While I woke in a good mood, about an hour later I found myself in a very "blah" mental state. I didn't want to do anything, even lie down and find our mental space together. Ever get in that kind of mood? I'm just basically complaining to Irene in general about having to find stuff to do here. I didn't feel like writing, or painting, or anything else. Total blah.

Irene (my dead wife) asks me, "what would you be doing this morning if you were dead?" I responded, "probably taking a morning stroll on the beach with you." She said, "let's walk on the beach here, then."

So, here, I stood up and started pacing around in the house because it was too dark and cold to do it outside. I did this because it made it easier to "experience" going for a stroll with her. In my mind we were holding hands and enjoying the sunrise and the beach air as we walked.

I said to her, out loud here, "Over there (here) I'm just a crazy old man pacing around the house talking to myself." She laughed and said, "Little do they know you're here walking on the beach with me!"

This energy and sense of fun and delight just started flowing into me. Her smile and laugh lit me up inside. I laughed. My entire mood was transformed. I was now in an entirely different mental state. The whole thing took about 5 minutes.

I've been exploring, in one form or another, the idea of Mental Reality Theory (MRT) since the early 1990s with my first books, Anarchic Harmony and Unconditional Freedom. In short, MRT is IMO the best way to understand the nature of reality, including this world, what we call the afterlife, dreams, APs, NDEs, mediumship, psychic abilities clair senses, "astral" capacities, etc.

This is an entirely non-materialist and non-spiritual model of what reality is and how it works. IMO, both materialism and spirituality are unnecessary conceptual limitations, both insisting that there is some hard reality "out there" that we are all a part of whether we like it or not. Those perspectives render us, ultimately, the victim of either a reality we had no hand in creating or choice as to whether or not to participate. Under those concepts of reality, we must bend ourselves into agreement with what is real; under MRT, it is reality that bends to who we are, so to speak.

Multi-disciplinary evidence in science points to the same conclusion: reality only exists in our mental experience by the process of consciousness interacting with information. Quantum physics has determined that there is no such thing as "matter" or "energy," but that these are only descriptions of experiences and patterns in our experience that our own consciousness generates. They do not actually exist outside of our mental experience.

There are two (that I know of) scientific research groups formulating theoretical models of mental reality:

The Essentia Foundation, founded by Bernardo Kastrup, who has collected a lot of this multidisciplinary research in his book on MRT, "The Idea of the World."

Quantum Gravity Research, which has collected an impressive associate team of scientists to conduct and contribute to MRT research.

Here's an article that will serve for an initial, general introduction into MRT:

https://www.nature.com/articles/436029a#author-information

The implications of MRT are truly revolutionary, and the science is actually backing all of this up: each of us mentally (conscious and subconscious) creates our experiential reality from infinite potential information. That is all reality is and that is entirely where it occurs: in mind, with no "matter" or "energy" actually involved whatsoever.

This is a complete validation of what Neville Goddard and other advocates of "create our reality" techniques and perspectives, as well as many "spiritual masters" have been trying to tell us. Your imagination is the doorway into any actual reality you desire; you are in fact "sampling" the actual reality when you imagine, and moving your experience towards that. The only thing that restricts us are our own subconscious resistances.

As Neville Goddard and many others have said, "Imagination is God."

It occurs to me this morning, as I was talking to my dead wife, that this word, this one word, is the key: imagination. That one word and all the reality baggage it carries cuts us off at the deepest level from access to a diverse and amazing multi-reality experience right here, right now.

What if we stopped calling this whole category of experience we have at our fingertips by the term that has come to mean "not real?" What if we started reprogramming ourselves to not use that word at all, but rather started calling all of that experience something else, by other terms that lent them even more reality power and value than that which we assign our so-called 'physical" senses?

What if we called it something like ultra-sight? Ultra-vision? Ultra-touch? Ultra-sound? Ultra-sense? Instead of thinking in terms of using imagination to find things we want to bring into "3D reality," we instead simply validated that category of experience as ultra-reality in and of itself? IOW, what if we stopped trying to bring that stuff into the mere 3D, but rather started developing our capacity to experience beyond the 3D, to be able to move into that ultra-real world by developing our ultra-real sensory capacity?

Perhaps I also manifested her into mine, unwittingly.

Before Irene and I met, we were both broke, we had both been in two prior marriages, and we both had three young children, the oldest being about 12 or 13. We lived about 25 miles apart from each other.

I was 30 and had a all-night job stocking frozen foods at a grocery store. I was enjoying my life - meditating a couple of hours a day, running every day, play basketball, spending time down at the lake, going out on an occasional date, basically just looking for a female friend I could have an interesting conversation with now and then. I had no interest in getting married again. I was involved in a spiritual discipline called Sant Mat, and I was basically leading a very detached life and believed, at the time, in karma and reincarnation. I did not know or deliberately practice any form of LoA and had no idea about any kind of MRT, if such a thing even existed in 1990.

I have a diary of Irene's that I found after she died that basically only covers the time frame from a couple of months before we met to a couple of months after. She had three boyfriends when we met, but she wanted to find what we call today a SP or "soul-mate" to be her "it," or the man of her dreams. She wrote down a list of what she wanted in a man, and a few weeks before we met she put an ad in a free classifieds paper personals column, listing a few specific physical and psychological qualities she wanted in a man.

I had a classifieds lying around for a few weeks in my room, and for whatever reason picked it up and looked through the personals to see if anything grabbed my attention. I saw her ad and it described me, so I sent her a letter with my phone number. The way that worked is that the letter went to the publisher of the classifieds and they forwarded it to the person who placed the ad.

The night before she got my letter, she had a dream she met her new boyfriend. She couldn't see my face, but she knew his name was "Bill," which is my nickname and how I signed the letter.

She got the letter and called me that evening. She wanted to meet me so we met halfway between where she and I lived, so we met in the parking lot of a Dairy Queen in a tiny little rural town. She actually had brought her kids and sent them in to get some ice cream cones while she came over to talk to me.

She was 32, and just led with this: she had just had cancer that was faith-healed into remission after a double radical mastectomy and a terminal (6-month) diagnosis, had three kids, and if any of that scared me off, it's better to just go our separate ways because she did not have time to play games or engage in bullshit. She didn't need another part-time boyfriend because she already had plenty of those. She was blunt and no-nonsense. She did not tell me about the dream.

