual’s
greed producing another individual’s despair would be one example.
>> In all beings their is the potential for all things. The ability to hate, the ability to kill, the ability to control, to
manipulate. They are there like it or not, deny it or accept it. But once transcended they hold no value. There is no
need to repeat lessons already mastered. Consider if they are truly obsolete within the self. Consider if the self (the
reader) are capable of understanding and empathizing others still learning such lessons. If the self shows capacity
to understand their position, their place, the self may accept them, be free from them and potentially help them.
Dark Side of I
The ‘dark side’ of oneself may be seen to be those thoughts, actions, tendencies and feelings
which may be understood to be less than harmonious, self serving or harmful. It is the
understanding of such which may be considered first. However, thought of the darker aspects of
the self first requires awareness of the ‘dark’ aspect which will then in turn produce a percept,
even if the percept is relatively clear or unbiased. An example for consideration will be the
action of lying. With this action, as part of the ‘dark’ side there is often an accompaniment of an
emotion/thought/percept complex which blocks the self from acknowledging and thus awareness
of the lying. For example if one questions if one did lie or even why one lied (if one did or did
not), the emotion of desperation or false empathy may be employed; for the percept aspect there
may be the perception of ‘the situation called for it’; and for a thought/concept aspect there may
be the concept that it was necessary or right to do so. All of these act as buffers for the ‘dark’
side of I, which of course includes any programming, conditioning or external control. Of this
last statement, any external control or programming must still work through the self.
This is where the power of the self may be recognized. The other self acting as controller or
programmer may be seen to be an extension of the self doing the exact same. It is both a
challenge and a choice to de-program, to liberate oneself. It would also be an unbalanced
approach to attempt to deny others their choice not to de-program themselves or to shun or
criticize, including via perception/thought others who do little de-programming (self progress),
have a different or distorted concept of programming/control or perceive the situation with
excess or insufficient ‘seriousness’. Further, the ‘dark’ aspect of the self may attempt to
label/perceive those communications and actions which hinder/limit/harm/etc the self as being
entirely or the majority being external in origin.
What is of principal notation is the effort of the ‘dark’ side of the self to hide or change it’s
appearance and utilize any pathway for control to retain ‘it’s’ place. It becomes redundant to
categorize or view with any strict percept of this aspect of the self – as such whether it is called
the ‘dark’ side, the ego, control, the predator, the self serving, the evil or any other term – the
words merely act as reference and means to communicate. The concepts associated with these
words, by this association may become stagnant or rigid and thus when the aspect of the self
changes, including appearance but not limited to, then the concept/word is still the old and has
been left behind.
Likewise the ‘dark’ side will attempt to distort in anyway the concept – in this case the concept
of the ‘dark’ side. This is done using any of the pathways to control as previously outlined, but
perhaps primarily by limitation and distortion of understanding. It is not so much a matter of
accuracy or attempting to pinpoint a concept, but remaining open, yet collating knowledge of the
concept. Lastly, the ‘dark’ side, in an attempt to hide will try one of two options. The first is by
separation, the second by a form of ‘enforced’ inclusion. The first option, possibly the more
distorted and more easily recognized is, to use an analogy, a sibling whom is noted to
continually hurt/deceive proclaiming they are no longer a sibling. This of course may be done
in a manner attempting to turn the focus, the blame upon the self rather than the sibling – “no
longer worthy” is an example.
This drifts into interactions between the self and another self, however the principals are the
same, whether dealing with the ‘dark’ side of the self or the ‘dark’ side of an other self which
may simply be seen as another self. With the separation, the severance, which is primarily a
percept, the ‘dark’ side may then invoke further percept/understanding in the concept of
‘battling’ the ‘dark’ side, ‘eradicating’ or similar. Using another analogy, the ‘dark’ seeks to be
fed – it will attempt to alter the self (primarily through all the ways mentioned) to ensure it is
fed. For the second option, returning to the analogy of a sibling being the ‘dark’ side of the self,
in this option the sibling insists or convinces in some way that since the sibling is in fact a
sibling, they cannot be viewed or treated in any manner not to their agreement or choice
regardless of what they do or are. This may be done with the attempt to quickly hide the ‘dark’
side, to return focus of the self upon anything but the ‘dark’ side. A very simple example of this
might be, in the case of lying, the thought pattern of “it’s ok other people do the same thing”.
This of course employs the rationale of the self along with the understanding of the situation and
the lie itself. Perhaps a more accurate example of what is being considered here would be the
thought pattern of “if I just love/accept the negative/dark side it will go away”. What is of
primary importance here are the concepts in use. Firstly if one has no understanding or
definition of a concept or a hazy one at that then the opportunity to use this lack of
understanding/definition against the self is great. Secondly is a concept which is distorted.
Distortion is a broad term, for something becomes clear with the progress/development of the
awareness/percept/thought/emotion complex of the individual. This is precisely how progress
both helps further ‘future’ progress and protects against attempts to prevent or hinder progress.
This is not limited to the self upon the self, it may also include the self in the presence of other
selves – the exception being of course those entities seeking progress on the negative path,
which looks to the opposite affect only with respect to other selves. So it may be seen if it has
not been already by the reader, that the concepts including associated words used through-out
this text are worthy of consideration. It is a simple process of the ‘dark’ side of the self to
assume or decide upon a particular meaning of a concept or word within this text which is not
the same as what is being conveyed. This may likely happen – it is the consideration and the
remaining open to question currently held concepts and definitions which enables a clearing of
that which was previously muddied, incomplete or distorted in some manner. The adept may
recall the ‘nature’ or concept of freedom with regards to this last statement. Also, it may be
noted if not done so already, those thoughts/actions which are not entirely by the ‘dark’ side or
by control.
The ‘dark’ side may attempt to label all as such in order to invoke response. The response for
example may simply be a forced action/response to that which is perceived only. In other words
alteration of perception being utilized for means of control/consumption. There are thoughts and
actions which primarily arise out of confusion and/or ignorance. Ignorance in this case may be
seen to be harsh or even incorrect since if there is no awareness of something it is not so much
ignored, just unknown. It is also a possibility and probably active to one degree or another in a
controlled society that both confusion is invoked (disinformation, physiological means) and
ignorance/unknowing is promoted or upheld by concealment of knowledge or information, as
well as suppression of curiosity for example. The primary point being discussed here is being
open to all possibilities and considering percepts of the opposite polarity to one which is present.
All of this is done by self observation of percepts – counter any positive with consideration of
the equal opposite negative and vice versa, curiously question awareness and observe the
thoughts that arise or are produced from this. There are those reading whom might view this as
complex to do. Begin with small steps and start at the beginning, it may be viewed as easy upon
reflection. There are those reading whom might view this as easy or already being done.
Perhaps the reader is correct. Or perhaps the programming remains steadfast for the reader to
view themself as adept. If that is so, then at this point the use of a lure as a means to control via
percept of the self with respect to other selves would also have been considered.
Light side of I
Like the ‘dark’ side, the ‘light’ side may be easily overlooked or not readily considered. Of
course the ‘dark’ side may attempt to suppress the light side in any way, at least to the degree it
can ‘get away with’ before being detected. The ‘light’ side may be seen in terms of percepts,
thoughts or emotions which benefit to the self or the other self. Consider at a particular moment,
be the other self familiar or unfamiliar to the self, the possible perceptions which may arise
within the self. If chosen or allowed to occur, it is always possible to see the light side of
another. At the very least, the realization that the other self is learning like the self and thus may
have struggled and made error upon error. If the qualities and similarities which have made the
other self are not forgotten or suppressed then the otherself cannot be seen as an enemy, quite
the opposite – a fellow student/teacher. The choice of another to embrace the ‘dark’ side is a
valid one and although the ‘dark’ side may call to see the otherself as an enemy to be won or
enslaved, the ‘light’ side sees the opposite – the otherself may be free and is to be accepted.
Acceptance does not imply allowance to enslave the self, it means acceptance of who the
otherself is and allowance to attempt to control. The ‘light’ side does not fight for fighting is a
concept of the ‘dark’ side – the ‘light’ side does not have to if no attacks are capable of harm.
It is the knowledge of attacks, both active and potential which afford protection against any
attacks. The attacks aside from obvious hurt, intend to control, destroy or similar. Knowing all
the pathways to such , which includes understanding of the self, the other self – an evolving
process – is the key to protection. It is a matter of being prepared, always at the ready rather
than anticipation or being in a state where all or almost all is perceived as attacks or attempts to
control.
The ‘good’ in others may be seen as the ‘good’ in the self. Just as the ‘dark’ side may place
aside those positive aspects of the (other) self to view the negative aspects, the ‘light’ side may
do the opposite. This too may be taken out of balance by the ‘dark’ side. To “stare” at the light
can be as blinding as being in darkness without vision. There are none that are not worthy and
in the same way, none are more special than another. By this understanding alone the notion of
another self being less in any way or form becomes redundant. The novice is no less than the
so-called master or the adept. If there were no novice, then in such an hierarchy the adept would
then assume the place the novice previously held. The ‘dark’ side encourages hierarchy, the
‘light’ side understands the concept to be redundant. The father/mother is not greater than the
child, however their position does call for responsibility for the care, the nurturing of the child.
This percept/understanding/emotion complex may be considered in more depth by the reader.
Hope, in the sense that “things” may turn more positive (subjective) is always available, for
possibility and change being ever present make this so. Hope in the sense that one wants or
seeks for “things” to change in one’s favor indicates self servitude, for the darkness has a
purpose and change for the positive for one may mean change for the negative (open to
subjectivity) for another. This is primarily a matter of percept, for in any moment there are both
‘light’ and ‘dark’ perceptions to be made. Therefore, to ‘demand” that the ‘light’ side
effectively show itself (via perception in this case) may be understood to be unhealthy or
imbalanced. The troubled times would not be so if they were not comparable to the joyous
times. Like the scientist studying magnetism whilst ignoring electricity, the study of either the
dark or the light whilst ignoring the other cannot yield a complete picture. Similarly study of the
self whilst ignoring the other self – or vice versa – does not yield the progress of an integration
of a study of both.
Ebb and Flow of lightness and darkness
In the seeking, the learning, the lessons, the struggle, the motion, the light and dark aspects of
the self ebb and flow, until both momentarily and eventually the dark either gains a more
permanent control shall we say, enshrouding the self or the light transcends the measures to
control, shining forth to dispel the darkness. In this although the polarities may be seen, it is still
a spectrum between these two polarities. Thus there is much of what may be called the ‘gray’
area. Often it is these shades of gray which may bring about much sadness and uncertainty. An
example. Upon query of the state of being of the self from another, the self replies that they are
fine (or equivalent) not because they are fine, but because they choose to do this, even though it
is essentially a lie, in order to not hurt another or consume their attention/focus etc. One may
look at this exemplified situation from both perspectives – the light side and the dark side. From
one perspective, if the self is not fine, this implies imbalance with respect to all other selves.
However the self attempts to retain the imbalance within the self and ‘deal’ with it by the self.
It may be seen to be a self sacrifice. Another perspective is that by lying, the self is denying the
other self the opportunity to help. Even though the other self may want to or believe they can
help, the self may understand they cannot help, which may be true or it may be false based on
perception. If the other self proclaims this as a false understanding based on a distorted
perception of the other self (which suggests imbalance of the other self by itself) then logically
the other self is called to consider how they themself helped the self to form the (so called) false
perception. Sometimes unhelpfulness is helpful. As stated, sadness and uncertainty may be
found here – sadness that the path taken may not have mattered or made a difference in the end
and uncertainty over which path to take for the same reason.
Acceptance is the pivot of balance.
Personalities
In particular when programming is ‘heavy’ or perhaps also when confusion abounds, the
changes – the patterns and tendencies – between the aspects of the self, the ‘light’ and ‘dark’
sides may be quite distinct. These ‘plays’ or ‘layers’ covering the essence of the self we may
call personalities. The distinguishment may be seen in what an individual would likely do if
truly free to be themself, as opposed to the likelihood of what the individual will do given the
circumstance, the environment, the presence of others. It could be said that there are many
personalities for each individual, some more/less than others. These personalities will be
defined by the characteristics of the individual which differ in each change of personality. An
example would be the individual whom acts in a particular manner to one other individual but
then acts in a completely different manner to another group of individuals. It may be noted that
there are some characteristics which may be defined under personality or simply personal
choices. An example might be an individual whom decides or concludes (at least presently) that
for one group of individuals there is a call or need to communicate in a particular manner in
order to communicate in a way deemed acceptable to the group. To another the individual
communicates without such restrictions or alterations.
The alteration of personalities – that is the changing between – is worthy of observation for there
may likely be clues to the individual, to aspects of control. For the self, with progress and a
‘return’ to the essence of the self, the concept of personalities becomes (largely) redundant.
PROGRESS
Formation of percepts
Considerations – or lack of for oneself or for another. If something has yet to be considered (or
ignored or hidden) that is, observed or looked at, the something does not help to form a percept.
However the consideration is via the conscious mind – the generator of thoughts. For there will
always be some percept, even with only one perception of another, although it is likely many
incidences or many perceptions will add up, even though the incidences/perceptions may not
have been considered once. An example of this might be an individual saying they ‘hate’
another individual. The individual may not even know why, though they may quite easily
generate a reason, even if a masked reason. A masked reason is a reason told to the self to hide
the real reason. “I hate them because they did this”. When in reality they hate them because the
person chose to do the thing in question. It is primarily a self deception. This is likely due to a
lack or inability to perceive ones own percepts, awareness and understanding, although
deception may also be consciously chosen.
If the percepts are not or cannot be monitored (actively perceived) either as they happen or in
retrospect, then they may flow through effectively undetected or without any discernment.
Likely an unconscious percept is embedded. Note an individual may be aware of a perception as
it flows in, but that is all. It is not different perhaps to being aware of the surroundings – a
room, some furniture etc, but not really being aware of what is in the room (the perception) or
having any attention to it (if things change or the nature or qualities of the room – e.g. ominous,
light, confined etc).
For a perception, one with conscious observation it requires a consideration – that is the
individual to consider that in question – be it itself (including a portion or part of itself, not just
the whole) another self (including a portion as well as the whole) or a thought in itself.
Now, for only if an individual considers then it may be thought about and then the individual
may check it for flaws, errors or deficiencies, at least to their ability, which is determined by an
individual’s total percepts, awareness and understanding. It is like a jigsaw puzzle. At this point
with the analogy, the individual has built up so much of the puzzle – the pieces are in place and
form some picture. The picture will no doubt be incomplete, but may give a good indication of
the content of the picture. However it is possible for the picture to be incorrect, or more
accurately it is possible for the picture to be distorted with respect to a correct solution to the
puzzle. The analogy here is that the puzzle pieces are the understandings and the aspects of the
puzzle pieces are the percepts. Awareness is like an overall idea of what the puzzle picture is to
look like (at this stage) as well as how the individual may be doing with regards to progress as
well as the tendency to mistakes etc. Now the percepts may be likened to how the self perceives
individual pieces including how they should or should not fit, where they might go etc. With
consideration of ones percepts one may check (or re-check) the orientation and placement of a
puzzle piece. Perhaps the piece is in the wrong place. Perhaps the piece is not even necessary.
To note here is that numerous percepts may have been placed and fitted together, but the image
being formed is not the solution to the puzzle. So the percepts have produced a distorted or false
understanding from the image produced in this puzzle analogy. The puzzle is a simple analogy.
For the adept, to the analogy some additional characteristics may be included. These are firstly
the puzzle changes picture upon completion, creating a new puzzle. Secondly how the puzzle is
put together is also variable, thirdly, there still remains a correct solution to the ever changing
puzzle.
The main point of this portion of the text is firstly the perceiving of others or the self. What is
absent until developed, knowingly or not is the consideration of the perceptions of the self or the
way in which the self perceives or the reasons why the self perceives in the ways in which the
self does – i.e. any tendencies or patterns in the self’s perceiving. Perhaps if this is done then it
may lead to (further or more critical) contemplation or consideration of understandings.
The importance of this portion of the text may be noted by the reader. For that which is not
considered is something which may remain hidden, either on purpose or not. It is similar to
secrecy although not identical. Secrecy is where something is hidden intentionally with the hope
it will not be discovered. If something will not or will likely not be considered, it doesn’t
actually have to be secret. It may actually be in the open, including in ‘plain sight’. For either
the entities choose not to, are incapable or are controlled such that the entities do not perceive it.
It may even be that which controls. It may be something so obvious when considered.
Occupying attention and focus are methods of control to achieve this – like a magician (con
artist/illusionist) at a show. Now things which are not perceived or capable of being perceived
(things not physical for example) may be considered through awareness, e.g. concepts or
knowledge. Perhaps suppressing capability of visual perception would be another, as well as the
ability for ‘original’ or ‘fresh’ thinking. That currently being discussed is not limited to the
external. The reader may note if they had not just read the previous sentence, would they have
not considered if the hidden or secret something may also be internal – that is of the self? Here
is an example: An individual here being considered passes the day in which another individual
communicates or acts in some way which the individual being considered perceives as
hurtful/negative in some way. The individual primarily holds focus of that hurtful/negative
event for the day, which at a later point in the day prevents the individual in consideration
perceiving a small gesture which would normally be perceived as helpful/positive. In this
example after the day the individual in question returned to a relatively neutral percept of the
other individual.
When progress is made upon the self, the changes will naturally reflect both internally and
externally. With the new state, new lessons are provided so that again, at some point, change
may occur. This is a constant flux. The external provides lessons just as the internal provides
lessons. There is no value in placing one above the other, it is a hindrance to give precedence of
one over the other, although one may work on one for some considerable time before looking at
the other again. The point is not to discard or de-value either the internal or external or any
aspect of one or the other.
To elaborate on this, two examples:

1. The individual whom works primarily on themself, yet in the external reality lack
understanding and awareness and are thus easily lost, confused, controlled or manipulated.
2. The individual whom works primarily on the external reality, yet internally struggles with
thoughts and emotions or is unable to perceive the ways in which they mentally enslave or
restrict themself.
Concepts may also be perceived in some shape or form. The novice, if that is a permissible
label will tend to perceive the concept or the information in the narrow region at either end of
the spectrum – the polarities or opposites. The negative/positive, the useful/useless,
helpful/harmful, correct/incorrect etc. It is not that a concept or information may not be at one
end of the spectrum as may be the case, it is that not only the perception may not match the
actuality, but that the perception is restricted to a narrow band or is limited to one spectral band.
An example to elaborate:
An entity perceives a piece of information as negative. In actuality it is positive, although it may
be distorted in a negative way. Example Two: An entity perceives a concept as correct. In
actuality it is neither correct nor incorrect, it is subjective or dependent upon how the concept is
perceived and/or applied.
Those were examples with a single spectral band. Reality may be more complex. Example
three: An entity perceives a collection of related pieces of information (all of the same topic or
subject) as mostly or completely incorrect. In actuality a major portion of the information is
incorrect, however there is a small piece within the collection which is helpful and another piece
which is correct yet may also be harmful if interpreted incorrectly.
Emotions may also be perceived to some degree. The perceptions of emotions of others may
differ from the perceptions of emotions of the self. There may be an absence of consideration of
perception of emotion. The understanding of an entity may be such that little consideration is
given as the emotions are perceived/understood to be
acceptable/necessary/normal/required/unavoidable. The entity exhibiting the trait of
impulsiveness may likely lack any significant percept of their emotions, in particular frequency
and consequences. The entity additionally lacking the capacity for empathy and consideration
for others will likely also not register perception of any affect the emotions of themself or others
is having on an other self.
Those emotions which subtract from an individual’s well being or contentment are to be
understood if they are to be relinquished. To be understood they first must be recognized
completely. Often it is not simply a matter of defining the emotion with the notion ‘I feel this
because..’ Emotions are interconnected with understanding and percepts. Indeed it is possible
to simply ‘cover things up’ with a concept which ignores the lessons. This option may provide
some ‘relief’ from the emotion(s) however it will always be temporary. The lesson cannot be
avoided. An example of this is ‘just think positive thoughts’ or ‘just be happy’. Negative
feelings and emotions have their place and purpose. It is much more helpful to investigate,
question and probe for clues as to why they are present than to convince oneself they don’t exist
or ignore the symptoms. It is equally of value to question the concepts and percepts surrounding
an emotion. These may differ to a degree in different circumstances. An example is sadness for
oneself compared to the sadness felt for another. Interactions and the self in relation to other
selves will be considered later in this text. With regards to (linear) time an individual may say to
focus on the now, essentially saying to ignore or forget the past and not consider the future.
This may be seen to be both advantageous and disadvantageous, depending primarily on time
spent focusing on one and that which is derived. The dependence is helpful in determining
activity or being. The reader may also note the relation between an emotion and time. For
example regret/ resentment over past events or fear/anxiety over probable future events.
Generation of thoughts and emotions
If using the analogy of a ‘generator’ for the formation of thoughts and emotions, perhaps a first
query might be as to the way in which the generator runs. To what degree are
thoughts/emotions unconscious or conscious? To what degree are thoughts/emotions impulsive
or spontaneous? From where does the generator draw its resources or fuel? What makes the
generator produce what it produces? How active is the generator and is it more emotion than
thought or vice versa?
Usually, at least in a human, the fastest response is a perception being used to generate an
emotion. This can occur faster than conscious thought and observation. Thought is not always
slow (by comparison) either. An intuitive or spontaneous thought can also arrive in an instant.
Note that here, there is no discussion of an unconscious reaction, such as avoidance of a physical
danger. What is being considered is actual conscious thought or emotion. By conscious in this
sense it is also meant that which is definable or recognizable by the individual. Both thought
and emotions are a pair, interconnected to understanding. They are interconnected in that a
change in understanding influences thoughts and emotions, just as thoughts and emotions are
capable of altering understanding. If this is understood, then there is potential for the individual
to alter their thoughts or emotions. This need not be a conscious alteration. What has changed
is the generator itself. It is here we approach the essence of an entity. Aside from core
awareness, surface awareness and perceptions may be removed and what will remain is the
generator. The generator may be in idle or it may be turned off to be turned on at any time,
however it still remains.
Here is an exercise which may be contemplated in the least:
Imagine no external reality. It ceases to exist, memory of it is all that remains.

The self is left with only thoughts, emotions, memory and perception of these first three things.
Memory may be variable or open to interpretation, so remove memory, forget everything.
Cease observing the moment, including perceptions of the self, the mind.
What is left?
The potential for thought or emotion and understanding. In this state, what is the difference
between emotion and thought?
The exercise is left for the consideration of the reader.

Emotions and feelings
The emotional center or generator tends to work faster than the analytical generator/mind. The
‘downside’ to this is an action or thought which is unwise or in the case of a negative emotion,
hurtful. It is not that the negative emotional generator is to be suppressed or controlled, but
renounced via observation, then understanding. In an opposite way the positive emotional
generator may be nurtured via the same pathways – perception, awareness (observation) and
then understanding. It is not necessary and perhaps not healthy to have a gateway for all
emotion to pass through, with the requirement to pass through an analytical inspection if you
will, before being allowed to happen. Usually this will not happen – in a situation, the emotion
is generated itself, and always first on the scene, unless suppressed – thus it is the sum
understanding of the individual which usually determines when the emotional generator will
activate. If the understanding is well, when appropriate, the emotion will be there. When not it
may not. Thus it is the understanding which lessens the possibility of an emotion ‘out of place’
or leading to an error etc, and it is also understanding so that the emotional generator may not be
hindered in its operation – that is vigilance, but not of the variety that an excessive course to
clear all skepticism to prevent any chance of ‘being burnt’ is undertaken before any positive
feelings, such as affection or connection are felt. It is a balance – the emotion, but also the
wisdom. It is not a mistrust, even in the “worst” of situations where the majority may be
dishonest, but a continual feedback of awareness of the possibility of dishonesty, yet still
retaining the connection, empathy and positive feelings from the emotional generator.
Without awareness and observation of the emotions of the self, the self may in effect become
slave to their emotions – acting on impulse rather than a centered, thoughtful approach.
Feelings may be seen to be a more prolonged state which integrates both emotional content and
perceptual content.
Perhaps in comparison to emotions feelings are a much slower cycle of states. These too are to
be observed and considered for their content and patterns, the more subtle, the more prolonged,
the more they may require observation in order to discern.
Now the reader at this point may wonder where all this leads or if “progress” is important. It is
the most fundamental portion of the text. The importance of progress in relation to other
portions of the text depends upon the reader – some may have begun/attempted or made
progress previously. In such a case, the philosophical understanding of control/freedom or the
self/other self may have more value in the present moment. It is also to be considered those that
will simply not be capable of grasping the text in their lifetime. They may learn something from
the text or may simply not be ‘ready’ at this moment. These examples are aside from those who
may reject the text outright. Then there are those whom inherently know much or potentially all
that is written here. The point is that no matter what point one is at, the progress always
continues whilst there is time, be it tiny steps or grand leaps, it matters not. Tiny steps may take
a little longer, however there is also less chance of falling.
In stating that progress may be considered the most fundamental portion of the text, it may also
be evident that by gaining awareness and perhaps understanding of the other concepts within the
text is progress in itself. Likewise for progress to be made some understanding of the concepts
of the self, the other self and the nature of same is required. The understanding, the progress
need not be derived from this text, it may be derived from any other source and it is suggested
that no one source, including this one, be the only source for deriving an understanding and thus
progress. Likewise progress cannot end with any source or at any moment. When the reader
finishes this text, progress will go on. It is possible for progress to be minor as one’s level
increases however there is still potential for more progress. This last statement allows for an
individual to focus entirely and (obsessively) pursue (their concept of) progress to no end. This
is beyond moving in leaps to an imbalanced state in which the progress has begun to consume
the individual. Recall that all is learning and thus there will be progress one way or another,
paused in moments or not.
Progress itself is progressive. That is not to say it becomes more and more easier/difficult for
that is subjective anyway. It is to say that progress is made across levels. Moving between
levels requires not only what is known, but an aspect of that which is unknown. However it is
not (necessarily) a blind step. These steps in progress are intuitive ones. They may be said to be
known, yet not consciously known. In reality the unknown portion is simply that known to the
other portion of the holographic self. Intuition may be likened to a bridge between levels. By
levels, we may include sub-levels in the definition.
Altering percepts afford the opportunity to further understanding. Further or higher

understanding allows for clearer and easier or more readily moving between different percepts.
A non-linear rate of progress may be seen from this. Increasing awareness may be likened to a
query put forth to thought, thus presenting opportunity for altering either or both (a) percept or
understanding.
There are many things which cannot be conveyed by text. Words and communication have their
limits, but this is not what is meant here. Experience and ‘work’ done by the self is truly the
only way. The best that may be done in all circumstances, but especially those things which
cannot be understood by mere explanation is to provide guideposts. These the student may then
note for they will indicate only a place visited by the student which the teacher has visited. It is
to be noted that they are indeed guides, for a student may potentially make progress by also
taking a different route, thus not visiting the guideposts. In such a case it is helpful if the student
places their own guideposts for future students.
One whom rejects all guideposts of others is certainly free to do so, however one may reflect
upon the helpfulness of rejecting the potential help of others.
Additionally, learning is unique. A lesson itself may be the same or similar, yet the ways to
learn and the path taken will always be unique in terms of the self.
Recall that progress is made by investigation. The investigation is not only active seeking, but
experience in itself. Thus true knowledge provides both progress and protection. True
knowledge is that which upon continual query and investigation repeatedly proves itself. Thus
true knowledge buffers against false knowledge.
With a (relatively) balanced understanding of any given concept, there is the option/possibility
of multiple simultaneous perceptions of alternate polarity. In addition any thesis considered has
in potential to be considered the respective anti-thesis. Further, the less inhibited the overall
percept of the self, the more the potential/possibility to experience a simultaneous
percept/awareness of the macro/micro aspects of the moment, the self (internal), the other self
(external). This, depending on the degree it shall be recalled will likely also require clarity of
thought, adequate knowledge/awareness and balanced emotions. A note may be made that this
in itself may provide a raising of awareness or provision of new thoughts.
With clarity of perception, the objective and subjective may be distinguished most readily, the
subjective viewed for its objective content.
When something new is learnt, one may see that not only is it the new thing which is learnt, but
also that which lie between that which has been learnt and all other things. This includes both
the physical and conceptual. The quanta in between may primarily be noted to be the
relationship and tendencies/influences. In other words how the ‘thing’ connects (or fails to
connect) to all other things or at least those things which may be termed in relation to the
‘thing’. For the puzzle analogy used previously, it is like trying a new piece – to do so requires
testing with all the pieces which are connected to the piece in question. To begin the puzzle, one
must begin with something.
1. Consider monitoring/observation of thoughts, including percepts for a previous given period –

an hour, a day, as chosen. Evaluate influences, tendencies and biases of thoughts, percepts and
emotions/feelings.
2. Contemplate balance for all percepts/thoughts/emotions for the period. This includes what is
required for balance – that primarily is the corresponding opposite or counter
percept/thought/emotion. Allow such to arise within the mind, rather than a forcing, a demand
for balance. If the latter is the case, note it for content.
3. Allow opening for (relatively or possibly) new percepts to enter the mind. Allow for thought
for that which may hinder or direct any particular (category of) percept/thought/emotion entering
the mind. Consider biases which influence, including those considered external or apart from
the self – such as past events, psycho-physiological make-up, understood place of the self
relative to others/environment/all else.
4. Perceive virtues of the self, the mind. Examples include patience, will or purpose,
connectedness. Give thought to other virtues or allow others to enter the mind for
perception/observation/thought.
5. Balance virtues by thought of corresponding percepts, opposite virtues, acceptance of such.
6. Contemplate resultant understanding of the self as well as current perceived understanding

