The Law of Experience

[Creotology]

A common belief is that what we experience should naturally dictate what we believe. However, this line of thinking would infer that reality is created independent of us and that we are only the observers, unable to interact with our reality and that we are simply at the mercy of whatever reality we are experiencing.


When we allow our experiences to create our beliefs, we give up our power to create and this is incorrect. We will find that if we operate from the viewpoint that we create our beliefs, and our beliefs create our experiences, only then can we assume our proper role and become the Creator of our experiences.

This also brings the need for a thorough understanding of the Universes in which we work. There is the Universe of the Past, the Universe of the Future, and the Universe of the Now. All three of these Universes exist and are there only because of us, and we can cause any change in any one of them we want.

Although hard to comprehend, we can change the past! When we change what we do in the now and the future, we have changed many possible variations of what the past could have done to us had we continued that course. In both the Universe of the Now and the Universe of the Future, we are never the victim; instead, we are always the Creator. We are the affect that creates a cause, which brings about the changes in our conscious Universe.

[cylon]

We are changing the variations of what could have happened, based on what happened in the past. But that's not really changing the past itself, is it? That's just taking a different fork in the road in the present. Are you saying we can change the events of the past themselves?

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Creotology

When we allow our experiences to create our beliefs, we give up our power to create and this is incorrect. .

And yet you believe in the subjective reality, even though you began life believing in the objective reality. Life taught you to believe in the subjective reality.

How did you learn about subjective reality? Were you born knowing about it? Or did you find out about it from a book or a website such as this one? Were you always aware of its principles, or did a lifetime of experience teach you that it is real?

See? Even becoming aware of the subjective reality idea required you to experience an objective reality. Someone who never experienced the things that are necessary to believe in subjective reality will not believe in it. He will believe in the objective reality.

This is proof that the subjective reality theory is false. Believing in the SR requires you to come to believe through experience that SR is true. But experience is contrary to subjective reality theory. Knowing that the experience taught it to you proves that SR is false.

The subjective reality says that you created everything, even the subjective reality itself. How can you create the subjective reality if you believe that you don't have the power? You didn't have the power until you began to believe in it. But you didn't know it existed so you couldn't have created it yourself. You were born believing in the objective reality. How did you learn that the SR existed except by experience? Experience is a part of the objective reality, not the subjective reality.

So subjective reality can not be true.

[cylon]

I actually thought a bit about this the other day. My path here is long and winding, from Christianity, to Atheism, to Whatever-I-Feel-Like-ism, and I wondered if it was just chance. I could have taken this turn, or that turn, and had a different outcome.

But, I can't prove that. For all I know, my desire to "know" about stuff, created the situations and experiences that brought me to this very point where I'm typing this right now.

That wouldn't be my conscious mind doing it though. It would be a higher part of myself that is influencing my conscious mind. I think the conscious mind is the last part of the equation now. Things seem to happen in reverse.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by cylon

For all I know, my desire to "know" about stuff, created the situations and experiences that brought me to this very point where I'm typing this right now.

That wouldn't be my conscious mind doing it though. It would be a higher part of myself that is influencing my conscious mind. I think the conscious mind is the last part of the equation now. Things seem to happen in reverse.

Thank you Cylon. To me that seems to contradict the subjective reality.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Thank you Cylon. To me that seems to contradict the subjective reality.

To me it confirms it.

What part do you find contradictory?

[SmartAlx]

The part where consciousness comes last. Seems that the subjective reality theory requires your consciousness to come first.

[cylon]

Awareness includes consciousness, but is not only defined BY consciousness (meaning, what you see with your eyes). I'm not consciously moving the blood through my veins right now, but there is a deeper intelligence that I'm not consciously aware of, that is very aware of everything that's happening in my body. That's just as much a part of me as my conscious thought.

My example was how in spite of what I thought was happening, my higher awareness/soul/spirit/(whatever term you like--at least for the purposes of this discussion) was actually orchestrating the events to bring me here today.

That might not be subjective reality in the way we usually think of it, but that's more form than content, in my opinion. It's still the same thing, with a new layer added.

[SmartAlx]

Well, from what I have read, it seems to me that the people who teach about subjective reality say that our consciousness creates our reality, not the other way around.