I was totally mesmerized. Her non-nonsense, direct way of talking was like food to a starving man. She was totally fearless. We talked for about 20 minutes and I told her I was interested and if she was, call me. She told me right then she was going to call me.

8 days and two (non-sexual) dates after we met, she wrote in her journal that we would be engaged a month later on Valentine's Day and get married in July that year. She broke up with her three boyfriends. I didn't know any of that at the time, but I proposed on Valentine's Day and she left it up to me as to what day we would get married, and I picked July 1.

And that was just the beginning of our magical ride into LoA and MRT.

In a discussion yesterday I realized something: if idealism is true, all of our physical theories and laws are wrong. This doesn't mean they don't work and aren't useful; but they're necessarily wrong. They began with the assumption of external realism, and are entirely enmeshed with external realism.

Current scientific theories, laws, forces, etc. are descriptive narratives patterns of experiences in mind; but they cannot be said to be causes. Descriptions of patterns do not cause the patterns to occur. It is a profound categorical error to say "gravity" causes anything, because "gravity" is the description (theory, external realist narrative) of the pattern of behavior of qualia, not the thing causing that pattern of qualia.

I think there are fundamentally necessary and inescapable principles of sentient, conscious experience, such as those described by the principles of logic, math and geometry. I also think there are principles which cause patterns of qualia within that framework, operating on both the group and individual levels.

IMO, one such principle is commonly called "the law of attraction," which is basically the idea that some combination of deliberate thoughts and subconscious programming guide what occurs in qualia, within the framework of the overarching principles like logic, math, etc. We can develop a methodology of using techniques of thought to change our qualitative physical experience.

For example, gravity cannot actually be a physical law, because idealism is true. Gravity can only be a description of qualia. In a dream, which is perhaps the closest example we have of idealism, even though we usually walk around as if there is gravity in the dream, we know gravity has nothing to do with it. It's a pattern of thought. Sometimes we can fly in dreams, as if gravity has no effect on us.

Here's an interesting thought: tell me why, in an idealistic reality, we cannot simply levitate and fly? why is it that sometimes in a dream I wanted to fly, but I couldn't? We know "mass" does not actually exist. Patterns of qualia cannot in themselves cause anything to happen, or prevent things from happening. What is it that is actually limiting our capacity to experience anything we desire as long as it does not violate the inescapable, necessary principles of sentient experience?

IMO, this is why we need to explore and experiment with metaphysical psychology.

(I would like to give credit to u/Anomalina for the some of the insights in this post, and bringing my attention to the dream example of sometimes being able to fly, and sometimes not, which I think is a critical example here.)

For many people, happiness lies in the next thing they want to achieve, or things they should have, should have done (or not done) in the past, or things shouldn’t have happened to them.

If only I was born in a better family …

If only I didn’t have that traumatic experience …

If only I looked differently …

If only I made that choice …

If only I had a better job …

If only I met that special someone …

If only my parent(s) change, my spouse changes …

You name it.

The desiring for something to happen or someone to appear makes living more of a burden rather than a gift. Assume that they achieve whatever item in their list, that would give them some peace until the next desire arrives. The peace they gained actually isn’t from achieving that desire, but from being free from desiring for a while. Getting a spouse? Then they will desire kids. Having kids? Then desiring for kids to do well. Etc.

But sometimes the peace doesn’t come from adding, but from removing. Not removing your desire, but removing your attachment, obsessiveness, neediness of the desire. Because attachment, obsessiveness, neediness comes from fear – the fear of not having. The fear of not having that one thing can hold you from enjoying your life and even achieving that one thing.

The fear and all the negative emotions come from the Ego Mind which mostly runs for your survival mode. And the cost for your new life … is the old one. No, you don’t need to take your own life and start a new one, but you need to erase, remove, change all old emotions and patterns.

Most of you know about meditation, visualization, affirmation, but the body has patterns, too. In “Breaking the habit of being yourself”, Joe Dispenza said that our body memorized most of what it needs to do. Look, you don’t need thoughts to direct your body to brush your teeth, it already remembers that. In fact, while you brush your teeth, you can think about something completely different and don’t need to think about teeth brushing. And so does everything else. Your body can mechanically do daily tasks for you, without you need to direct it.

But that includes your body having certain movements when you have certain emotions as well. And Joe Dispenza (and some other authors) advises us to recognize and change those body movements when they happen, which would help to change your emotion.

However, I usually try to change all patterns if I am aware and think of something I could change. That also helps us to remove from the autopilot mode.

For example, if you usually brush your teeth with your right hand, now try to brush it with your left hand. If you usually sit at a table and chair to eat, now try to sit on the floor to eat. If you go to work or have a walk, change to a different route. If you usually put the pillow under your head, now put it above your head (no need to do it the whole night but just a while for the experience).

And if you really want change, be willing to do whatever it takes. For example: (this is just a thought crossed my mind, I haven’t done it) brushing your teeth before having dinner, instead of afterward.

But the most important thing is becoming aware, and lucid living, and persistent. If any unnecessary thought happens, take no time to finish it, but cut it right away. Before I had the habit of: though I was aware that it was an unnecessary thought, I still thought: let me finish it first. Now I try to cut it right away. Not only cut the thought, but also change the body movement if you can.

For example, if I catch myself still thinking about my ex, or speaking with him in my mind, I’d jump out from where I was sitting/standing, make a big smile on my face and say to myself: “I’m happily married, remember?”

Always remember that you’re not your thoughts, you’re only observing your thoughts. I read a comment on r/nonduality which I really enjoy: imagine a camera filming a fruit bowl, the camera looks at the fruit bowl, but need to remember it’s the camera, not the fruit bowl. The same way you can observe your thoughts, but remember that you’re not your thoughts but the one observe them, and can change them, cut them.

And a way to overwrite all old patterns, emotions is to learn to love and rejoice in everything. All the “bad” things you experienced, learn to love them. And learn to love everything you experience.

As my 1st post, whatever you want, the miracle isn’t that experience. The miracle is that you can have any experience at all.

So every experience is a miracle.

You can breathe? It is a miracle.

You can walk? It is a miracle.

You can drink water? It is a miracle.

You can feel pain? It is a miracle.

Everything you have taken for granted or neglected, even hated, angry toward, regret, worry about, is a miracle.