(including lack) of the self. Observe the understanding as it is, allowing for acceptance of the
self.
7. Allow for intuitive thought as to further progress, including repetition, choosing another path
or alternative and momentary pause of (attempted) progress.
With progress, not only may the content of percepts change but also the ways to perception.
Instead of seeing only by difference or differentiation, one may see by similarity/correspondence
and further one may see by connectedness and commonality. It is principally percept to
understanding/understanding to percept alteration which facilitates such change or progress,
however emotions may provide a charge for the process and increasing awareness similarly. In
closing the circle – so to speak – freedom from control has base in potential for progress. One
requires freedom in thought itself, including emotional freedom, in order to put the tools to use –
the tool being the mind, thought itself.
A balanced overall percept may be seen to basically be that which transcends difference, that
which is of clarity, held by understanding, that with little to no bias. Even if only a balanced
percept is that which is worked on – likely this alone will produce results outside itself, such as
altered/corrected/increased understanding – the individual may then turn the percept inwards to
the self, upon the thoughts/emotions/aspects and thus view them in a more objective manner
than a mere subjective/distorted manner of an individual with little/no progress. Progress may
then be accelerated, relatively speaking. This is not so much a cold clinical methodology, a
‘lighthearted’ approach is welcome here, the allowance is the viewing with greater detail/clarity
those components which limit or block any part of the self, for example any limitation of a
positive emotion for another due to diminished awareness/understanding. When progress or the
seeking to progress becomes demanding, drudgery or ritualistic, the potential for harm is opened
up. In terms of ritual this does not mean that one cannot allocate a time of day, set aside for the
specific task of self development. It primarily means a set amount/time of working for a specific
outcome/demand/expectation. It is perhaps an helpful approach to “work” steadily, with
patience and with openness to results. All in time and not before.
Adversities may be seen as challenges or opportunities.

Opportunities may be seen for their content of responsibility.
Hardship is for one a reminder of appreciation.

Appreciation is a friend of consideration.
Perseverance is healthy until it becomes a battle.

Battles are never won, only lost, so best not to begin any.
All possibilities may be seen to have potential and relative probabilities.

In an infinite universe it is helpful to be open to infinite possibilities.
All things are extraordinary.

ASPECTS OF BEING
The endless maze, the unperceived illusion
Seclusion, containment, imprisonment, decision; it matters not for some things. The endless
maze is exactly that - a maze without end, without exit. It need not be external, it may also be
internal or conceptual within the mind. The maze has as a counter-part stagnation. Stagnation is
the notion that no progress may be made. The endless maze keeps the entity continually
moving, trying to escape, searching for an exit that may never be found. The “solutions” to
these perceived “problems” have been outlined previously in the text. It is an understanding.
With this understanding stagnation may only be temporary or non-existent whilst the endless
maze is no longer endless, it is merely a simple maze.
The unperceived illusion is that which is determined to be reality since the illusory
aspect/component is not perceived – the individual(s) has/have no awareness of such. Like the
maze the illusion may be perceived as or may serve as a prison. However essentially the prison,
no matter how much it is reinforced and upheld, the choice is always present to leave, to find the
exit. Despondency and the perceived necessity for the illusion are ways in which an entity may
be kept or coerced into staying within the maze or illusion. Perhaps the main two components
of either the maze or the illusion are the percept of such and the choice to determine that the
maze is not endless, the illusion in fact illusion.
After being in a an illusion of a moment where there is no feeling of value afterwards, there may
be the feeling of hopelessness or lack of progress or being ‘stuck’ This is a prime opportunity
for ill feelings and continuing in the illusion of the activities or thoughts that are of no value.
That is - it is a self sustaining loop in which the individual may be caught in. This seems to be
usually from want. The situation was brought about by a want or desire, if this is not fulfilled
(an emptiness) it is repeated until it is or the individual gives up (winning for example). But the
desire being fulfilled may then recreate the desire – but this time it may be more or it may be a
little different. (e.g. winning more or winning against a different opponent or in a different
place/situation) Thus it is like a hole. One takes dirt from another place to fill the hole. But
they have just created a new hole which may be the same or similar to the first. Also the dirt
will tend to sink since it has been dug up from being compacted somewhat and is not as
compacted. Thus the individual does not get ahead but falls behind, or at best comes out even –
that is, still at least with a hole the same as the original. That is the desire. To fulfill it is one
thing but to understand it and to accept the fulfillment as being acceptable is helpful. Otherwise
it is like the perfectionist who cannot live with a single hole anywhere in the ground. To accept
is like letting the winds of time smooth the land. The issue or hole may be let go and/or
probably better understood how it came to be there in the first place. Perhaps it came to be there
from certain choices (heavy machinery tearing up the ground for example) in others a choice on
the part of the individual. Perhaps it is also in part a perception – that is it’s not so much a hole
but the way in which the land is and has been. So there is a perceived hole, thus a need/desire
and thus the repercussive actions and thoughts from such.
Value
Seeing the value of one’s life
An individual generally determines value by the degree the individual either gained for themself
or gave to others. This may be a combination of both experience and learning. They are
essentially the same. Experience may provide pleasure or pain or neither, the lesson learnt may
be immediately after, or it may be in a distant future upon reflection. That which is not learnt is
repeated, that which repeats but is not recognized as needing to be learnt results in stagnation.
Stagnation either keeps an individual from progress potentially without end, or results in
degeneration until the individual ceases to be, at least in their present form or realm.
Learning may be without experience in the physical, that is, it may be in thought. One could say
the thought is that which is experienced. In essence we have said the same as what physical
experience is. The key note is, despite having the option to experience the physical whilst in a
physical realm, the option always remains to experience in thought, even if impeded. Any
limitations of perceivability of a realm, physical or non-physical offer at the least, an alternative
perception, that is, the opportunity to view the same content from an alternative angle.
Value, if we go a little deeper, may also be seen as the diversity, the quantity and the quality of
that which is either given or received.
This may suggest that value depends on the quantity or value of all these three characteristics.
With this in view, we may see the subjectivity of value. It is the amount perceived by the
individual as well as the relationship of all three characteristics to each other. To elaborate, one
individual may seek experiences with diversity value X, quantity value Y and quality value Z.
These all, to the individual determine an individual’s perception of the value of their total
experiences. Another individual seeks experiences with diversity 2X (Twice that of the first
individual), quantity value ½ Y and quality value Z. The second individual may have seen
diversity being of more value than quantity and overall may determine more or less value than
the first individual as the values X,Y and Z are relevant to the individual. Now a third
individual may experience ¼ X (diversity), ¼ Y (quantity) but 16 Z (quality). In this case the
few or even singular experience is perceived as having greater quality. The reasons, dependent
on the individual may be for example, as it is one or few, it is treasured much more; the
experience(s) are looked at and considered in greater detail in retrospect; or the experience holds
greater richness or quality in its occurrence, largely due to the sensitivity of perception/reception
of the individual.
In an imbalanced society, it is likely that individuals will perceive that which is received as
inherently having a greater base value than that which is given. In a balanced society, giving
would likely be perceived as having at minimum equal value to anything received.
Thus the value of one’s life or even one day in a life is determined by the sum of one’s
perception and understanding of that which was learnt or experienced. It is the individual’s
awareness and understanding which modulate the perception, which feeds back to the mind for
further cognition in a loop like fashion, with experience providing an input (and output).
Seeing the value of one’s being
The value of one’s being is primarily a subjective percept. An individual will generally value
themself relative to others, to the percept of themself - either their own or that of others - and to
experiences both past and probable future, including absence of experience. An entity seeking
imbalance or the provision of such will perceive their value as greater than all others, with the
only exception being those that they understand to be ‘greater’ than themselves whom they serve
intentionally in order to rule over others. An entity approaching balance will tend to perceive
their value as equal to all others, with the only exception being those that may be perceived as
‘less’ than themself which brings a responsibility to serve first. In this sense, it may be
perceived as the entity acting as if they had less value than the ‘lesser’ entity by giving
precedence, yet it is functional understanding only. The same may be said for the self serving
entity also.
For the entity attempting to rule over others, it is helpful to minimize or lessen a controlled
individual’s self percept of their value. This is most readily done via an hierarchy and secondly
via using that which is already present, in particular physical form.
For an entity approaching balance it is helpful to understand such control, be it enforced or
adopted by the self, so that it may become transparent and inequality may be perceived as
equality. The difference between inequality and equality is that the differences have lost their
value. It is control which gives them value. The control primarily works through perception
and understanding (such as a belief) to give value. The awareness of control allows for the view
of the value of an entity’s being to shift from opaque to translucent. The understanding of
control allows for the view of the value of an entity’s being to shift from translucent to
transparent. With clarity, the control may be relinquished.
Thought
All thoughts have some degree of value and purpose if the self is able to perceive such.
Controlling thoughts is not suggested for it seeks to limit, it seeks to control the self which is a
move towards imbalance. At least to begin with it is helpful to observe objectively from an
external vantage point (as may be seen in the previous diagrams) then to let thoughts flow as
they do and act accordingly. Imagine being in a room with many other selves around the self all
speaking to the self at the same time. What the other selves are saying are like the thoughts of
the self. Some are saying utter rubbish, some are suggesting the self do things to please the self,
some are ordering the self to work, some suggesting to relax and others many other things. Is it
wise to cover the mouths of those the self does not wish to hear at that moment? Will it work to
have just those thoughts the self wants to hear at that moment – possibly the thoughts such as
relax, rather than the ones telling the self to work, to not do this or to do that? Why are those
thoughts even there? Will the self ever know if the self just shuts them up? The other selves or
the thoughts are present for a reason, even if it is only because the self has let them into the
room. So open the door and let them out again. The self cannot force them out – they may
decide they do not want to leave. But if the self ignores them and listens to the other thoughts,
then they will have no affect on the self. They might yell for a while, trying to get the self to
listen to them but eventually they will have no choice but to give up and leave – that is if the self
has opened the door for them. Just ignoring is an attempt to control remember – it is an action
for a specific outcome that the self desires. So open the door, let them leave in their own time
and listen to those thoughts which have the most value for the self. If the self gently focuses on
those speaking no matter how softly to the self then the self will be able to hear them no matter
how loud the others are yelling or how persistent they may be.
If limitation or measures of control are placed upon thinking – including patterns of thinking -
the door is closed, even if partially to new thoughts or patterns which lie outside the placed
constraints. The radical, the obscure, the unusual portion of thought has the place of the
potential to ‘break new ground’. For this reason any thought may be considered, however logic,
vigilance and understanding may render no time “wasted” upon thoughts which the self cannot
find value in. The balance here lies in planned, constructed thought whilst allowing radical,
strange, abstract thought to question new possibilities. The imbalance it may then be seen might
be a majority of incoherent thought patterns with little end result or entirely structured,
methodical thought with little to no room for change, alteration or deviation from a set work
pattern.
Situations
A life in the ‘thick’ of things holds much more opportunity than a life with little in terms of
catalyst (pain) and challenges. This does not necessarily mean number of people one interacts
with or the conditions of the place in which one resides. If one lives mostly by themself close to
nature and does not interact or does not have much awareness of the world around them then
they may be in relative peace but they have set themself an easy life in the sense of not many
challenges which are opportunity for growth. It is like setting a video game to the ‘easy’ setting.
But this can also be valid in the sense of not working too hard – it may be taking the easy option
but may also be necessary depending on the ability of the individual and/or the perceived ability.
Even within this context a relatively easy life which is subjective in itself may have one or a
select few happenings or interactions which may be immensely challenging, at least to the
individual. This allows for focus to be primarily on those challenges rather than being spread
across many issues or challenges. Also a life with chronic or constant or long term challenges
may be seen to be difficult (subjective again) but the difficulty may also be imperceptible to
another who has experienced challenges which have been more acute (e.g. significant loss of a
loved one). However an acute challenge may turn into a chronic challenge or even a severely
chronic challenge. That is, the loss of a loved one for example may turn to be an issue or
challenge that stays with the individual for a large portion of their life. If it becomes too severe,
the individual may not be able to ever let go or transcend the challenge before they die. Hence
one can have an inability to understand or perceive another’s challenges due to their different
nature. It also depends on one’s sensitivity as well as their unique interpretation of the
challenge. A little thing to one individual may be quite a challenge to another and vice versa.
Since one may not know for sure one cannot assume that an event did not have an affect or the
affect was little. In this way one might be considerate not only to those challenges that one is
unaware of in another person as well as the degree to which the other person is affected by them.
Wants/Desires
The difference between wanting (desires) and that which one chooses to do and for what reason
one may choose to do it. Desires may be seen for their perceptive content, understanding
content and emotional content. Imbalance results from any desire. Desires if not
controlled/understood/transcended determine what is done. Control of a desire is a want in
itself. With understanding there may then be transcendence of the desire and therein lies
freedom. Without such freedom, an individual foregoes at least in part active choice and instead
simply reacts based on the want/desire - essentially indicating programming or control, largely
by the self although the desire or want may be encouraged, suggested or simply presented for the
self by another.
There may be elements of both aid from another to create the want/desire (environment for
example) as well as the self creation. From one perspective, in this way individuals may act as
machines, not really choosing their being but merely processing their wants and desires. Now
the reasons for one doing something in a choice may include many little or subtle wants or
desires. Or they may be large but are known to require much time and or energy for example.
An example might be wanting the world to be different to what it currently is. It may also be
wanting others to “wake up”. It is actually healthy – which may seem counter-intuitive- to not
want such things, even though they may bring balance (or the perception that that is what it will
bring) to the society or the individual. It is counter-intuitive in terms of the desire to help others.
Here desire has an incorrect definition. For one cannot desire to help another and be of true
help.
True help is an offering of that which is needed and accepting the response even if it is rejection
of the offering and the other-self is worse off or the society is worse off (maybe subjective to the
worseness). In this way, since it is the other self that determines if you may help them and even
if your (apparent/perceived) help has any affect on them be it positive or even negative – it is
true that it is actually impossible to help another, they may only help themselves. However
where the offering may actually provide help when accepted by the other, then an offer not made
is an opportunity lost, for instead of their being two options – one for the other-self/environment
of the affected one to change – it is left to the affected one to change only. In the same light one
could not expect or desire others to offer help. It may be perceived as nice/pleasant or deserving
however it is unreasonable and unrealistic. It would be like holding onto the edge of a cliff and
saying to yourself, “I’m not going to climb up because somebody SHOULD be helping me. It is
they that are not doing what they should”. Or similar.
Likewise the concept of measures of control in order to help can never succeed in time. The
desire for nothing to “go wrong” is a calling for control and as such, for reasons outlined above,
the other-self will always be open to error, change and rejection of help or control, via their own
desires/imbalance or via a seeking to be free from measures of control.
Effortless doing does not imply that something is done without conscious thought or without any
decision or that which is done is “easy”. The task may be long or difficult, arduous but it is
done in an effortless manner, not careless, simply effortless, no strain, no demand or want,
desire or expectation. All these other ‘qualities of doing’ offer are let downs, disappointment,
disgruntlement, the seeking of perfection and the like. Expectation is an open door to
disappointment. Effortless doing is that which is required, that is accepted as that which will be
done.
Change
Given the flow of time change is inevitable. There is change by choice and change as it will be.
Of the former, that is the conscious decision or attempt to change, there is the forcing
(controlling) attempt, and then there is the view to change without the attempt, the try. The
forcing or attempts cannot bring the change sought. What change is perceived merely returns to
the previous state in a new form. The choice without attempt has the potential to discover that
of the self which determines the current state and/or lack of change. The discovery brings
addition of knowledge. The knowledge is the change.
Creativity
There is nothing but creation. Logically creativity then plays a part in control also. One creates
to the extent of one’s capabilities. Capabilities in this case also includes one’s state, level, or
progress. A novice will likely not create in the same manner as an adept. In terms of the future,
control may easily be masked under the guise of creativity. The future is indeed still created,
however the creation is with set purpose, with set aim. This is not the same as a willing creation
that still remains open. The willing creation is that which is created in a specific manner –
chosen tones, qualities and the like – yet is offered freely, without expectation, want or hope. A
creation with specific intended outcome seeks in one way or another, even if unknown to the
creator to control the result or resultant effect, thus attempting to deny another or even the self to
freely choose to reject the creation, including if the case may be for the other self
dislike/distaste/dissatisfaction.
There are few things if not no things which may not be converted to distorted concepts to be
used to corrupt, control or disempower another or others. Creativity for example may be used as
a distorted concept which stipulates an entity or group that their future must be determined, must
be created by them, and as such since it is their creation it must also be directed or controlled.
All is indeed created, the additional conditions and determinations of such need not be reducing
or limiting of the freedom of creation itself nor of the created or the affect of the created.
Freedom allows errors and mistakes. These provide lessons which were previously not learnt.
Learning, if to be utilized or taught as a distorted concept may for example, be presented as
something which is undertaken as directed, at a rate directed or limited/ceased. The concepts
that an entity or group must learn, must learn at a particular rate or is incapable or undeserving
of learning are examples of a distorted approach/understanding of the learning concept. Let the
lesson and the individual determine if they are ready. The way in which they may creatively
choose to do so is their freedom, lest it be denied. There is nothing which must be done, there
may be those things more suitable and that which is suggestible or advisable. Imposed
limitations restrict. Even teachers have lessons to learn.
Will, intent
The necessity for a good deed to be truly good is to do it without expectation or anticipation of
return or reward. Accept the return even if it is none, not now or known. Be open to all
possibilities but not attached or expectant of any. Do a deed with intent and feeling, not with
intent for (e.g. it MUST be done (to save them)) or for a feeling (e.g. feels good).
All is lessons facilitating progress, which for the negative side seeks to hinder progress of others
(enslavement/control) whilst the positive side seeks to help/aid others, which includes all, not
just those perceived as positive. The reason for this is that both simply utilize knowledge for
purpose of either path, therefore both have the potential to help either side progress, it is the
intent which differs although for the positive side there is no intent as usually understood – it is
openness and acceptance that the help/knowledge may be used in any way the other self
determines. In this way the only true help is from the other self to themself or the self to the
self.
I AND I
THE SELF AND OTHER SELF
Here self will often be used to define you or the individual in question. An other self is any
individual aside from you or the individual in question.
Both the other self and the absence of an other self potentially facilitate progress of the self.
This may seem like a void statement until it is understood that which facilitates progress of the
two possibilities. In the absence of other selves there is an inherent calling to change the self
and see other selves in the self. Hence the percepts and understanding may change without
interaction. With interaction with other selves the call for change is both during the interactions
and proceeding/between interactions. A negative polarized entity or an entity acting from the
negative polarity may first seek to change the other self. An other self may include all possible
entities aside from the entity in question – the self – which includes the entities consisting of the
environment. The change sought ranges from a simple want or need for self sustenance to
complete control, domination or consumption. If the entity fails to or cannot change the other
self, or the other self evades or denies compliance, then the entity must change itself in order to
be successful in a future attempt if it is to retain the same degree of or increase polarity. A
positively polarized entity or an entity acting from the positive polarity will generally cede or
endure, changing themself in order to serve the other self. It is to be noted the polarities are
diametrical opposites and thus for one to exist, so must the other. When both polarities have
been sufficiently realized and understood, there is a balance. This balance understands that the
polarities are opposite ends of the same spectrum and thus are in essence one and the same.
An example of this is that anything which serves the self ultimately provides service to others
and anything which serves others will in turn serve the self.
In terms of polarity, existence or sustenance of an entity’s polarity becomes increasingly
difficult, the greater the number of and degree of opposite polarity other selves are present to the
self. Whilst this may be so, the difficulty offers greater potential for progress. The negative
polarizing entity for example will be required to develop greater knowledge/capabilities in order
to control the other selves. The positive polarizing entity will be required – to remain on said
path in said direction – to develop greater knowledge/capabilities in order to serve.
Percepts
Percepts of an other self may be the first consideration. A percept is formed by both experience
(external input) and thought/emotion (internal input). A percept may then color or filter the
external input. This is not limited to - although likely primarily consists of - the percept of the
other self. Depending on an individual’s understanding and awareness both of the other self and
of the self to the other self and/or all other selves, the characteristics of a percept of the other self
may be determined.
An example: The self has a somewhat limited understanding of other selves, categorizing them
into either ‘evil’ or ‘good’. In addition, which this understanding is linked to, positive emotion,
that is in this instance an empathy and connection to the other self is diminished or suppressed if
the other self falls too far in the categorizing to the side of ‘evil’. The awareness of the self of
the other self is a relatively small amount and limited to instance or several instances in which
the other self is shown or perceived under the category of ‘evil’. In addition to this the self with
the percept loosely described increases focus/attention on those aspects or activities of the other
self which the self perceives/understands to be ‘evil’, suppressing or ignoring those aspects or
activities which could be if said focus were not present, be perceived/understood by the self to
be ‘good’.
What the reader may derive from the example is not simply the “moral of the story” but the
makings of the story – that is how things are the way they are, how things are interconnected and
from this an examination of the self and observation of an other self with such knowledge, to
learn further.
In a similar example a self may either observe or perceive an attempt to control by an other self.
The attempt to control may be a possibility or may be certain, this is not the point. The self
takes the perception, or if actually known, the fact and builds a percept of the other self. Like
the ‘evil’ perception, the self determines via percept the other self is ‘controlling’ or ‘seeks to
control’. The percept may or may not be accurate. What is of consideration here is that which
may be derived from the limitation of such a percept. For example the percept may (help to)
build a distorted understanding and/or may lead to activities which are not so helpful. It is
possible that an individual may have or feel they have little choice in preventing another
controlling them. If for example the individual takes the path of an exit or closing of
communication, the other self is left to learn via reflection of themself. Rebellion may be seen
to deny control, however it too is a limited approach.
Returning to the examples, an helpful percept/understanding is one which acknowledges lack of