[Acting Like Godot]

LOL, same old same old logical flaws you commit again and again, through the months.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

This is proof that the subjective reality theory is false. Believing in the SR requires you to come to believe through experience that SR is true. But experience is contrary to subjective reality theory. Knowing that the experience taught it to you proves that SR is false.

Experience is not objective. Experience is subjective.

For example, you read a book. I read a book. We read the "same" book. However we come away with different understandings, different perceptions, different opinions and different memories of the "same" book. Our respective experiences of the "same" book are subjective.

Second example. You take a walk in a park. I take a walk in a park. We take a walk in the "same" park. However we come away with different perceptions, different understandings, different memories of the "same" park. You may dislike parks, I may love them. You may notice the weather in detail, I may notice the trees in detail. Our respective experiences of the "same" park are subjective.

Is there an objective book? Is there an objective park?

Alas, whatever we can know of a book or a park, we can only know it through our own individual senses, and our own individual mental processing of those sensory inputs, and against the backdrop of our memories, opinions, imagination, mental conditioning and other thoughts. For example, if I love reading and you hate it, then the same book is a different thing in our respective realities. There is no same book.

If you were a giraffe, or you were a beetle, then your experience of the park would be markedly different. But of course. Yet a giraffe's reality, or a beetle's reality, is no more or less valid or invalid as your own.

To put it briefly, whatever you can ever perceive, know or understand about reality, is merely your own perception, knowledge and understanding. Your perception, knowledge and understanding are all states of your own mind, and therefore subjective.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by cylon

To me it confirms it.

Of course. After all, reality is subjective.

Out of the same words, Smart Alx creates one set of meanings, while you create another.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Well, from what I have read, it seems to me that the people who teach about subjective reality say that our consciousness creates our reality, not the other way around.

It is our consciousness. I'm saying your consciousness is bigger than that part of it that you're just aware of. I didn't say that it was the other way around. Maybe you aren't following my definition of consciousness. For example the part of me that regulates my body, that I am not aware of, that is consciousness too. If "I" wasn't aware of my body, I'd be dead. Part of me is making everything in my body work, but it does it so well that it doesn't need me to be aware of it. It's aware of it. It's still my consciousness though. It's still me. It's a part of my consciousness. It's thinking, watching, observing. It's making decisions to keep my body functioning.

And I suspect there's another part of me that is watching me type this, and it's got its own desires that I'm not consciously aware of, but that's a part of how things show up in my life. It's still my consciousness, it's still me. Nothing is happening to it, it's the cause of what's happening.

Maybe you're thinking of solipsism.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by cylon

We are changing the variations of what could have happened, based on what happened in the past. But that's not really changing the past itself, is it? That's just taking a different fork in the road in the present. Are you saying we can change the events of the past themselves?

The idea was first put forth in 1969 in "The Seth Material". It was expanded on in "Nature of Personal Reality" in 1973. I can't find any reference to it before that.

Some of the quotes from NOPR are here:

Nirvikalpa

[cylon]

Originally Posted by joelr

The idea was first put forth in 1969 in "The Seth Material". It was expanded on in "Nature of Personal Reality" in 1973. I can't find any reference to it before that.

Some of the quotes from NOPR are here:

Nirvikalpa

I'm actually reading that book currently, I remember you recommending it to me. I haven't gotten that far yet, I'm on the part where he's talking about how we create the body.

I couldn't tell if the OP was speaking in metaphor, or literally saying the past can be changed. Seems like it can be.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by cylon

I'm actually reading that book currently, I remember you recommending it to me. I haven't gotten that far yet, I'm on the part where he's talking about how we create the body.

I couldn't tell if the OP was speaking in metaphor, or literally saying the past can be changed. Seems like it can be.

It seems like a straightforward idea now. I didn't catch it the first time I read it in that book. When the concept took hold I was surprised at how much sense this made and helped form a clearer picture. It's one of those "Seth" things that no one has written before and is quite clever.
He also mentions movement not into the past/future but into directions that we cannot understand. That makes sense because in 4D that extra dimension involves an extension in a way that we cannot understand. Then 5D has a whole new thing......

I thought the OP might be copy/pasting. Unless he went in and changed the font manually.

[Acting Like Godot]

NOPR is an excellent book, I strongly recommend it.