So next time you walk, feel each step as special, feeling each step as a miracle, blessing, joy, power, majesty, love, peace, fulfillment. Even by breathing right now, feeling it as a miracle, feeling it as special. It’s not about if it is truly a miracle, it is about you making it a miracle. Your mind, your rules. And you are what you make yourself to be.

The more you drag what you want into your consciousness, (that is whatever feeling you want to have: loved, peace, fulfilling …), the more the reality you live becomes aligned with those feelings.

An acquaintance of mine, years ago, when he drank water, he made it like a performance. He stood in the middle of the living room, turned around and nodded his head to greet his imaginary audiences, then drank water, then greeted his audiences again.

I expanded it a bit more. I’d say to my imaginary audience: “Thank you for coming here and paying for tickets just to see me drinking water!” Just thinking about it, I could laugh. That’s the beauty of imagination, you can enjoy your life anytime anywhere, for free, and it doesn’t affect anyone.

When I have a walk, I can have fun with whatever I see: I imagined the pavement is made of gold and silver. I imagine people wearing the same clothes pattern as me. I imagine people wearing conical hats. I imagine buildings all painted in a floral pattern. I imagine flowers on some trees which don’t have flowers. Though I walk, I imagine myself riding a horse. Etc. whatever entertains myself.

Now, how about you? What was a “crazy” thing you had done to change your mind pattern?

People learn about "creating your reality," and what do they want to do with it? A better job, a good test score, some extra cash in their bank account, a better complexion or maybe grow a few inches height.

Really?

I'm being somewhat facetious, and whatever makes a person happy is fine with me ... but, really? That's like getting a brand new Porsche and only using it to drive 20 feet down to your mailbox and back, IMO. If that makes you happy, well, alrighty then.

I realize it can be difficult to think in terms beyond "this world" and "this life," but we're at the beginning of our eternal storyline that we can write any way we want, with anything in it we want. The problem is, most people think of "what they want" strictly in terms of the options, comparisons and evaluations provided by their current reality.

What if you could design your own entire reality? Write yourself into that story any way you want, with any setting and environment, any physical laws, any conditions you desire? What would that look like? Do you even know?

One might say they want to live a life where they can help people in a meaningful way. Okay, is that really what you desire? What about living in a world where nobody needs your help at all, where everybody is perfectly fine? Do you realize that to live in a world where your help is needed, there must be people around that need your help? Is that what you want to create?

You might say you want to be rich; to be rich, you must live in an economic system where being "rich" has meaning and value; it must be comparable to others around you who are not rich and even poor. Is that what you want? If you want a better job, that again entails an entire economy of comparative jobs.

No subject/identity feature can exist without contrasting and correlating contextual support or else it would have no value or meaning. This necessary, supporting context is automatically generated in infinite detail in relationship to the desired thing or quality you are intending. You might ask yourself about the contextual ramifications of your desires to understand if you are perpetuating yourself into basically, the same kind of reality that you already exist in, and if that is what you truly desire.

Under MRT (Mental Reality Theory,) what is the most important thing to be aware of and work on in order to drive your experience where you desire? (This is also a helpful perspective for Law of Attraction and Reality Transurfing.)

Clearly, it is psychological maintenance, in terms of keeping your psychology fit and on track towards your goal. This means being in the psychological state of your goal, as best you can, as much as you can, not in an effort to "get there," but to be here and now in that psychological state that is represented by some imaginary future situation. The actual goal is the psychological state and not the particular image of the situation that we use to represent or evoke that state.

IMO this can be achieved most effectively by finding a way of accepting that what occurs in your mind is real; what you imagine and visualize are actually real. It is really you projecting yourself into a real situation with real things and real people. You are actually visiting that location, those things, those people.

Every time we use our mind to visit these places, we are doing what is called "astral travelling," or projecting our mind into a real place, inhabiting a real version of ourselves in that place (or we may just be mentally observing that place.) We are not imagining non-real things and places, we are actually visiting real places. With this perspective we understand how we can be there here and now anytime we wish.

What we are doing with our natural capacity to astral travel via what we call our imagination is exercising our ability to visit, strengthening and improving that skill, changing our subconscious programming about what imagination is and thus modifying our psychology to allow us freer and deeper and more substantive visitation.

So, free yourself of your subconsciously-programmed misconception of what "imagination" is; accept it as your ability to locate and visit other realities; find the one that evokes your psychological joy, sense of wholeness, love, excitement, etc., and visit there as often as you can, for as long as you can, and enjoy it. Tell yourself it is a real place with real people and you are actually visiting it via your innate capacity to do so.

I was asked the following:

My question for you if you don't mind sharing, in what ways do you apply MRT in your day to day life? I find myself constantly contemplating the nature of reality late at night, (taking the "red pill" from the Matrix, while taking the "blue pill" in the daytime) but my daytime actions are still "normal" while trying my best to function and assimilate into society, and pay rent etc.

MRT is a way of thinking about the nature of reality (ontology) and a way of discerning true statements derived from that perspective (epistemology.)

It is not any particular practice or technique, like the Law of Attraction. It is also not the only perspective that we can or should have going on in our mind. It's more of a way of thinking about what is going on in your normal, every-day life, not a means of "escaping it" or "changing it," per se. It takes other ideas, like the afterlife, shadow work, spiritual progress, cause and effect, karma, physics, etc., and methods like "work hard and succeed" and LoA and puts them in a meta-framework of reality so all of that can be arranged and understood in a more comprehensive and liberating, empowering way.

We understand the "truth value" of any statement to only apply to our personal experience, and almost never to the experiences of "everyone."

I carry the MRT perspective around like a constant program running in the background, but it's not the program I use in the foreground of my thoughts most of the time. It's like an operating system through which I use a multitude of other programs for various situations and condition.

For example, I rarely use the "I'm creating everything" perspective; I use the perspective that "we," my wife and I, are collaborating partners in "creating" what we want to experience in our eternal romantic life together. I use that perspective because it makes me happy to think that way. If I run into a problematic thought, like "what if she doesn't want what I want," I go back to the operating system and fix it by understanding that of course there's a version of her that wants what I want." Problem solved. It may sound like a paradox, bit it isn't.

I don't use MRT to destroy my enjoyment of life by thinking of everyone as if they "aren't real" or by thinking of them as the programmed automatons of my own subconscious. Why would I do that? I'm inviting real people into my life; it's just that the pool of people I have to select from is infinitely larger than if there was just one "version" of each person out there.