awareness/knowledge of the self/other self and distorted percepts/understanding of the other self.
If an other self is hurtful or has hurt the self for example, the first consideration may be “What
am I unaware of?”. Unless the self knows everything about the other self, which to be
completely actualized would require to be the other self in totality at that moment, there is
always something unknown about the other self. This may be the smallest of things, however it
may be all things which have contributed to the being of the other self, which have ultimately
resulted in the hurt taking place. For this alone, there is reason for the self to forgive, accept and
seek to understand the situation and the other self more fully. Now in the case of the self being
the other self, even for a moment or gaining complete understanding of all things which have
contributed to the thoughts/actions of the other self which have resulted in the hurt, this would
be the equivalent of the self hurting the self. Thus it is akin to an act of the self which may be
deemed unfavorable which calls for understanding and forgiveness. The understanding is
derived from knowledge of all the processes which created the situation and the forgiveness is
born from the understanding. The reader may recall that to deny error is to seek control. A
balanced understanding might be to be accepting and thus forgiving of error, yet not be careless
of the error and likely repeat it. In the case of the other self not having awareness/knowledge
which leads to hurt, there is also reason to forgive in that the other self knows not what they do.
It is more helpful to offer to teach that which is unknown than to persecute or see the other self
as ignorant or ‘uneducated’. To impose teaching upon another, even if the teaching is correct, is
potentially worse than not offering teaching/help at all. The reason for this is the attempt to
control or learn for the other self. This will open the door for rebellion/opposition/imbalance.
An other self must learn for themself. Thus in one sense, it is truly impossible to help an other
self, one may only help the other self help themself. It is a valid (even if unwise) choice for an
individual to choose not to help themself.
To view another as failing or a failure is a limited percept. One consideration of this is that the
other self is not apart from the self. In some way, no matter how small it may be viewed, this
connection, which must be present if the other self and the self share even the same planet, has
with it a responsibility. It may be easy to attempt to deny this responsibility by stating it is the
responsibility of another rather than the self. Whilst it might be true that the self had or has no
interaction with the other self who is deemed failing or a failure or a ‘problem’ or a delinquent
(etc) the fact that there is a sharing of the realm – be it planet, land, immediate space etc – from
the perspective of the whole as one organism, each has responsibility within the whole. So in
the view of one individual being deemed a failure – all others by this logic should then ask “how
then have we collectively failed this individual?”. Recall that failure is essentially impossible,
since from another perspective, even that which is viewed as lost, is an offering to learn and
likely an indication of that which requires aid and/or is imbalanced.
Understanding
The understanding of otherselves falls into three generalized categories. The three categories are
not arbitrary or correct in anyway, it may only be a choice and a generalized one at that. The
three categories are an individual other self, groups of other selves and all other selves. So in
the case of people, each person or each person known to a point falls into the individual
category, groups defined by the self (or defined by others and adopted) which may also cover an
other self in the individual category, and finally all other selves or a collective understanding (in
this case) of all people, or people in general (with exceptions). Again, this is a generalized view
using categories and may not be correct for many people and is not suggested as a way to view
others. A categorization may be noted in the previous sentence. In that case it was an
hypothesis – these may turn to understanding if adopted/held onto. The understanding of course
is distorted. Whilst it may be distorted, or any other understanding of other selves for that
matter, it may still be understood and accepted. In other words suppose an other self
understands that in general all other selves are dishonest. This may be seen/understood by the
self as a distorted understanding (and percept). It also may be noted but not readily understood.
Either way, there is the option for the self to acknowledge and accept the other self. If the self
develops the capability to understand what it is which has brought the other self to their
understanding (of a generalized category of other selves) then the self is not only more capable
of helping the other self if possible but more capable of helping (thus progressing) themself.
This is no different to gaining understanding of the self, thus granting more ability to help others
with the newly found knowledge. Understanding reflects in being, being promotes help and
helping one is in turn helping all. The exception perhaps to this is what may be defined as
‘negative help’ which is the ‘forcing’ (including indirectly and via control) another into balance.
To return to the categories, one may see the potential for misunderstanding through percepts. In
misunderstanding it is to be considered the possible repercussions of such, an example being
‘negative’ emotions towards the other self/selves. It is impossible to outline all the repercussive
possibilities since each individual will process understandings differently. The previous
sentence again included categorization by the author. An exception to the statement might be
tendencies or patterns. An example might be that the majority of the people understand or
perceive others as (mostly) dishonest and out of those that do, the majority tend to live in a state
of mistrust. In this example let us say the perception/understanding of dishonesty is mostly
false. How did the end result come about?
Example. A small minority of the population experienced each an incidence of dishonesty. This
for the majority produces the percept/understanding that the majority are dishonest. This they
relay to others. The relay is of significance since in many cases, when told to another self that
the majority of the population are dishonest, the individual being told may select only those
moments where the individual experienced dishonesty or thought/perceived dishonesty, even if
there was none. This is then used to verify and adopt the percept/understanding that the majority
are dishonest. Similarly, the individuals whom ‘carry’ this percept/understanding meet with
others and discuss the topic. Without knowing they share percepts/understandings and since
they are the same (of the majority being dishonest) there is a reinforcement of the
understanding/percept. All of this, including the resultant being and there may not be any or
very little truth to the understanding/percept at all. The reader may consider all of this in terms
of control, including compounding control. The sharing/transfer of understanding/percept is
also of importance to note in this example. The results of all of this may be considered, in
particular for further control (communication for example) or changes to all the individuals
involved. The concepts of memes and programming may also be considered within the previous
context.
If the percept of mistrust (as an example) is held constantly, then limitation may be observed. In
this situation, the option to perceive the other self as either honest or at the least neutral may be
shut down or closed off. In such a situation, the honest person may be seen as a ‘surprise’. This
is understandable in the sense of rarity. The main consideration here is the alteration/adaptation
of perception of the other self by the self with probable/possible consequences of such. It is
helpful to view an instance of dishonesty rather than continually perceive the other self as
dishonest. The instance of dishonesty may be noted/remembered so that then a clearer
understanding, including a percept of the other self being a variable spectrum, rather than
black/white, yes/no may be newly formed within the self. Again the reader may see the
connections, the interactivity between the percepts and understanding of an entity or individual.
As a sub component in understanding an other self, there is the environment and/or others selves
in addition. This may include the self – if the other self interacts regularly – if so, this
component returns to the understanding of the self by the self. In particular of the sub
component, the influences – primarily any measures of control and conditions (permanent/
temporary/intermittent) may be required or at least helpful in the understanding of the other self.
An example might be an individual whom creates hardship for another, perhaps through
demands or pressure, at least in part due to the requirements or control enforced by another
individual or created through a situation. The extension of understanding an other self beyond
the other self is an indication of freedom through understanding – that is, a removal or letting go
of any limitation in thought and consideration – in this case the components which constitute the
collective.
A true understanding of an other self approaches complete awareness/knowledge of the other