TSM is also good, but it is less practical - it's more like an eye-opener to the hidden weirdness of reality.

Seth is saying that the past can literally be changed.

Abraham Hicks, in other materials, has somewhat indicated that, from a practical perspectuive this usually isn't necessary. Rather than try to alter the past, one might as well create the preferred form of future.

Steve has previously written something interesting about the uncertainty of past events too. This sheds some light on the malleability of the past.

[personal development]

Originally Posted by cylon

It is our consciousness. I'm saying your consciousness is bigger than that part of it that you're just aware of. I didn't say that it was the other way around. Maybe you aren't following my definition of consciousness. For example the part of me that regulates my body, that I am not aware of, that is consciousness too. If "I" wasn't aware of my body, I'd be dead. Part of me is making everything in my body work, but it does it so well that it doesn't need me to be aware of it. It's aware of it. It's still my consciousness though. It's still me. It's a part of my consciousness. It's thinking, watching, observing. It's making decisions to keep my body functioning.

And I suspect there's another part of me that is watching me type this, and it's got its own desires that I'm not consciously aware of, but that's a part of how things show up in my life. It's still my consciousness, it's still me. Nothing is happening to it, it's the cause of what's happening.

Maybe you're thinking of solipsism.

Think of the your Spirit as a multidimensional form of intelligence. The Spirit can operate in many realities at one time by splitting the energy that it is. Therefore, can experience many things at once as it comes form the personality (consciousness) that is operating in it's assigned area of manifestation. The manifested requires that acts of manifesting are followed and this comes form the conscious part of your experience here. So the spirit is fully aware of all other levels of operation needed and provides the body functions... so the Consciousness (I Am ) can do what it is meant too do and that is to experience and then extract the knowledge and wisdom from the experience. So that you the Spirit can move on and continue to expand its multi levels of operation!

[personal development]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

And yet you believe in the subjective reality, even though you began life believing in the objective reality. Life taught you to believe in the subjective reality.

How did you learn about subjective reality? Were you born knowing about it? Or did you find out about it from a book or a website such as this one? Were you always aware of its principles, or did a lifetime of experience teach you that it is real?

See? Even becoming aware of the subjective reality idea required you to experience an objective reality. Someone who never experienced the things that are necessary to believe in subjective reality will not believe in it. He will believe in the objective reality.

This is proof that the subjective reality theory is false. Believing in the SR requires you to come to believe through experience that SR is true. But experience is contrary to subjective reality theory. Knowing that the experience taught it to you proves that SR is false.

The subjective reality says that you created everything, even the subjective reality itself. How can you create the subjective reality if you believe that you don't have the power? You didn't have the power until you began to believe in it. But you didn't know it existed so you couldn't have created it yourself. You were born believing in the objective reality. How did you learn that the SR existed except by experience? Experience is a part of the objective reality, not the subjective reality.

So subjective reality can not be true.

Everything that you experience is subjective and is in tune with your current level of development. If life was all objective then we would all experience the same reality with no variations in our experience. You are always having a subjective experience. The idea of a objective reality for everyone is just a very persistent belief that has had much integration into the group consciousness. And indoctrinated the "free will" into a group belief and people are slowly but surely waking up to this fact. Creotology personal development was a huge eye opener for me.

[personal development]

Originally Posted by joelr

The idea was first put forth in 1969 in "The Seth Material". It was expanded on in "Nature of Personal Reality" in 1973. I can't find any reference to it before that.

Some of the quotes from NOPR are here:

Nirvikalpa

The Creotology material is the next level above the Seth material! And yes there is a ton of material about the nature of subjective reality way before the seth material.

[personal development]

I see your flaw in the knowledge that you are using. You are trying to use logic to make your case about the objective reality. However, for logic to prevail in this case, as in any case with logic the basic assumption that you are using to get to the logical line of reasoning must be correct. The beginning of life starts with your own subjective reality that receives impressions about the reality around it through the opinions of others and the beliefs you are taught about that reality from their beliefs. So you are receiving opinions about reality from others not the one true reality which belongs to you. There is no truth until you create some. So yes... you are integrated with others reality (beliefs) at birth..but even then the process of sorting realities out has already began and you are still like you were when first born creating and managing your own beliefs and the perceptions that are formulated from our beliefs.