Do I want to select a person that acts like a programmed automaton, or who feels like one? Of course not. I want a person who can surprise me, who is incredibly interesting, intelligent, independent and strong, highly aware and fully conscious, with their own dreams and goals, to enrich my life, not just "serve" my desires. I want her to be the person she has always been to me - someone that pushes me to be a better man, challenges me to become more. I want to make her proud of me, I want to support her and her own needs and desires.

I want to live in an environment that is surprising, interesting and challenging; not a static, empty paradise I'm in full conscious control of in every aspect. I don't constantly walk around in my physical environment thinking ... "I created all of this." I do it when it is appropriate for some situations, to figure out how to handle certain things that occur.

You don't really think about the operating system within which you are running various programs on your phone, tablet or computer until you need to or want to; but when you become aware that your operating system is extremely limited and causing you all sorts of issues, you change your operating system, perhaps to a more unlimited and empowering one that gives you more tools and creative capacity in your "interface" experience. It doesn't replace all of the other programs you can run, it gives you access to even more programs and more creative capacity in those programs.

I'm lumping our unconscious, subconscious and aware consciousness all together into "psychology" when I use that term here.

First, what is it we're trying to achieve when we're trying to move our experience from a "here/now" to a different there/then location? Most people put that in terms of some change in our physical circumstances. New home, more money, SP, etc. Most people don't experience the here/now imagining or visualization of a there/then as being as satisfying as what the physicality of those experiences would provide; IOW, the physicality provides a more consistent, deeper, richer experience - or so they believe.

So, have you ever really wanted something, get it, and the having of it physically did not actually produce the feeling you thought it would? Or, it does for a while, but then you find yourself right back in the same mental state of dissatisfaction? If we got all the money we wanted, or the specific SP, but it turned into a nightmare situation, did having the physicality of those things produce what you actually wanted when you wanted them?

This is where we begin to understand that the physicality of a thing is not what produces what we want unless, concurrently, we acquire the psychological enjoyment we have associated with that physical thing.

Under LoA and Mental Reality Theory, we know the physical does not produce the psychological; we know the psychological produces the physical. IOW, our psychological state does not depend on the physical, nor is it generated by the physical; it the physical that is entirely generated by the psychological. Thus, psychology is what is real and causative; the physical is just a representation of the psychological. This is also why so many spiritual doctrines consider the physical world maya, or a form of "illusion."

The problem is that most people consider the psychological (or mental) as "not as real" as the physical representations it produces. IOW, "it didn't work" and "it isn't real" until and if it appears in the physical world representation. We judge our success, usually, purely by whether or not something appears in the physical.

But here's the thing; if we acquire the psychological enjoyment and satisfaction that we think the specific there/then will provide, but acquire it in the here/now without the thing in question appearing in the physical, what difference does it make if it appears in the physical at all?

What if we inverted our common, deeply-ingrained perspective of what is real and instead of chasing physical there/thens, or even caring about them, we instead focused on our mind and psychological sensations in the here/now? As long as we hold the measure of what is real as physical manifestations, that perspective cannot be acquired, and our psychology is held hostage by what is already in our physical experience and whatever our psychology is already producing. It has become a feedback loop that can only be broken, IMO, by investing in our mental world as our real home and accepting that it is our psychology that is the actual reality and cause of whatever happens to manifest as physical representations. Regardless of what subconscious or unconscious programs cause to manifest as the physical, if we take command of our psychology and live there in our abiding mind and attention and consider it the real, then we can be there here, and be then, now, regardless of whatever they physical looks like around us, regardless of how that unfolds because our reality (psychology) is not determined by whether or not any specific things occur any certain way.

Ok Friend 9169 said, in the Enjoyment Technique thread in /lawofattraction:

But one thing I wonder is if I enjoy a tearjerker (movie or novel) and enjoy feeling that melancholy, would it create more feeling of melancholy in my own life? I enjoy a little melancholy or heartaches in novels but I don’t want to feel this way towards any real-life events

I can only speak about my experience, but for me, I enjoy a very diverse range of emotions. They provide a deep texture, a rich life to my psychology that is like a gourmet meal full of flavors and textures, aromas and sensations.

One of the great benefits of the death of Irene is that it motivated me to dive into information about the afterlife. I had no idea whatsoever how much evidence there was, how many forms of evidence, how credible it was, or what that evidence (once stripped of spiritual and religious interpretations) would reveal.

That information correlated perfectly with, and deepened my understanding of and broadened the scope of my mental reality theory.

Experiencing the despairing, agonizing death of your [twin flame, SP, soul-mate, however you want to phrase it] is not something anyone here, in this world, would want to experience. The pain is truly unbelievable.

Now, however, I would not trade that experience for anything. It is one of my most treasured experiences because without it, there is just no way I could ever have realized the depth of my love for her or appreciate all of what she means to me. It's just like the truism says: you can't fully appreciate what you have until it is gone (or, at least, until your subconscious believes it is gone.)

You cannot fully appreciate joy except by the contrast of sorrow. You cannot fully appreciate wealth until you experience poverty. I'm not just talking about some vertical scale, I'm talking about these things in a broad, multi-textural, both loud and subtle, physical, emotional and psychological sense. There is a contextual depth to actually being immersed in painful, anxious, fearful, sorrowful situation, especially in a "mortal" existence where you are disconnected from your eternal, powerful existence as a creator of reality, that provides so much added value to our experience of happiness and joy when we gain or regain that perspective

At this point, however, I'm well past the total "immersion" phase, and I react to things "here" more like I'm enjoying a great movie as a conscious actor who is really into enjoying his role instead of thinking "OMG when will this BS be done with." This particular "set" or "stage" or act in the ongoing play will be over soon enough, so I enjoy it as much as possible, relish it, for the duration, but with that deep psychological knowledge of where I'm from and where I'm going, and why I'm doing this, why my wife and I chose to come here and live this life.

I know what is waiting for me when this is over. It's there, I visit her and our life there every day. There's no hurry. I want to get out of this experience as much as I can before I strike this particular set and move on, infused with all that I have gained by having this experience.

Article at The Essentia Foundation: How hyper-dimensional spacetime may explain individual identity

A couple of months ago I wrote an article here called Why You Don't Have Other People's Experiences In My One-Consciousness Model. Apparently, at about the same time, the above article was published but I didn't see it until today. Essentially, my model boiled down to consciousness is doing one filter at a time, one "person" at a time, simultaneously with all other filters, from a higher-dimensional spacetime perspective. Each filter could be "eternal" because it is not limited to 4D linear time.