self in an unbiased, undistorted form. Whilst separate entities, practically speaking,
understanding to the degree possible is the knowledge willingly shared by the other self in
combination of that which is observed of the other self with the least amount of bias/distortion
possible. In terms of communication, there may be little or limited if it is either understood or
perceived that the self will/may judge, distort or color their interpretation/percept and thus
understanding of the other self. In this way, the bias, the attempt to alter the other self, the
discontentment, the lack of acceptance, these all may serve to limit communication and limit
understanding of the other self, thus possibly producing some degree of
disconnection/separation/isolation. There are many aspects to this the reader may consider.
Examples include ‘normalcy’, difference as a means of perception, status of another self,
judgment.
Identity
Though the many may be unified, there is still within each an identity. A recognition of identity
is considerably helpful in interactions with other selves. The recognition may then allow for
discernment and understanding to be derived from study and/or interactions with other selves
much more readily. Primarily this is a consideration of the awareness of the self of the quality
or state of mind, both consistent and temporary of the other self. In particular the qualities (such
as percepts and emotional capacity) which differ from the self offer clues as to that which may
either be harmful or helpful to the self, the other self or the collective self.
An identity is both subjective and objective. An identity is subjective through perception. It is

objective as knowledge. The value of the subjectivity of an identity is in the objective qualities
of limitation and allowance of the objective or knowledgeable portion of the identity. For
example a particular percept which is limiting holds the teaching of where an individual is
incapable/unable or chooses not to understand and thus collect knowledge of the identity of the
other self. A percept which is allowing is one which looks upon the identity from a new angle;
it is perhaps the equivalent to a re-testing using a different method or measuring device doing
the same experiment or test. The new angle or the re-testing provide information or data which
may provide objective knowledge of the identity.
INTERACTIONS
Learning/Teaching
If one teaches without also learning anything, one may instead simply repeat the same
monotonous message unchanged for the same effect. This is not really teaching. True teaching
is not stagnant or static, but dynamic and variable. An example of this is a student whom does
not understand or comprehend a portion of the teaching. If the teacher does not learn that the
student is unable to grasp the teaching in some way, then the teacher has taught nothing to this
student. Likewise if the student or the teacher finds a portion or all of that which is being taught
to be questionable or challengeable, yet is unable to learn of possible or required
alterations/corrections or considerations of that which is being taught, the teaching becomes
stale or dogmatic. It is healthy to question anything which is learnt. It is the thought, the testing
which may be used to determine validity and truthfulness. Then, if corrected, the new teaching
may pave the way for further progress provided it is indeed correct for it too must hold up to
scrutiny and challenge. For this reason, any corrections should leave open the possibility of an
error and thus allow for a ‘back-tracking’ of the teaching. In this way, the foundations for any
understanding do not become impervious to challenge or question and the option to ‘begin
again’ are always open for it is kept in consideration the very possibility of a fundamental error
right from the beginning. This option or allowance does not in itself cancel/nullify certainty or
assuredness for these qualities are still present to those understandings/teachings which
continually show themselves self sustainable under questioning and challenge time and time
again.
Likewise to learn without teaching provides imbalance. To do so is to essentially deny other

selves that which has been learnt, which denies learning/progress by the whole to one degree or
another. A minor learning or observation may have negligible or no affect, particularly since it
is most likely others will or have had the same small learning or observation. However
something which may be understood to be of great importance to the whole yet is denied to
others, is the beginning of disintegration. The disintegration allows for and likely (including by
intent) leads to growth of the individual at the expense of the other selves within the whole. The
counter to this is for the remainder of the whole to learn that which the individual(s) whom
hoard or mass knowledge for themselves have learnt.
With regards to control, teaching may be restricted by any measure of control which is active.
The control may originate from the teacher, the student or the teaching, including the method
itself. An example of the introducing control into the teaching is the impression or utilization of
fear of failure or being incorrect by the student. An example of the student introducing control
into the teaching/learning is an expectation or allowance for only a particular kind/type/degree
of answer. An example of a teaching employing control is a system of teaching which the
student and teacher have both subscribed to or joined which limits in some way, such as one set
way in which a topic is taught. Where control is present, there is a diminishment of true
teaching and thus the potential for the student to learn either that which is being taught or
beyond that which is being taught is reduced or suspended. Allowance for error, allowance for
question, patience and consideration are all present in true teaching. True teaching does not learn
for the student, but provides the tools, materials and/or environment in which the students may
learn for themselves.
The connection both understood and felt between a self and an other self or between a self and
all other selves is of considerable importance. The connection has a basis in perception. The
perception of the other self or collective other selves primarily forms not only the quality of if a
connection is understood/felt, but the qualities of the connection. The connection is present,
even if an individual perceives no connection. There may be significant differences between one
self and another and acceptable communication may (seem to) be impossible, yet the connection
is still present. At the least - in discussing entities on the same planet – the same air is breathed,
the same land or space is occupied, thus there is a somewhat dependent relationship. It is this
dependency which may be used in either a negative or positive way or draw from aspects of both
and compile them. An analogy might be a child and their sibling. One child wishes to play with
the other child. If the other child does not play fair or refuses to play on a consistent basis
sufficient to affect the other child, there is a great chance the other child, now discontent since
the sibling chooses not to play fair or continually decides not to play when requested, no longer
requests to play. The second child – the one whom does not or has not play(ed) fair now is left
with the only option of requesting the other child to play when the second child would like to
play. The probability has increased however and the first child as one possible reason in this
scenario feels the second child will not play fair and thus rejects any new request to play. Both
children are left without anyone with whom to play. It may be seen that both have contributed
to various degrees to the collapse of harmony between them.
Similarly the concepts of blame and victim become redundant with an understanding of the
whole. However this does not imply that consideration, observation and analysis of an
individual or group which causes imbalance, either by intent or not. To ‘monitor’ the whole, a
simultaneous ‘monitoring’ of the parts is also required. The main point here is that the concepts
of blame and victims remove from the understanding, the perspective of the whole and the
connections between the parts in question. An incident of hurt or illness, malaise or similar is
firstly an opportunity or calling for something to be learnt. The situation, which includes the
thoughts, feelings and state of the self provides clues to progress if one observes/considers
carefully enough.
One cannot learn for another and similarly, one cannot demand another learn. Even if what is to
be learnt is correct, the act of forcing another to learn what has been deemed necessary to be
learnt (possible control, direct or indirect) is a form of righteousness. Righteousness is usually
control for the purposes of self servitude. In other words, an other self in error is contained,
controlled or manipulated into the lesson to be learnt, including through punishment. This may
be done via thought and also without any physical interaction. The lesson to be learnt is for the
other self, to attempt to learn for the other self has departed from teaching. Lessons not learnt
are repeated, this alone is a lesson in itself.
There are two avenues for the helping of an other self. The self serving polarity limits itself to
one avenue only, the positive polarity, strictly speaking would choose the other avenue, a
balance of both polarities utilizes both avenues freely and circumstantially. The first avenue is
one of reflection. Essentially the lesson to be learnt by the other self is reflected back to the
other self by the self. This is done by being, including choices made by the self. The second
avenue is the offering to help. Essentially this is the offering of that which is missing, deficient
or called for to the other self. As stated previously, the degree to which the help is manifest is
dependent upon the interpretation and proceedings of the other self to be helped, thus true help
from an other self is impossible.
Progress
Progress between the self and the other self may be seen to consist of progress of the self
(including progress of the self from the point of view of the other self) as well as the
connection/relationship between the self and other self. The self serving or negative polarity
seeks to formulate the percept of an hierarchy between the self and other selves. The all serving
or positive polarity progresses towards the percept of unity/equality between the self and other
selves. The text will deal largely with the latter, though the former may be considered for
integration into the percept of unity.
To begin, some practical suggestions:
1. Observe and contemplate percept of an other self as may be done for the self as outlined in the
previous chapter.
2. Allow the corresponding opposite percept or associated anti-thesis to the thought(s) of the
other self to enter the mind.
3. Contemplate (in addition to the previous step) that which is unknown about the other self
which may aid in forming a more balanced percept/understanding of the other self.
4. Consider (and observe) the various influences, biases, misunderstandings, ignorance,

unknowing and previous experiences which have molded, shaped or helped create the other self
as they are currently perceived, understood.
5. Consider (and observe) any thought patterns, particular percepts, possible level of awareness,
emotion/feeling content of the otherself and the influences if any upon the other self.
6. Contemplate and see all that has (helped) created the other self, including the part of the self.
Consider if the self experienced the exact same, the self would be the same or very similar to the
other self.
7. See/consider the other self complete, yet progressing as they are/can/will/choose. Observe
the self being/within the other self; the other self being/within the self, thus there is no
separation, only unity.
With understanding, there may be acceptance of the other self. With acceptance the potential
existent between the self and the other self may be seen to be balanced. The negative path
provides the opposite, thus rendering a complete picture – that is the building of an hierarchical
percept/understanding. The potential for (non) acceptance itself is always present/possible. This
is also an aspect of the self or other self which may or may not be accepted.
With progress, one may (progressively) leave behind the delusions of seeing what one would
like to see in others.
Either they are ‘all lying, hateful people’ or they are ‘all loving people’ or by majorities is but
one example. More balanced it is to see people as they are, each being individual and unique,
each having the possibility to change from moment to moment and each having the potential
and capacity (including for development) for either positive – loving, caring, honesty – or
negative aspect/behaviors – hate, hurt, dishonesty.
The balanced individual progressing along the negative path as it may be called operates in what
may be seen to be a cold, clinical way. This individual whilst understanding balance and
progress, views the nature of the self as one with reciprocation having principality with the self
only. There is the lack, one might say, of the offer to aid, to help others. The help as it is
understood by the negative path consists of deliberate allowance/provision for the other self to
misunderstand, to hurt, to limit themself, thus affording opportunity for the other self to only
progress or help themself by facing the reflection of themself. This may be compared to the help
of those unbalanced on either path.
With the word help, it is, as previously stated not true help, for true help only may come from
the one to be helped. This is repeated not simply for the sake of repetition or to tire the reader,
but to offer another perspective of the same concept. A new perspective may be seen to be both
refreshing and a query/challenge on ‘old’ concepts. This may be seen to be an healthier percept
of the concept of repetition over boredom, time wasting or similar.
The balanced, yet positive progressing individual has both the option for providing reflection for
the other self and also the offer of that which is missing/absent/deficient in the other self, which
may be accepted/rejected by the other self but also requires understanding at some point. In any
case, each moment, each situation may be seen to be an offer/opportunity for the self to
balance/understand/progress/learn. Herein lies both the freedom and power in that all pathways
of control begin and end with the self, the only ‘more rigid’ one being dependent on the current
realm/physicality. Herein also lies both the opportunity/gift to choose a thought/action which
balances/progresses, and may also provide opportunity for another to balance/progress themself.
The negative path will have intention behind the help, an intended outcome, the positive path,
open and accepting whatever the outcome or choice of an other self. A simplified remembering
might be an entity on the negative path seeks to maintain balance in providing imbalance
between itself and all other selves. A positive progressing entity maintains balance whilst
providing (potential) balance to all other selves. Both paths are opposite polarities of the same
unified creator/creation.
Interactions with aspects of pathways for control
Considering a (largely) controlled society interactions between individuals may be broken down
(somewhat) to the components of the self – percepts, awareness, thoughts/concepts,
emotions/feelings - for analysis to (attempt to) understand how individuals are either controlled
or evade control and thus any progress (or lack of) which may result.
An example for consideration:
The concept/percept of social achieving
Now it may be seen that this concept – in particular for it to work as a pathway for control –
requires other percepts/concepts to also be adopted by an individual for it to work. In actuality
this particular concept requires multiple individuals with the same concept to ‘work’. This is
quite significant, for the reader may contemplate the requirements of having multiple individuals
all having adopted the same concept/percept, sometimes (almost) simultaneously for the
concept/percept to ‘take hold’ and be accepted into the population at large.
Perhaps firstly the concept/percept if it is to be adopted requires within the individual the
allowance of or previously accepted concept of an hierarchy. What may be seen to be
interesting is that if the concept of an hierarchy has yet to be considered/accepted, the addition
of the concept/percept of social achieving (for example) may/will create the concept of an
hierarchy for the individual. In other words there is possibility of the individual creating the
concept within their own psyche unknowingly. In such a case there it lies until it is considered,
queried, questioned and sought out. This is much like an inquisition searching through the
percepts and concepts the self has/utilizes within their psyche, although the analogy need not be
perceived as a battle or demand – quite easily it may be seen to be simply a patient, light-hearted
investigation.
In terms of interactions we may exclude the interactions of two whom have adopted this same
percept/concept (of social achieving) and divide the line so to speak of those whom may adopt
the percept/concept (including in part) and those whom will reject it.
For those that may adopt the percept/concept it is largely a case of there being nothing or no
happening to prevent them from doing so or immunity from it occurring. The simplest way a
transfer may take place is by example. The self adopting the concept/percept is not shown nor
communicated the concept directly, an activity where the concept has occurred in action is
observed by the self and the self adopts the concept either unknowingly or knowingly. Perhaps
usually the former, with awareness of the basic concept – example doing well (as perceived by
others) grants increased status among others.
The other whom reject the percept/concept outright will tend to have knowledge, even if
unconscious of such that is not compatible with the percept/concept – an example being that an
hierarchy is incorrect/distorted or at least not for them.
An example of an individual whom consciously rejects such a concept/percept would be an
individual whom has understanding and awareness sufficient to see where the activity of social
achieving might or will take society or the collective self. This foresight is rendered from
knowledge.
The concept of status
This concept is one which readily allows for intentional control to take place, as well as
alteration of self overall percept. For the latter it may move to greater than an other self or all
other selves or it may move to less than. The concept may be seen to be linked/related or
comparable to the concept of worth. If one is deemed as having greater status than another, this
potentially gives the individual power over another. The power is only granted by both selves
sharing the same concept and results of such. In other words both selves understand and accept
the concept and from that see that one individual has greater status than the other. The reason(s)
for the status may be anything from physicality, to perceived or understood intelligence, a
formulated social stature, or any combination. Thus it may be a matter of considering all the
pieces that stem from the concept.
If the concept of status for example is questioned, and/or a new understanding replaces the
concept, the additions, which may be seen as programming by the reader, fall away.
The point so to speak of these examples and the following topic is that the fundamental
understanding and thus percepts of an individual determine both the very nature – the essence –
of an individual and the degree of immunity an individual has to new, altered and additional
pathways to control or simply deviation from the true nature of the self. In ‘reality’ the true
nature is not entirely static. There is some amount of variability around the essence. There are
the attempts, the probing to test the individual by other selves. There are the attempts to test, to
trial by the self. To return to the concepts/percepts an individual holds onto, conscious or not,
considered or not, these are largely incompatible with the self, unless the core understandings of
the individual are either given up or put aside, even if temporary or control/influences are
sufficient to remove or alter the core understanding. An example is the understanding –
concept/percept – of all selves being equal regardless. If this is a core understanding, the
concept of status, of hierarchy becomes redundant or incompatible with the self. If the self is
unconscious of the core understanding, at the least there will likely be some form of rebellion or
refusal to conform to the concept of status/hierarchy.
The core understandings may be considered to be the following:
Understanding of the self, including potential, which means understanding all selves.
Understanding relationship/connection of the self to all other selves.*
There is one more, the reader is left at this point to learn or realize what it is.
The previous brief consideration may be seen to be ‘out of place’ in the text in terms of chapters.
However if the relation is seen, it is not necessarily so and second, discovery lie not simply in
looking to a specific portion of that under scrutiny but also upon the overview of the entirety.
*The environment as well as all other entities/creatures is also included in other selves. For those other entities
which have fundamental differences shall we say, it is necessary to understand the qualities/characteristics as part of
understanding the relationship. The is for the parent to the child – the qualities in difference are to be included in the
understanding.
Immunity
An individual gains a degree of immunity to control, corruption or influence with increased
knowledge. The knowledge includes the ways in which others may (attempt) to control,
influence, corrupt the self. Instead of generating or becoming immune an individual instead
may attempt to control a situation in an attempt not to become controlled or influenced in some
form. This may be seen as a self serving choice. An example of this might be the refusing to
listen to another speak or communicate or ignoring or ‘shutting them out’. This may be done
merely on the suspicion the other self is attempting to control, corrupt etc or simply by
observation the other self is or is acting from a position of being controlled. An example of this
might be the other self whom continually talks about themself or with reference to themself. In
this case the other self is unable to see their narcissism. The self in this example then refuses
further interaction with the other self. This may or may not be due to the percept that the other
self is (potentially) doing harm or propagating narcissism to others or the self. This choice to
essentially deny the freedom of the other self is not entirely “incorrect”. It may be noted that it
potentially takes the first avenue in helping an other self as described previously. However if
the self is aware of the other self, of any changes to the self and is knowledgeable of the ways in
which any control or corruption is transferred, the immunity means there is no need to deny the
freedom of another, to ignore, to ‘shut out’ or similar. This is not to say the option to disengage
communication may not be taken. If an other self spoke non-stop of themself, it may simply be
logical to cease listening at some point. If the other self was telling a story or trying to convey
something of importance or was asked to speak of themself, then this is a different situation.
Context is always of consideration.
Immunity is then an example unto others, including upon reflection. Thus immunity is not
simply yielding for the self; in light of the immunity others may observe that which grants the
self immunity or at least potentially note the differences between the self and other self so that
learning may take place.
Transferences
Likewise to the way in which immunity or those percepts/concepts/awareness which may be
helpful to an other self may be transferred from one individual to another, so to may those
percepts/concepts/awareness or states of being which may be considered harmful. This may
occur if immunity is lacking, temporarily diminished or vigilance is lax. This is the same as
physical health and is both potentially short term or long term. To the controlling entity, for
control on a scale greater than the individual in question, it is most helpful to employ
programming which propagates a program, including the program which facilitates propagation
to others.
A simple example might be the individual whom is convinced they must convince others. The
convincing includes the transference of the seeming necessity for the newly programmed
individual to then convince others with the same program(s). The communication used to make
the transfer may contain such words/concepts as “should”, “must”, “need” for example. Now
even using a distorted concept or even deliberately attempting to communicate an order or
transfer a percept – if observed – does not necessarily suggest or request ignoring or discarding
the communication. For example if the order was to physically move out of the way of
impending danger, to ignore the order based on either the percept of possible control or
actualized attempt to control may be a harmful choice. The combination of discernment,
vigilance, knowledge and intuition is that which will guide the decisions of any situation of a
progressing individual.
Just as programming may encourage or promote the transference of percepts/concepts/awareness

to others, programming may also be used to block new or fresh percepts/concepts/awareness.
This type of programming is self-reinforcing and may be seen to be considerably potent. The
programmed individual may become stagnated for some time with such programming. Fear of
being programmed or controlled (perceived or actual) is one way in which a program may
develop and/or control may be activated. Again, it is the progress/state towards either polarity
which protects against control, not simply trying to avoid or escape it.
Time may be used as a factor for transference. A sense of urgency or calling for a choice to be
made at a moments notice. Either a perceived reduced amount of time or an actual lacking of
available time is another tool here in attempting to control or to transfer a measure of control
between the controlled and controlled-to-be.
Programming may be temporary or may require particular other selves or situations to be active.
Thus it may be an hindrance to viewing/perceiving another self as ‘programmed’ when at times
no programming is present. Similarly programming may be viewed in any or all behavior if one
chooses to, yet the reality may be either habitual behavior or simply repeated or particular
choices. It is a matter of keen observation and analysis, yet discernment in that an individual
may view that which is not necessarily present or view nothing despite indicative clues.
Programming which is self-reinforcing and self-propagating is perhaps the most potent.

Programming with these qualities distorts anything which challenges the programming into
justification or vindication for the programming, thus reinforcing the programming, as well as
generating the desire/need/activity of pushing the programming onto others. If the pushing onto
others is consciously done with intent to control (if only for the transfer of the programming) the
potency is increased.
Returning to transference; arguments, convincing or similar modalities of communication are
indicative of imbalance with self servitude. Programming will likely encourage such forms of
communication, both in offensive and defensive situations. A difference may be noted between
replying with the understanding/percept/awareness of the self in comparison to replying with an
attempt to convince, rebuttal, sway or conclude a communication. In encouraging such forms of
communication it may be hoped by the initiator that the other self may be ‘drawn in’ to an
argument or at the least a percept changed, including ill feeling for example, or a concept or
understanding challenged. The challenge usually seeks to undermine the faith of the other self
in themself or their knowledge (the former usually leading to the latter).
Programming aside, an argument or at least an attempt to convey has its basis in self servitude.
The serving of others may be seen to include the allowance for the other self to reject any
communication, thus there is no attempt, merely an offering. A vested interest is one example in
which an individual may argue or forcibly communicate either defensively or offensively. The
vested interest may also in the same way generate or build programming. Interactions with
others, in particular communication, including arguments may also be utilized in the
development of programming. It is here that entire societies may be programmed and
controlled. The requirements are merely a reciprocation of a sufficiently similar
program/percept/concept. A vested interest may include or be replaced by a dependency.
Many individuals with the same programming may be used for the momentum of multiple
individuals. Self servitude is the key component here.
An example for consideration:

The self is communicated to by an other self. The underlying intent of the communication is to
create a percept within the self consisting primarily of fear, based on threatened hardship or
difficulty towards the self. The percept of the possible hardship is an additional linked percept.
Thus there is the percept of the hardship, including use of time (future events) to encourage the
generation of fear which may in turn generate action or change of some sort. The intent or the
hope of the other self is essentially to control – either the self or the situation or both. It is
possible, as it is in this example, that the other self is controlled themselves – including by the
same mechanisms – and thus the control, including the percepts contributing to the control are
transferred from one to another. None of the controlled individuals need not be consciously
aware of any of the percepts, flow of control or programming. In this example it is
programming which limits or hinders the individual’s ability to become consciously aware of the
true happenings of the situation. Perceived necessity which moves to the programmed concept
of necessity for the individual is a main element of the programming in this example.
If the self understands the intent to seed the emotion and/or the attempt to control, the option or
ability to firstly deny the intent to generate fear (and additional perceptual aspects) is available
to the self, secondly to deny the attempt to control. In this example, the self is aware of the
situation to a sufficient degree that the percept of the self is unchanged – including no fear is
generated and no discontentment – yet chooses the option to comply on this occasion based on a
logical reasoning. Even though control or an aspect of control or simply an unhealthy
transference has not taken place or been denied, there still may be the continuance of attempts to
control by the other self. For example the fear of speaking out may be transcended by the self,
yet the continual attempts to generate fear (including in others) may still be persistent by the
other self.
The primary difference with a changing of the self of either relinquishment of control or denying
additional attempts is the reflection back to the other self. Control or a transference may be
denied, yet ‘friction’ may still remain whilst the other self persists. Thus there is the self and the
other self who both play their part in the process. In the situation just described the self does not
attempt to change the other self or deny directly. Instead the situation may be viewed as the self
changing themself (or remaining steadfast) and thus providing an environment unto the other
self within which an healing or restoration of balance may occur upon the reflection by the other
self.
The alteration of communication may lead to reduced or limited communication, including by