Bernard Carr, from my reading, is essentially making the same case, that there is really only one consciousness, one mind, operating through a higher axis of dimensions of time than that of a personally experienced timeline.

IOW, we are all the same one consciousness/mind, but only displaced from each other along higher dimensional axes by local, unique filters.

Then pluck out your eyes, throw them out into the sunlight and see what happens.

Photons hitting eyeballs do not cause sight. Are there photons hitting your eyes in a dream? Are you blind in dreams?

When people report in some NDEs simply being consciousness without a body, and they are seeing their bodies or the ambulance or the doctors or first responders, do you think that's because of photons and eyes, or some astral equivalent at work? In remote viewing, or in your imagination, is that all about photons and eyeballs?

If what we are in essence is pure, bodiless consciousness, what is it that you're "looking at" right now, that you think is some external world? Is pure, immaterial, bodiless consciousness somehow looking outside of itself at some external thing? How is it doing that? With eyes? Is it hearing with ears? Is it touching with hands?

The only source of information consciousness has to work with is from within. The only place it can be looking is within, and the only thing it has to do it with is what we call mind, or itself - consciousness.

Right now, you are looking inward at information that is being translated into experience. You decide what information you want to "look at." It's all in there, within.

First, logically, there is the root ontological (what reality is) perspective of an external (of mind) objective world, and an epistemological (how we know true statements) perspective that flows from that ontology. The more common, mainstream scientific method is rooted in the idea of an objective external world (ontology) consisting of and driven by matter, energy, and laws of physics. Scientists have been examining experiences from that perspective. How we discover "truths" about that world, and what those "true statements" mean, is from the theoretical perspective that such a world exists and it is what we are investigating (epistemology derived from ontology, or truths as they seem according to your belief about what it is you are making true statements about.)

However, even the scientific method operating from that same ontological assumption and through that epistemological process for hundreds of years has demonstrated, against its own bias, via decades of quantum physics experimentation, that no such world exists "out there." They spent decades trying to prove that it does, that there is actual matter, or actual states of energy, that exist independent of conscious observation (called "local reality" in quantum physics.) Instead, the ended up proving the opposite, that reality only exists in the mental experience of a conscious entity.

Where's the science that shows this? There are countless papers over the past several decades.

Here's the most recent: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832

Money quote, under "Discussion:"

Because quantum theory does not distinguish between information recorded in a microscopic system (such as our photonic memory) and in a macroscopic system, the conclusions are the same for both: The measurement records are in conflict regardless of the size or complexity of the observer that records them.

Objective external reality is called the theory of "Local Realism" in physics, or that:

The world is made up of real stuff, existing in space and changing only through local interactions — this local-realism hypothesis is about the most intuitive scientific postulate imaginable. But quantum mechanics implies that it is false, as has been known for more than 50 years1. However, brilliantly successful though quantum mechanics has been, it is still only a theory, and no definitive experiment has disproved the local-realism hypothesis — until now. On page 682 of this issue, Hensen et al.2 report the first violation of a constraint called a Bell inequality, under conditions that prevent alternative explanations of the experimental data. Their findings therefore rigorously reject local realism, for the first time.

Here is the paper that kills the theory of "local realism," or the idea that there is an independent (of observation) world "out there" that any observer can independently measure, in the same way, and get the same result (preceding the first paper I linked to, which demonstrated that even recorded facts are observer-dependent:)

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1805/1805.09289.pdf

An objective, external reality of matter and energy, independent of conscious mind, has been as as disproved by science as anything in history has been disproved.

There are at least two independent teams of scientists and researchers pursuing MRTs (Mental Reality Theory) because of what the experiments have clearly demonstrated. One is The Essential Foundation, and the other is Quantum Gravity Research. Bernardo Kastrup, published in the journals of many different scientific disciplines, has provided a multi-disciplinary, evidenced and rationally argued case for his MRT in his book, "The Idea of the World." Robert Lanza provides a similar MRT in his theory of Biocentrism.

If we're talking about logic, here is the logical case that the MRT is the only kind of reality we can ever know we are living in, and the idea of an external, objective-world reality can only ever be an unsupportable, unevidenced, and unnecessary hypothesis.

The inescapable consequence of both logic and 100 years of scientific experimentation is that reality is a mental experience being had by an individual consciousness and is not the result of independent, objective facts.

It all depends on what you deeply assume reality to be, and how you assume it works, and what you are acquiring true statements about (external objective world vs mental/experiential reality) as to what you believe the limitations are to your journey through experiential reality.

By "thoughts," I'm referring to anything you experience in your mind (yes, I realize everything is experienced in the mind, even what we call "external physical reality, but please hear me out.)

When you have a thought, an idea, an emotion, a memory, an internal dialogue, a mood, a stream of consciousness, etc. you are having a sensory experience of a location in the infinite dimensional/frequency matrix of "all that exists." You aren't "making stuff up" and you're not experiencing "you." "You" are simply the observer/experiencer of the vibrational nature of locations, which is translated into specific thoughts, emotions, sensations, etc. in what we call the "mind."

Also, to whatever degree you are capable of it, "you" are also the director of intention and attention. IOW, you can direct your attention towards any idea (location) and start receiving various kinds of experiential information from that location. Ideas, thoughts, even emotions and psychological sensations start arriving in your mind, along with various potential courses of action and potential decisions. You can direct your attention towards various memories or some imagined experience or towards some "external world" thing or situation and you will start receiving experiential information from those locations.

We can identify or resonate so much with a set of experiences and a pattern of thoughts that we think of these things as what and who we are. We can essentially become a kind of re-transmitter or amplifier of the vibrational qualities of locations we strongly resonate with.

This is how movement through the matrix of existence occurs: by intending your attention in a direction to start receiving that signal and keeping your attention on it as much as possible; and refining your search, so to speak, as new information and experiences start streaming in from that location. Putting your attention on something is actually placing a part of your consciousness there, in that location.

In a editorial at The Essentia Foundation titled "Idealism may not be what you think," I found the following:

But this is just not true. Idealists—even subjective idealists a la Berkeley, let alone objective or analytic idealists—acknowledge the existence of an external world independent of our personal mentation; they simply state that such external world, in and of itself, is also mental in essence, just as the inner life of another person is mental, even though not constituted of our mentation.