control. The way in which communication takes place may be limited or the communication
(what is being transferred) itself may be limited. An example of the former is the limiting of the
time in which communication may happen or the alteration of the modality used to communicate
with. There is a perceptual component as well as an understanding component. The
understanding (once differentiated from the percept) approaches the ‘reality’ of the situation.
The reason for this is that the understanding develops from knowledge. It is not a matter of
prediction or seeing/sensing how things or the other self ‘might be’. These are helpful in
gaining knowledge however. An understanding has obtained a degree of knowledge of why the
situation including communication is as it is. In this way the other self and the situation is not
merely realized as subjective but objective. It may be noted that alongside a degree of
understanding, some degree of perception may still be active.
Communication may be blocked via perception or by the reality of the situation in that one or
both individuals cannot communicate or communicate sufficiently. In the case of the latter, an
example would be an explanation in which the other self could not comprehend at that particular
point in time. Even though this may be the case, a percept (or regeneration of a currently held
percept, including towards others) may be generated. The perception has its basis in difference
and as previously noted is a possible pathway for control. The percept may be held by both
individuals.
Primary point for dealing with other selves is the self. The percept, awareness and
understanding of the self may be considered the most helpful/useful. To some degree the
understanding of the self is applicable to the other self. An understanding of all selves, which
includes the self and any other self the self may meet is ‘sought’. In addition, the connection
between all selves is invaluable in development/progress. It is here – the understanding of all
selves and their connections that the polarities including non-polarized (neutral) may be
recognized and balance may be learnt.
Negatively oriented interactions
An interaction may be viewed as negatively oriented when the interaction exhibits self servitude.
In this text self servitude is not given a direct definition in itself, instead it is outlined for the
reader via recognizable characteristics. The purpose of this, along with any definition in this
text is to diminish or exclude limitation in any form (as well as possible) and to not simply
provide answers but provide enough substance which the reader make work with to develop an
understanding. The purpose or intention of this text is not to convince. The text may exhibit the
quality of precision or ambiguity in places. Precision is for objectivity through accuracy.
Ambiguity is for the same through multiple perceptive angles.
Now, the negatively oriented communication will usually be to convince, to persuade. This is
not to be confused with a statement, including of fact or with accuracy. Thus a main
determination for orientation of an interaction is the underlying intent of the other self or self.
With a negatively oriented interaction there is the inherent wanting or taking from an otherself.
Expectation is often also present.
In addition a negatively oriented entity or at least an interaction from an other self may include
the statement of the entity not doing exactly what they are. This, just like the content of the
interaction is to be discerned for it may be a fact or it may be the persona ‘playing out’. If this
text was intended to convince, then an example was present in the previous paragraph. To
discern further, another attribute often present is over-certainty or ‘without possibility of error’.
In other words the negatively oriented interaction may include little openness or allowance for
error, ignorance, incorrectness or similar. Any rebuttal or statement counter to what has been
said (or done) will often not be accepted or be argued. Words like ‘may’ or ‘possibly’ may be
seldom or non-existent. Discernment and awareness of the other self (personality, vested
interests, percepts for example) are the power and protection most invaluable to negatively
oriented interactions. Perhaps one more key point here is the attempt within a negatively
oriented interaction to generate negatively oriented interaction from both or all sides. Controlled
by and/or control through is usually present here.
>>An example:
“They have absolutely no hope. You’d have to agree.”
In this dialog, the intent cannot be discerned from the words alone. In addition it may not be necessary to decide “is
it negative or not”. The reason for this is if the self is able to determine sufficiently what is taking place or may take
place, there can be no convincing, no control and thus any attempt is a failure, or in another light, a reflection back
to the otherself. To break down the dialog simply: The first sentence holds a possible limiting percept/awareness
complex with a basis in the concept of ‘hope’. The second sentence is an attempt to convey the
percept/understanding via limited concept ‘have to’ utilizing the concept of ‘agreeance’.
Discernment always.
A secondary ‘move’ for a negatively oriented entity will often be to argue or dispute (including
in seeming defense) or attempt to control the conversation or interaction in some way. Again,
the intent is always there, ever the same.
>The negatively oriented may...
...seek to confuse; seek to undermine faith in the knowledge of the self; demand knowledge; seek to
convey their percepts upon the self; argue in an attempt to convince or persuade; seek to dilute
understanding; limit communication; utilize existing control for their own benefit; utilize existing reality,
including control to convince and persuade, such as the seeming ‘merits’ of such a reality or control;
utilize existing or pre-accepted/adopted concepts as means to control; hinder that which hinders them;
destroy knowledge; corrupt knowledge; distribute disinformation; distribute false knowledge; generate
arguments between others for their own gain or control; lure others into activities or thoughts which
allow them to control or gain; utilize dependencies to gain or control;
...feign empathy, compassion or grief; question the empathy, compassion or grief of others; dissuade
others from such emotion; ridicule for such emotion; hide behind similar emotions of others; suggest,
demand or implement measures to control such emotion; laugh at such emotion; find enjoyment or
pleasure from such emotion in others; generate hate or anger at such emotion;
...create a false percept in an effort to convince/persuade; distort the percepts of others in an attempt to
control or gain; undermine the percepts of others in an attempt to control or gain; select percepts which
help them control or gain; attempt to control the percepts of others in attempts to control or gain; lack
remorse or guilt; be unable to feel anxiety; lack sincerity;
...lie to control or gain; hurt to control or gain; build impressions to control or gain; cheat to control or
gain; hide to control or gain; use secrecy to control or gain; use power to control or gain; use influence to
control or gain; use knowledge/ignorance to control or gain; use existing measures of control, including
over themselves to control or gain; use select examples or data to control or gain; team with others of the
same identity/intent to control or gain; alter appearance to control or gain; exert pressure to control or
gain; lure an other self to control or gain; utilize status to control or gain; utilize physicality to control or
gain; utilize the unknown to control or gain; utilize the environment to control or gain;
...ignore ‘mistakes’ and errors by themselves and others; blame their errors on others; exaggerate the
errors of others; downplay their own errors; be unable to or refuse or choose not to forgive; utilize reason,
including distorted logic to escape forgiveness, error or fault;
be excessively narcissistic; be self absorbed; lacking consideration of others; lacking courtesy to others;
be charming; be superficial; be arrogant; be manipulative; be aggressive; be violent; be callous; be
vengeful; be promiscuous; be impulsive; be abusive; be deceitful; be excessive; be intolerable; be
protesting; be impeding; be oppressive; be reckless;
...be unable to grasp certain concepts; be unable to perceive some things in a particular way; unable to
hold a particular percept; be unable to look at themselves with any/a degree of objectivity;
...generate plans in order to control or gain; build teams or conspire with others in order to control or
gain; undermine other groups which may be viewed as a threat or which may have greater control than
them; undermine groups which have greater freedom than themselves (perceived or actual); undermine
the efforts of others for their own control or gain;
...view/believe others to be as they are; falsely conclude of others; assume of others; insist of others;
...attack others for doing what they do; accuse others of doing what they do or would do; create
accusation to undermine status, perception or other; teach others to do all of the above points of activity.
Positively oriented interactions
Attributes of a positively oriented interaction may include openness and acceptance of error or
incorrectness. Tolerance and acceptance of others, including percepts, knowledge/ignorance,
awareness, and understanding. Absence of expectation or hope for any select outcome –
‘detachment’ from outcome. Consideration for others views, percepts, understanding etc.
Offering of information, knowledge, percepts etc where applicable/suitable.
Allowance for others, including negatively oriented attempts and interactions.
The positively oriented entity will generally give of their time and energy when called for,
including when a sacrifice is called for (such as the choice activities of the entity themself) or
when the calling may be against the will/preference of the entity. Conditions and limits of such
giving may be tested by a negatively oriented entity, to ‘see how much they can get’. Similarly
the negatively oriented entity may be ignorant or blind to their own
requests/demands/expectations. The positively oriented entity will give to the point of an excess
in energy transfer (exhaustion for example) and/or knowledge is sufficient to show of an
inappropriate/unhelpful/excessive calling.
Positively oriented actions may be seen to be those which restore balance to the other self,
particularly the giving of what was deficient. That which is simply believed to be lacking or
required that is given may have intent to be helpful, however if ignorance is such, including via
the aid of any programming or control, that which is given may not be truly helpful and may
even be harmful. Only with knowledge may an individual give in a positive manner.
Giving/receiving simply for the sake of perceived happiness does not necessarily provide/restore
balance. It is possible to provide temporary happiness to another whilst harming them or
promoting imbalance or control. For a gift to be truly positive there can be no expectation or
hope of a ‘return’. In addition if the gift is with condition then it is merely a false gift. If the
recipient is perceived in error, or ungrateful for rejecting a gift and subsequently if the gift or
further gifts are withheld, there is likely imbalance. A true gift is a gift of freedom.
COLLECTIVE I
SOCIETIES
A controlled society or civilization functions by consent of at least the majority of individuals.
When those who dislike or oppose the way in which they are controlled or perceive themselves
to be controlled, the individuals in question may seek to eliminate any number of ways in which
they are controlled – by implementing their own means of control – resulting in a rebellion or
revolution of some form. This situation is the product of those that see the measures of control
imposed upon them and seek to control the situation (by ridding the means of control over
them).
What may be noted specifically here is the qualities of percepts and understanding and thus the
doing of the individual(s) who rebel. However this is not to say that rebellion is without merit.
For example in a situation where the individual attempting to control leaves little or no option or
alternative for the individual they are attempting to control (including unknowingly) then the
individual may (‘naturally’) resort to rebellion, which is essentially a rejection of the attempt to
control. The control being discussed here may also include the situation or environment. An
example of what may be meant by situation is the proceedings – what may or may not occur,
what can or cannot be done etc. In this way, there may be made a distinction between the more
– for lack of better terms – natural form of rebellion – that of rejection as opposed to rebellion of
the active, even aggressive type. The word opposed may also be deceiving in some instances –
it may be seen to mean in battle against or simply an opposite – an example of the way in which
words – communication – may be used to distort an understanding or concept which may then
promote control/imbalance/stagnation or similar. With regards to communication it may be seen
the difference in possible/probable effect of the way and choice for communication when
dealing with an attempt to control from another. This includes the choice of words for verbal
communication and the tone of voice. Essentially it is the intent and will/desire behind the
communication – what is driving the communication in the first place. An imbalanced approach
would be to see the attempt to control as unjust or incorrect – the controlling entity is out of
place or the attempt should not have occurred.
A more balanced approach would – to begin with – accept the other entity attempting to control
and politely or appropriately decline or deny the control taking place. In terms of
communication where the entity attempting to control refuses or is incapable of allowing a
communicable response, then silence may result. Likewise to the attempt to control by physical
means including pressure or implication, if no reasoning or activities register or are understood
by the entity attempting to control, non-compliance may result. Though these situations may
deny the attempt to control, if ignorance or avoidance is continually chosen, with the resultant
being the closing off of the possibility of at a future moment interacting with the entity
attempting to control at a time/moment when they may perceive/understand the situation/entities
differently, then this may add to the imbalance of the entity.
A society functions utilizing the knowledge it has as a reference point. Specifically this is the
concepts, degree and circulation of knowledge. For the first, the concepts govern the collective
understanding and thus may determine direction via specific lack of understanding, distortion or
absent concepts. The degree to which concepts are evaluated and analyzed with reference to all
other concepts is also a factor in determining further knowledge and the direction of the society.
Circulation is a key aspect as it relates directly to balance. A society/collective out of balance
may have many ways in which knowledge is limited, segregated, hidden or similar – circulation
is either poor and/or in a specific or controlled manner.
A society approaching or in balance will have a greater amount of circulation and distribution of
knowledge to all individuals or groups. Here a direct link between freedom/control and
balance/imbalance is of worthy note.
A collective of positive orientation will have as attributes accommodation, acceptance and

helpfulness. Those individuals whom lack will be offered that which is deficient by the
collective, those individuals whom oppose, rebel or outcast themselves from the collective will
be accepted for their choice with accommodation/helpfulness made available if it so be chosen,
perhaps at a future time.
The greater the imbalance generated, both of the collective and the environment by a portion of
the collective, the greater the collective must ‘work’ and thus the greater the energy transfer in
the restoration of balance. The inverse is true of a collective tilted towards creating imbalance
or control also.
As the individual, a society will cycle or experience a lifespan. The health of the society is
directly linked to the state (imbalance/balance) of both itself and the environment within which
it resides. Like the self, the individual, there is an inherent connection. A society may attempt
manufacture the environment to generally replace any perceived difficulties or ‘flaws’ and/or in
an attempt to ‘enhance’ the society. If so, the connection/bond remains, it has merely changed
form. The same concept may be seen with direct alteration of the physical/chemical body/mind
in an attempt to ‘enhance’, ‘improve’ or similar. It is probable however as these attempts are
most likely based in a drive to control that a lack of knowledge and vision will result in further
‘problems’ or ‘flaws’.
Links within a society form in one of two ways. The negative path seeks hierarchy. The
positive path seek equalized networks. The power structure of the negative path may include
secrecy/hidden factions and may also include clusters of groups. It also serves to imitate or
mimic a balanced, positive group structure. This last statement is of relative importance in the
maintenance of an illusory percept regarding power and thus balance.
The positive network will be a group within which all individuals have power/knowledge evenly
distributed. It is possible to tilt the group slightly with an ‘elder’ or similar overseeing the
group for example, however, aside from perhaps those newly born or those lacking in some
abilities, a balanced network has all individuals operating upon the same level. Those
lacking/falling behind or similar are not segregated or isolated but have an helping hand
available for the time they are ready or able to stand upon the same level.
Although it would lose the collective power, a balanced network which is broken or disbanded
would be capable of reforming or beginning again for all individuals would in essence be leaders
themselves rather than followers. In contrast a negative hierarchy which is broken results in
each individual only being capable of restarting/rebuilding at the level they were previously at
within the hierarchy.
Progress
A society in a state of balance, like the self will tend to be healthy. That is, there is an
homeostasis or growth (at least) rather than degeneration or atrophy. Ill health may still occur,
as with the self if the environment is imbalanced with respect to the society. In other words
despite the society being in health, their is a draining or extraction from the society to the
environment, including other individuals or groups. The methods, the approach is the same, be
it the self with respect to the self or the self with respect to another self. The health may be
restored or maintained with immunity. This has been covered previously.
If the individual firstly sees priority in the collective self, the health of the collective self may be
maintained. If the self sees themself as priority rather than that which may be seen to be greater
than them – the collective self, the health of the collective self may suffer depending on the ratio
of those with such a priority. The priority of those which contribute health to the collective self
may be:
1. The state (health/balance) of the collective self.
2. The state (health/balance) of the other selves forming the collective self
3. The state (health/balance) of the self.
These may also be generally applied to the concept of progress. For one to make progress only
upon themself or upon a select group of the collective is imbalance within the collective. Thus it
may be seen how it is necessary to give precedence to the collective self. However, if one
cannot provide anything of value, anything to teach others, then collective progress may cease.
It is of no value for the collective self to be simply circulating repetitive teachings. Here the
exception to the priorities may be seen. For one sick, imbalanced or lacking in progress,
anything of value to share, to teach to others of the collective self, this individual is best suited
to work or progress upon themself. There is a calling to be of equal health/balance/knowledge
as others in general in the group/society.
That which is newly learnt, newly discovered is shared freely, without condition to all others in
the society. This is a society in balance. The breakdown of such a society may stem from one
or a few individuals whom seek an alternative of their choosing. This may be with intent or
agenda or not. For the latter, leave from the group may be likely. For the former, they are likely
to stay to ‘leech’ from the group/society, to subvert it, to sabotage, to corrupt it, depending on
intentions. Regardless, it is within each individual where immunity lies. Within each individual
and the bonds between individuals the strength to maintain coherency of the collective self may
be found.
As the reader may have noted so far, in the case for those seeking to deconstruct, destroy or
control a society or civilization – excluding by primitive means of direct killing and the like – all
the pathways for control may be accessed. Those of highest knowledge, wisdom, experience,
value may be target priorities for suppression or de-valuing of sorts, those of the least of the
previous attributes or those most vulnerable, such as children and the like may also be target
priorities for susceptibility to corruption, control etc. The increase of susceptibility, the
suppression of means to thought, means to feel, including by direct physical means may also be
of priority to prepare the population or group.
Just as the self ought to be seen with respect to the collective self in terms of balance, the
collective self ought to be seen with respect to the environment, including other known
collective selves. The reader may see an holographic representation. Likewise if the
environment is ignored, or more inclusively if the relationship of the collective self to the
environment is ignored or forgotten, there is probability/possibility for disharmony or disparity.
Again, likewise to the self and other self, for balance to be approached, the tools of acceptance,
sharing, understanding are invaluable for maintaining the relationship between the collective self
and the environment or all other (collective) selves. Perhaps of first importance to elude the
calling or suggestion to control the other selves, the environment is acceptance. This is
especially helpful at times when the offer to help, the seeking to understand is rejected or is
unable to occur. The imbalance that may be present, true or perceived may be seen to be
balanced with respect to a larger picture than the one viewed.
Unity
The concept of unity may be used to control. In this sense it is use of a distorted concept of
unity for a correct concept of unity is one which perceives and understands unity to be
universally true. A distorted concept of unity will often have hidden an hierarchy, perhaps
determined as required which may allow the hierarchy visibility or accepted without question. It
may also be with limiting conditions to direct activities or the entities involved. These are
common methods of distortion if the concept of unity is proclaimed.
For those seeking to control a society, including to teach (Self serving approach), a gradient is
created upon which all members of the society must learn to find balance on. Metaphorically it
would be like the creation of a well – the center being those controlling, the gradient increasing
over time, the circumference growing larger until none can escape the well. The choice and
catalyst is provided to all members via this ‘gravity well’.
Unity in a positively oriented society is arrived at through freedom. A degree of understanding