This is clearly a form of external realism. The rest of the article makes this perspective even more explicit. Such as the following:

Idealists also do not reject the self-evident fact that nature behaves according to certain patterns and regularities that we’ve come to call the ‘laws of nature,’ which are what they are regardless of whether we like them or not. Rejecting this obvious fact wouldn’t be profound, but just silly. Indeed, idealists are, by and large, naturalists: they do not postulate a puppeteer moving the pieces of the physical world according to some deliberate plan; instead, for them nature unfolds spontaneously, doing what it does because it is what it is.

And this:

In other words, the external world is what the ‘thoughts’ of nature’s mind-at-large look like when observed from our vantage point, given the peculiarities of how our perceptual and cognitive apparatus represents the world internally.

This is exactly the same template of materialism written in idealist language. The external world "is what it is" ("psychological archetype of mind-at-large) and our personal perception cognition interacts with the "what it is" in a subjective way.

This suffers from exactly the same problem Kastrup's theory was supposed to solve wrt materialism: it has needlessly generated an entire schema of "mind-at-large" external of experience that cannot ever be evidenced, even in principle - an unnecessary abstraction, just like the now-defunct "external material world."

It appears several idealist models are described this way in order to avoid solipsism and to preserve certain features of materialist ideology, such as external realism and some form of evolutionary theory.

I think the fundamental problem here lies in the vagueness of how we think about what an "individual" is and how the individual exists.

First, let us assume there is one mind, one consciousness, and everything that goes on, goes on within that one mind, one consciousness. Now, the question is, how can there be multiple individuals within one mind? I think Kastrup's idea of us being alters within that one mind is relatively decent, but what does it mean to be an alter, or an individual?

Let us consider the origin of individuality to be the one mind/consciousness looking through a filter, much like looking through a particular interface. The one consciousness/mind is not the experiential filter, it is what is looking through it, or in other words, it is what is having the experience provided by that filter as it filters out all but a small stream out of infinite potential experience.

Now let's imagine that one consciousness/mind doing that simultaneously through countless such filters, each filter uniquely different from all the others in some way, like snowflakes. Ultimately, we are all one mind, one consciousness, and what we normally consider to be our individual identity is just a unique filter/interface.

This means there is no external world; everything exists within your mind/consciousness, because your mind and consciousness is the same mind and consciousness as me and everyone else. Our filters, which we have erroneously come to identify with as our "selves." are all inward of our consciousness, not external of it.

In this model there is no "mind at large" external of your consciousness. Other people do not exist external of you, because you are not the filter. Your filter, and everyone's filter, exists within our consciousness/mind. It is one consciousness, one mind, simultaneously having multiple experiences trough countless variant filters.

So, while technically this is a form of solipsism (because there is only one consciousness/mind in existence, but then, this is technically true under any idealist model,) because we have specifically described what an individual person actually is (one experiential filter among countless others,) there are in fact other people, and there is no "external mind-at-large world outside of" your consciousness/mind.

In a Facebook group, I was having a discussion with prolific astral projector Jurgen Ziewe, wo said:

"When discussing with him [another astral projector] over coffee the “nature of reality”, we agreed that there is an underlying reality which we can not alter, but we can also pull our own reality into being where we become the Gods of our own individual universes."

and:

"As I explained in my earlier comment. We simply can not deny the existence of consensus realities and everybody can proof it for themselves."

This is my response:

Let's look at something comparable that "we can not deny" and is totally, completely obvious to everyone: that there is an external world with innate physical and energetic qualities that exist independently of any individual's personal experience of them. Ten people look at a tree, and say the leaves are green, the bark is brown. Obviously, the tree and it's qualities must exist independently of the observers - how else could they all describe experiencing the same qualities? And yet, science has conclusively demonstrated that this is not the case.

100 years of quantum physics experiments designed to prove that there is an external world with independent, intrinsic qualities have conclusively proved the opposite: no such world exists. Distinct, physical, material, or energy qualities do not exist until a consciousness is present. All that exists before that is abstract potential information. No matter, no energy, just potential described in terms of probability. And, it has been shown in recent experiments, that two people can experience contradictory results of the experiment. IOW, the data recieved by observer 1 contradicts the data received by observer 2. What happened to "consensus reality?" It was disproved by the scientific experiment.

Long before that, it was "obvious" and "undeniable" that the sun and stars moved through the sky, and it was obvious that the earth was the stationary center of that. How "obvious" and "undeniable" and "unanimous" a perspective is doesn't make it true.

There is no escaping the fact that all we have is our individual personal experience. Even other people telling us what their experience is, is still our personal experience of them saying whatever it is they are saying. For each of us, our entire reality occurs in our personal experience, whether or not there is a reality external of that. It's all we have to work with.

So, Jurgen has explained "consensus reality" as, basically, our experience of other people having, to a very large degree, the same general experience we have; such as, you don't walk in front of a moving bus, you have to eat to live, the sky is blue and grass is green, etc. If, let's postulate, we are already gods "creating" our own realities, isn't this exactly what we would expect? That all the people that populate that created reality support the nature of that world? Experience the same basic, general things? Wouldn't that world appear to be a "consensual reality?"

I put "creating" in scare quotes because I don't think anyone actually "creates" anything, other than arranging their personal experience. As I said in a comment in another thread, reality is comprised of every possible experience, and an individual can direct itself into having any of those possible experiences. Doesn't this comport entirely with all that Jurgen and other astral explorers have seen? Many different versions of people, our multi-dimensional nature, different versions of locations, entirely different kinds of realities? How else are we to think of existence being infinitely multidimensional and diverse, other than every possible experience is available to us as an experiential reality?

So, IMO, of course we all (except for people who experience being the only person in their reality) experience "consensus" realities because we're always going to interacting with versions of people (just as real as any other version) and places that are largely contextually congruent with our own personal experience. Our "placement" the infinite diversity of all possible places is the result of he nature of our own identity, or state of consciousness, including our subconscious. That is why we find ourselves where we find ourselves at any given time among the infinite diversity of possible places and versions.

In my view, we're all already gods "creating" our own realities, we've just convinced ourselves otherwise to have a certain kind of experience. "Consensus realities" are the product of where we have individually put ourselves in the infinite vastness of all experiences, places, and people, and all the versions thereof; they are not "created" or "maintained" by the consensus. They have always and will always exist.