affords immunity to those seeking to control as well as an acceptance and catering/helpfulness to
all where applicable/suitable. It may be noted that within societies there may be smaller
‘pockets’ of groups with varying degrees of the required attributes/knowledge whom have
‘greater’ freedom than the main society. To the controller it is helpful to limit or hinder any
aspect – perhaps the most crucial is immunity. At the very least a sub-group which has a degree
of immunity that is not helpful unto others, providing the group is not isolated, forgotten or
unknown sufficiently to the main group, there is the teaching or opportunity to learn by example.
In addition to the controller, a focus on the helpful aspect (with adjacent
ignorance/avoidance/unknowing of the immunity aspect) may aid in control if the helpfulness
can be distorted to have a basis in control, or be limited help in that it is within existing
measures to control (interdependency or hierarchy for example). The balanced yet positive
society is ‘arrived’ at with many or all ‘concluding’ or ‘reaching’ the same or similar
understanding. Since the ‘arrival’ is a product of each individual making sufficient progress
within themself, there is ever available entrance whilst collective immunity is down for the
negatively oriented to ‘intrude’.
Momentum
A society will tend towards either freedom or control. This may include accelerated portions of
growth/decline and momentary stabilization. For the society moving towards control it is most
likely those majority participating will either be ignorant or absent of knowledge of the ways in
which control is facilitated, choose to build a society based upon control and/or have an
incorrect/absent or distorted understanding/concept of freedom. For those seeking to control, all
three are helpful, though it may be noted that via control or simply the provision of choice –
those participating may choose to either enslave themselves (usually unknowingly) or may seek
such a society based upon control (including totalitarian control). Once some degree of
momentum has been generated in progress towards a society based upon control, this may be
added to or simply left to continue on course if no changes are made in said
momentum/direction of the society.
A society progressing towards freedom may also gain momentum. The conceptual
understanding is the reverse. The knowledge required is shared (helpfulness) to all, providing
immunity and thus freedom from measure to control. With each new participant progressing
towards a society with a basis in freedom, the immunity provides greater capacity to
provide/share/help others. It is then a matter for those seeking to control to develop/create
newer, greater ways in which to surpass the immunity of the group. The immunity in numbers is
greater than the immunity of a few, just as control of many has greater power over control over a
few. This is also relative, for a group may have immunity or be controlled to a degree which far
exceeds the majority – in which case they may be a more potent force – their power is present if
they have sufficient knowledge in addition. Likewise to the negatively oriented having to
develop more adept methods to control/dominate, those positively oriented must extend
themselves to make progress in a society already under heavy control. A group or individuals
may isolate themselves from a main group in an attempt to find freedom. Such a choice may not
have any impact on the momentum of those controlling however. From a collective perspective,
if the majority remain both controlled and progressing towards greater control, they will in time
impede upon any smaller groups which may have a degree of immunity. The collective
perspective recognizes the symbiotic relationship between all individuals and groups. If those
who have immunity do not or are unable to provide help to those whom are in the majority
controlled group and this group is unable to or chooses not to relinquish their control then the
group holding immunity may either be consumed or at the least isolated with no possibility for
expansion until the group eventually expires/suffocates.
In terms of control, momentum is usually gained via systematic sequential/compounding

control. Propagation works on an individual level, facilitating change on the collective level.
Realization of this may aid the reader in understanding how the self is change. For the
controlled society however – such change is manifest through an individual attempting to
control themself further or attempting to jump straight to the top and control the society (or
simply other selves as a stepping stone) with a possible ignorance of the self. The balanced
adept will realize the attempts to change directly are merely attempts to control – including
change of the self. With increased understanding the change is facilitated within itself, hence
there is no try, no control, merely recognition of the self and the collective self and the
connection between.
The Collective
Collectively, a society will exhibit all of the elements of the mind listed for the self. As with the
self (I), these elements need not be considered as limited to but merely concepts or tools used to
gauge, analyze and investigate.
The awareness of the collective may be considered first. Both simply the state of the collective
as well as any actuated measures of control of the collective may be considered with respect to
the collective awareness. Awareness may be broken down to 1. Awareness of the self
(Collective) 2. Awareness of the other self (Environment primarily) 3. Awareness of the
relationship including state of the relationship between the collective self and environment.
The collective will progress in much the same manner as an individual. A diminished,
suppressed or lacking awareness will produce an automated collective, lacking in freedom and
open to control. Awareness of the collective self may be observed and analyzed to the degree
possible, the same as an individual. The difference is that some individuals may have developed
greater awareness than the majority and as such may become aware of the state of the collective
self prior to the majority gaining awareness. Such individuals have the choice to utilize such
knowledge for their own benefit or to share the knowledge, allowing others to progress
accordingly.
Awareness of the environment is the counter-part to awareness of the collective self. An

unhealthy/imbalanced environment will in time impact upon the collective self, the greater the
likelihood of degeneration/damage to the degree awareness is absent/ignored/assumed of the
environment, as with awareness of the collective self.
Once a degree of awareness is formed (unconscious formation may also be present) the
relationship – if the self awareness is sufficient – may be discerned or challenged, particularly if
the environment is in a state of disequilibrium.
The percepts of the collective self may be analyzed if awareness of the collective percepts are
present. In the case of the environment, the collective percept of the environment will give rise
to the connection/relationship between the collective and the environment. As with the self, the
percept is connected to the awareness and conceptual understanding of the collective self. These
connections may be considered by the adept for the way in which the thought processes may
progress a collective society or civilization.
The percepts of the health/state of the collective also provide clues to the functioning and future
of the collective self. The percept of ill health, primarily if it is greater than actuality, the
percept of increased future ill health, including perception of unavoidability/inevitability may
aid in producing a declination of the state of the collective self. The emotional content may also
be considered, for such activity as fear, despondency and similar will aid in the rate and
direction of change of state. It may also approach actuality that the health of the collective self
is in a poor state, although some degree of subjectivity will be present in any determination of
future downfall, until any points of no return are passed. Perhaps the main factors in reversing
the health will be the time taken to propagate a sufficient amount and quality of knowledge
required to activate individual change and the degree of self-awareness already present for any
knowledge to be assimilated sufficiently. In addition there may be any factors, parasitic,
controlling or otherwise which may render such rejuvenation difficult.
The generation of thought may only be within the parameters of the capacity and conceptual
understanding of the collective. In addition emotions such as empathy and compassion –
necessary for a positively oriented collective are only available to the degree the capacity is
present in individuals for such emotion. The unconscious aspect of thought and emotion is also
valid here. If the conceptual understanding is limited and/or the philosophical understanding of
the collective is one which is based upon control – unknowingly or not – the collective will
travel the path of the controlling/controlled collective entity. As such it will face the same
‘dilemmas’ and future as a singular entity on the same path. In particular in the case of the
controlled, discord and disharmony in thought processes may increase at an exponential rate.
All difficulties and discord afford opportunity for growth, for thought to the degree possible.
Likewise the thinking of the collective will be evident or have indications in the reality manifest
by the collective. The conditions and environment in which the collective resides is also of
consideration. To give thought to the thoughts of the collective, including awareness, percepts
and emotion is to contemplate the created existence of the collective.
COSMIC I
COSMOS
The cosmos is the other self which both contains and is contained within the self. As commonly
defined the microcosm - those minute other selves as complexes – to the macrocosm – those
grand other selves as complexes. Here it may be seen where the ‘line’ between the self and the
other self is noticeably blurred. For in one single move an entire microcosm complex may be
completely created or destroyed and likewise, with a single move or change of the macrocosm
complex, the level which the self is on may be created, altered dramatically or destroyed. With
connections unity may be seen. That which is unified calls for balance.
NATURE
There is essentially nothing unnatural. “Supernatural” is simply that which defies current
understanding. Magic is likewise. So one may indeed say all is natural and magic is all around.
In linear, infinite time, with knowledge being infinite, there by virtue of this is an ever present
mystery. That is the nature of the cosmos. The mystery is both the joy and the calling for
learning. Learning is also the nature of the creator. Since learning is timeless, it is impossible
not to learn.
DIVISION
All smaller complexes are aspects of the parent, larger complex. Thus the apparent division is
exactly that – apparent. Nothing is truly apart from another. Each individual complex has in
potential all aspects of the parent. Since all is in potential, there is only identity from that which
is present/potential in any complex. To learn of the whole calls for learning of the parts. Thus
division has purpose.
CHANGE
Change is inevitable. It may be delayed by repetition. Patterns are repetitions which may
contain repeating changes. Patterns however also change. They change within cycles. Cycles
include radical or spontaneous change. It is this change which may defy pattern in the usual
concept of pattern and which may not be mapped prior to the change.
KNOWLEDGE
One may consider the limit to knowledge one may gain. There is no limit, knowledge is infinite.
If two entities may simultaneously hold infinite knowledge, they must be one and the same. In
addition the knowing or learning of the previous concept was done entirely by the mind, that is
there was nothing external/physical to the self – the mind - involved in gaining this knowledge.
Thus an example of knowledge gained/accessed entirely by thought.
EXPLORATION
The exploration is both within as it is without. That which is (created) external to the self may
be explored. That which is (created) internal to the self may be explored. Though the creations
may differ, the internal/external are mirrors to one another. Any mirror has the potential to also
be a window/portal.
MYSTERY
Since knowledge is infinite, there by logic is always an unknown, thus a degree of “mystery”.
However, once the formula is known, the “solution” or “resolution” has been reached and all
that is left is experience of all the possible combinations using the formula.
There is mystery in learning of the whole, which includes learning of the parts which make up
the whole.
RESONANCE
For balance to occur, that which is in deficit/excess is matched with the corresponding
excess/deficit. That which is out of place is returned to it’s correct place. The tune which
harmonizes to bring such balance is a resonating one, for it sings out to all for all to respond in
the manners just described.
DUALITY
In anything unified there can be no absolute or true duality. Thus there is only duality within
unity. From the primary, the prime, there is two extremes for only with two could there be
extreme opposites. Since there is duality within unity, that which is taken by the negative
polarity must be returned to all. It is impossible to take from the self. Conversely that which is
truly given by the positive polarity must be returned to the one giving. It is impossible to give
the self away.
LEARNING
There is nothing which is not learning nor cannot be learnt from. The creation of imbalance
offers learning as it teaches. Thus that which serves the self also serves all. The ways to
learning by doing so are not the same, which are lessons in themselves. The serving of all also
serves the self due to the duality being within unity as shown above. Thus the difference/non-
difference of the polarities is another lesson. With all being learning, learning itself is also a
lesson.
TIME
A moment in time is the availability of learning through experience. Letting go of time means
letting go of separation/division and returning to unity. There is/was no time, merely a choice to
experience that which could not be experienced without time.
UNITY
That which is infinite is unified.
That which is unified is in balance and complete.
In unity, all questions are answered by virtue of all questions being asked.
! !
" #
%
& $
'
(
&
)
( " *
+ ,
010809
NOZTPPIO5

A Wanderer&#39;s Way

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A Wanderer&#39;s Way

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

“A Wanderer’s way” is a collection of thoughts or concepts investigated by the author.

Wander forth, for all paths lead home in time.

To not be limiting is to be limitless, therefore any concept or groups of concepts or philosophy

An example of maintaining sufficient cognitive ability of the individual to be controlled may be

3. Alteration of the physical entity

[A] Physical needs/desires

[B] Direct (Body complex)

[C] Direct (Body/mind complex)

[C] Physical/chemical environment.

[X] Nested control (see advanced concepts for additional information)

4. Alteration of an entity’s environment

1. 1.[D][B][C] Difference + Illusion/Falsity

2. 4.[C][D] Physical/chemical + Connections

3. 3. [A][B][C] Needs/desires + Body complex + Mind/body complex

2. [A][B][D] Direct + Inversion + Limitation, 1. [D] Difference

Examples of possible resultant control:

4. [D] Connections, 1. [D] Difference

Possible additional pathways include alteration of connections between all

Advanced Concepts of control:

All of these concepts may be combined.

Examples of control methods

1. Aim: Create a sense or feeling of self doubt in an entity.

2. Aim: To create or amplify ‘warlike’ thought forms in an entity.

3. Aim: Create an emotional tie to a particular topic for future

Combining methods and pathways by integrated example with simultaneous analysis:

Example of method of controlling a civilization or empire:

The primary occupations for the people are:

It is the interdependency and the hierarchy (‘advanced’ concepts of control) which

Illusion/delusion. Fabrication of percepts. Regulation of thought patterns. Promotion of

Utilization of a distorted concept of freedom/control with a fabricated necessity for

Association, which is largely perceptive, is another pathway to control worthy of consideration.

It may also be helpful to the reader to differentiate between a conceptual understanding of

Elements of balance and thus freedom are:

They are the opposite for the elements of imbalance:

[A] Physical needs/desires

[B] Direct (Body complex)

[C] Direct (Body/mind complex)

[C] Physical/chemical environment.

[X] Nested control (see advanced concepts for additional information)

Now, to consider in more depth the three elements.

[Peripheral knowledge] Thinking

Two more diagrams and then some investigation into “I”.

2. Once a perception or percept is identified, consider or question it. In the identification

6. In considering the concept of perceptions or a percept, consider any limitations. Consider if

7. Observe percept of the current moment in its entirety.

7. Contemplate that which has yet to be observed or considered.

A percept is not defined in this text as simply a momentary view. An “in-grained” or

A Program may be defined here as an awareness/percept/thought complex which is intended to

Perhaps a helpful way to identify one’s percepts is either by observation or by a question.

GAZING INTO THE POOL

Acceptance is the pivot of balance.

To elaborate on this, two examples:

Imagine no external reality. It ceases to exist, memory of it is all that remains.

The exercise is left for the consideration of the reader.

Altering percepts afford the opportunity to further understanding. Further or higher

1. Consider monitoring/observation of thoughts, including percepts for a previous given period –

5. Balance virtues by thought of corresponding percepts, opposite virtues, acceptance of such.

6. Contemplate resultant understanding of the self as well as current perceived understanding

Adversities may be seen as challenges or opportunities.

Hardship is for one a reminder of appreciation.

Perseverance is healthy until it becomes a battle.

All possibilities may be seen to have potential and relative probabilities.

All things are extraordinary.

Seeing the value of one’s life

A Wanderer's Way

A Wanderer's Way