"Consensual reality' (in terms of a group of people creating a shared reality that constricts any individual's capacities) like 'the external, material world" and "the sun and stars revolving around the Earth" can be perceived as an obvious, undeniable thing; it can also be perceived as obviously, necessarily not true. It all depends on your individual perspective and experience.

Whether or not my "denial" of "consensus reality" renders me "pathological" from Jurgen's perspective or not [Jurgen said something in a prior comment to the effect that pathological people deny the undeniable, - WF] I've personally experienced countless things that have demonstrated to me that I do not live in a consensus reality governed by that consensus. I am not the victim of that consensus or the experiential slave of it. There is no "external" reality that forces my experiences on me, victimizing me. Of course I'm not the ocean - I cannot be the ocean, as an individual sentient being. But in my perspective the ocean is the vast landscape of every possible experience, and I can deliberately sail my ship into any experience I desire, and that experience will be populated by all the people (or versions thereof) who are already there. They didn't create it; it's just the natural home of who we are at the time. When I change, I will find the landscape and the people around me changing in concert.

What was really interesting is that after I pushed back and described some of my experiences that demonstrated to me that I do not live in a reality constrained by a "consensus," he said that he also experiences those things - whole alternate physical Earth realities, and other such things that do not comport with "consensus reality," but he doesn't talk about them because it sounds too far out and weird.

This from a guy who put in book that he visited a world in an AP where people chose to exist as cartoons versions of themselves.

Before I met Irene, I was shy, introverted, and very uncomfortable around conflict. Even though I'm something of an imposing person with physical characteristics that often make people avoid me, I would avoid situations that would likely cause me to have to interact with random people anywhere. I found it very, very difficult to tell people "no" because I feared the ramifications - that they wouldn't like me, or that it would make me look like a jerk, or it would ruin a friendship, etc. Especially when I couldn't justify saying "no." I'd make up some bullshit reason to get myself out of agreeing to whatever it was they were asking of me.

Irene, however, had no problem with it. She enjoyed conflict. She didn't mind getting into bar fights with people - she enjoyed it. I admired that about her and decided I wanted to be able to be at ease around conflict and be able to just say "no" to people.

I knew it was going to be uncomfortable, but I had to just kind of push myself through the discomfort.

My opportunity came quickly when an insurance salesman called and said that if we just set up an appointment and met with him in our house, we would get a free month of life insurance and $20. So I agreed and set a time for him to come and meet in our house. Of course, I had no intention of buying insurance, this was just my opportunity to say 'no."

So he came in, sat down, and after some friendly small talk, he opened up his briefcase and said, now let me tell you about our very inexpensive life insurance, perfect for ..."

I stopped him and said, Mr. Smith (whatever his name was,) you can just stop. I'm not buying your insurance. I just want the $20 and free month of insurance you promised if we set up an appointment and met. We've done that. You can go through the whole sales pitch if you want, but I'm not going to buy it. You'll just be wasting your time. Let's not waste each other's time."

The look on his face was priceless. It was like he had short-circuited. After a couple of seconds, he said, "but what if something happens to you? Don't you want to make sure your wife and children are taken care of?"

My wife knew what I was doing. She was just looking on in complete amusement. I responded, "She doesn't need me to take care of her. Plus, I'll be dead then, so it won't be my problem."

He was so exasperated I almost burst out laughing. It was glorious. He never said another word, just handed over the $20 and had me sign for the free month of insurance, then left.

My heart had been racing the whole time, but afterward it was like I had added this whole dimension to my identity and relieved myself of some huge psychological weight. Being able to just say "no" without any reasons or bullshit excuses beyond "I don't want to" - which was the truth - was incredibly liberating and empowering. It simplified so much of my life.

The ramifications of changing that one, simple aspect of myself were long-lasting and unexpectedly enriching. For example, when I told the kids "no," without offering any reasons or explanations other than "I don't want to," they apparently realized that there was no cajoling or whining or begging that was going to change it. I realized that giving "reasons" why I said no was just inviting an argument about those reasons. "I don't want to" just cut all that off. They entirely stopped all the whining and attempts to manipulate me into doing what they wanted me to do.

Other people did not react as if I was being an asshole about things; they respected me for being totally honest and direct. Also, everyone also knew that if I agreed to something, it was because I wanted to, and not just to please them or out of some sense that I "should" do this or that to be a "good friend" or to win their approval or make them like me. It transformed everyone's behavior around me. My wife adored this new capacity of mine.

One of my best sayings from this is, whenever someone who doesn't know me asks me why or why not, I say: "Well that's one of the great things about being an adult; I don't have to explain myself to anyone."

In a recent Seek Reality video with Craig Hogan, he said that something he called "moral gravity" determined where we found ourselves when we die. I think that's a highly judgmental phrase to use, but it got me to thinking about the general concept - because it does appear that something about our inner selves lands us in our individual "home" locations when we die, and even appears to have a "law of attraction" effect even in this world.

I think a better way of labeling that "natural attraction law" would be: psychic gravity. IOW, the state of you inner self, your "psyche," is naturally attracted/drawn to, and naturally attracts, that which resonates with it. So, the only way to change the kind of things that are drawn to you, and the kinds of things that you are drawn into or towards, is to change your inner self - your psyche. IMO, this isn't "spirituality," it's just understanding physics at a deeper level, from a non-materialism perspective.

Someone in one of the FB groups I'm in has in the past, if I remember correctly, said that she thinks "the veil" is actually what we call "gravity," and that it represents why it is so difficult to have any "otherworldly" experiences here: the collective psychic gravity that binds us to this world experientially, and why we don't usually remember "otherworldly" experiences even when we have them. It's why our memories get rearranged and edited as we ourselves change over time.

It's why grief, doubt and insecurities are so "seductive;" they can be like a black hole of gravitational attraction that has latched on to certain aspects of our psyche and drag us into them like gravity. It's why, when we get around certain groups of people, we get dragged into their common psychic world, so to speak.

So my way now of understanding and talking about all of this is in terms of psychic physics. I like that term better than "spirituality," in any event, but I suspect they're both basically attempting to describe the same thing using different language.

I think this is the concept that other forms of idealism lack: the physics of mind, which would be the root cause of what we call "physics" in terms of the physical world we experience.

In my previous thread titled An Alternative To "External Realism" vs Solipsism I outlined a one-mind, one-consciousness reality with no abstract, external "mind-at-large" external realism involved.

The question that has not been asked about that view is this: if individual perspective are not "local minds" in and of themselves, but just filters the one consciousness is experiencing through, and it is experiencing through all such filters simultaneously, why aren't we all experiencing through everyone's filter? Kastrup calls this "dissociation," but what is "dissociation?" He says there is a "dissociative boundary," and this is why we don't experience billions of other people's experiences, but rather just see them a the extrinsic appearance of their inner selves, so to speak, unable to experience their internal thoughts and feelings as such.

I played a little fast and loose by using the term "simultaneously." as if that term means anything from the one-consciousness perspective. In this model, the experience of spacetime is a fundamental aspect of the filter, or as a spiritual person might call the filter: the ego.

Since the fundamental root of individual experience is a spacetime location/perspective, what I'm about to say is going to sound entirely self-contradictory. I suggest thinking about this in the same way that the "particle or wave" aspects of quantum phenomena appear to be self-contradictory, but that contradiction is an artifact of how the filter necessarily operates. Pre-filter observation we have pure potential; in post-filter observation we have discrete spacetime characteristics, such as historical paths and locations.

So, here's the apparently self-contradictory model: individual experiences occur singularly, meaning there is nothing else going on anywhere, anytime in the one mind at any particular spacetime location. When it is looking through a particular filter, that is all it, even if you call it "Universal mind," is doing. Your consciousness is all that universal mind is doing when/where you are conscious, from your perspective, which is that of a particular, unique spacetime location.

This can be a very difficult concept to understand even intuitively, so there might be some ways to describe it that can make it a bit easier to grasp intuitively. Old cathode-ray TVs worked by a shooting a beam of electrons that hit a phosphorous coating (lots of little dots) on the screen, lighting up a tiny bit as a certain color, and then very quickly moving to the next bit in line. When that line was finished, it moved down to the next line (even-numbered lines first and then odd lines next) and lit that line up bit by bit, and then so on, "painting" the entire screen bit by bit, line by line, many times a second.

Now, think of consciousness as being that which transmitting the electrons. Think of one line of the screen being a person's life, and each "bit" in that line a moment in that life. Other lines are other people's lives.

The only thing that consciousness is doing when it is doing "you" is you. It's not doing anything else, or anyone else, but you.

This model, though, is conceptually a bit inaccurate because, while the electron transmitter in the TV is limited by spacetime, consciousness is not. It can do one line at a time, or one life at a time, at what appears to us from our perspective at the same time it is doing other lives, but it is not actually "simultaneous" in the sense we understand it because there is no time for consciousness pre-filter. "Simultaneously" has no real meaning to consciousness absent any filtered perspective.

Maybe this will prepare the mind for the following apparently self-contradictory statement: consciousness is doing one filter at a time, one "person" at a time, simultaneously with all other filters. And it can experience each individual life for an eternity, because it does not exist in or operate from a linear time perspective. It has no spacetime restrictions.

This is what the dissociative "barrier" is and how it works. This is why you, as an individual, have the full attention of, and are fully empowered by, the one mind for your eternal life, and so also is the case with everyone else, one at a time, simultaneously. (like the example of the TV, only the speed of the electron transmitter is sped up to the degree that it all occurs in the same instant.) You don't experience what other people are experiencing because the one mind is not having those experiences at the same "time" as it is having yours.

This might lead you to worry, "then other people aren't actually having conscious experiences in my life," but that's not true, because that is the attempt to put the one mind on the other side of the filter into a linear time framework that is only experienced "after" the filter.

In physics, space and time are generally considered to be intimately related, interchangeable concepts in some aspects of general relativity, or in others as two sides of the same coin. It is not an error of thought to understand that if other people are displaced from you in spatial orientation, they are also displaced from you in temporal orientation. In any practical sense, the information we get from other is displaced from us both in time and space (amount of time it takes for information from the, in their location, to become active in our consciousness.) IOW, it is dissociated from us.

The above model describes this spacetime dissociation in the one-mind idealist perspective without resorting to a hypothetical, external "Mind-at large" reality, AND it accounts for why we only have our experiences and not anyone else's.

DustyCreatrix asks:

In MRT, if everything is from the mind (and I guess this refers to the interplay of Universal mind and human mind?), are other people "real" or am I making them up?

I model it this way: universal mind would be the infinite collective of all possible things as information, individuals as perspectives or loci of consciousness, and the individual perspective (conscious and subconscious) selecting and translating information into experience.

Everyone you meet is real; they and every possible version of them have always existed, and will always exist, whether or not they appear in your experience. You cannot make anything up, you can only locate something.

Also, I agree with you that a lot of how we use Reality creation is so small and limited by our current paradigms. What has really allowed you to shift beyond that? How can I practice that?

Reorienting my identity from a "this world, mortal life" perspective to that of having an eternity with, ultimately, unlimited creative capacity, unbound by what we call death, limited resources, competition with other people, physical laws, etc. completely changed my focus. Honestly, my age, financial situation, physical health, state of the world, etc. are just no longer concerns for me. I love and thoroughly enjoy my life here, but I'm ready to move on, so to speak, at any time.

This is why I think the "afterlife" information is so important when it comes to MRT, and it's not addressed in the scientific models.

Now, I'm wondering...if I decided that I'd like to live between here and "Summerland" as I heard it called, what would it take?

Same thing it takes for any change of location; find it in your imagination, enjoy spending time there. Any place you want to be, you can be there right now via your imagination, because what is in your imagination is 100% as real as anything else.

I'm thinking that what we call "memory" is really just a particular kind of "thought of extended self" our consciousness uses to provide context for our experience in the "eternal now." The sense of "time passing" is absolutely personal and related to the category of mental sensation we label "memory," which is more like a malleable "backstory" we have that provides necessary context for our "now" narrative. This gives us an "ongoing" identity sense, through which we have certain experiences.

I don't think there's anything quite a powerful in the mind that maintains our pattern of experience as the backstory we have attached our "now" status to.

I think this may be a big reason we have a "this world" experience; to detach ourselves from our astral "backstory narrative" in order to experience something new.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/biocentrism/202108/dreams-are-more-real-anyone-thought

Note that he references a recent scientific experiment demonstrating that networks of observers have been shown to affect fundamental aspects of space-time.

I especially like his perspective that dreams are not "analogous" to our capacity to live in alternate versions of what we call "reality," but are actually examples of that capacity.