11Prompt blogs

Seeing the universe from the inside looking out

Steven Kaufman — Fri, 31 May 2013 16:37:12 +0000

Body:

My philosophy is very simple. The universe is actually and ultimately composed of the same thing that apprehends the universe. That is, that which apprehends the universe is that of which the universe is actually composed. What Exists at every point in the universe, and in all likelihood beyond, is the same thing that Exists directly where each Individual Exists, which is the Consciousness that apprehends experience.

Why do we not see this? Why do we think that what exists elsewhere is different than what exists where we are? There are many reasons. One is that we do not see what exists where we are as being Consciousness, rather we see a material body. And when we look around we don't see Consciousness, we see material reality, and so that is what seems or appears to be there. Yet what could we see without Consciousness, what could we see in the absence of that which Exists directly where we are?

And if one understands that Consciousness is what Exists directly where they are, why then should that not be what Exists elsewhere as well? We look at a rock and say that what is there cannot be Consciousness, cannot be apprehending experience, because it does not have a central nervous system. But that assumes that the apprehension of all experience by Consciousness requires what we apprehend as a central nervous system. It may very well be that the creation and apprehension of the majority of physical experience requires a central nervous system, requires this apparatus which is Itself composed of Consciousness for forming relations with surrounding Existence, but that does not mean that in the absence of such an apparatus there is no apprehension of experience of any sort.

When we see a rock or any material reality we are looking at it from the outside looking in, and so are only apprehending its surface features. We know nothing of the content. And if we break the rock apart and examine its smaller pieces, to see what minerals it is composed of, we are still looking at it from the outside looking in, and we still know nothing of its actual content, still know nothing regarding that of which it is actually composed. And if we break it apart further and look at it at the molecular level, and then at the atomic level, and then at the subatomic level, we are still looking at it from the outside looking in, and still know nothing of its content, still know nothing regarding its actual composition, i.e., of what it is ultimately composed. In all of these endeavors we are just making an etching of what is actually there and not getting at what is actually there.

But a funny thing happens when we start to make the etchings at a very small level, in that the way the etchings appear becomes inseparable from the way they are being created. In fact, the way the etchings, i.e., physical experiences or realities, appear are always inseparable from the way they are created, its just that at the quantum level this inseparability becomes evident and unavoidable.

To understand what a rock or any material reality, or even space itself, is actually composed of, one does not need an atom smasher or supercollider, rather, one needs only logic and reason, unbiased and unmoved by what appears to be. To understand what any material reality is actually composed of one need only look at it from the inside looking out. From the inside looking out one sees the material reality as composed of Consciousness, whereas from the outside looking in one sees the material reality as composed of some more fundamental material reality, whatever that is.

Consider your own body. From the outside looking in it appears to be nothing more than matter, whatever that is. But from the inside looking out there is Consciousness apprehending emotional, mental, and material reality.

From the outside looking in everything appears to be different. But from the inside looking out everything appears the same, as it is all seen to be composed of the same Existential Substance that is Consciousness. Likewise, clay can be molded into an infinity of shapes, which if only seen from the outside would appear to be an infinite number of different things. But when it is known that all those things are actually molded from the same material, as it were, then the differences becomes secondary to the identity of underlying composition.

The world you see around you is molded from Consciousness, and is composed of Consciousness that has molded and continues to mold Itself through iterative and progressive relation to Itself, like twisting a rubber band repeatedly upon itself, into an overall Relational Structure of Reality from which and within which other Relational Structures extend and arise. And all of those Relational Structures are composed of Consciousness, and when one Relational Structure comes to be in relation to another Relational Structure, a boundary arises and so is created where they meet, and it is that created boundary that is apprehended as a mental or physical experience by the Consciousness of which the Relational Structures are composed.

Thus, experience rather than Consciousness seems to be what is there because experience is the etching that is created and apprehended when What Is Actually There, i.e., Consciousness, comes to be in relation to Itself. Thus, the universe is composed of an invisible Substance, because that of which the universe if composed cannot Itself be an experience. As the universe is composed of an invisible Substance there are two ways to go about examining what's there, from the outside looking in or from the inside looking out. Looking at what's there from the outside looking in always creates an etching. But the etchings, no matter how detailed, will always just be etchings, and will never be what is there directly, because what is there directly is that which is both making the etching and apprehending the etching, and is also that which is Itself being etched. Thus, the etching itself is always something different or other than, of a different nature than, what is actually there.

We will never get at what is directly and actually there by breaking matter down into smaller and smaller parts, into parts composed of fewer relations, because all that does is create another etching of what's actually there. We may learn how what is there is being in relation to Itself, and we may learn the different ways what is actually there can be configured in relation to Itself, but that is different than getting at what is there directly, different than understanding what actually underlies what we are observing.

The other way to go about examining what's there is from the inside looking out. The difference between looking at the universe from the outside looking in or from the inside looking out is like the difference between looking at a tree from above or below, respectively. From above most of the tree is obscured by the leaves, whereas from below one can see the relations between the different parts of the tree, as the leaves do not obscure the view of the whole. From the inside looking out the created etchings, i.e., mental and physical experiences, do not obscure the underlying Actuality, because the etchings are seen in their proper context, as etchings, as creations, and not as what is actually there, since, to see the world from the inside looking out requires one to adopt the perspective of Consciousness as what is actually there.

And all that is required to adopt the perspective of Consciousness as what is actually there is to understand that what Exists most directly where you are, which is that which apprehends experience, is what Exists directly everywhere else as well, regardless of what seems or appears to be there.

The nature of spiritual bondage

Steven Kaufman — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:20:39 +0000

Body:

There is no bondage other than that which we create for ourselves. And the bondage we create is to trap ourselves into mode of creating unwanted rather than wanted experience through the mechanism of experiential entanglement, whereby we become locked into a resistant mode of being, locked into a relation of Self-resistance, owing to the way we habitually react to physical reality by trying to push away the unwanted and clinging to the wanted, i.e., through aversion and attachment. The bondage we create is to trap ourselves into a mode of being in which we are flowing against, rather that with, what is our Self.

Relations and the experiences that are created as a result of those relations are progressive. Being in a relation of resistance at the level of the creation of physical experience locks us into, or binds us to, a relation of resistance at the level of the creation of emotional experience. That is, at least to some degree, the bondage to which spiritualists refer.

We exercise our free will to place ourselves in relations, and we can do so at any of the three levels of experiential creation. However, because experience is progressive, i..e, built on progressive relations, placing ourselves in a relation at one of the more distal levels also locks us into the relations taking place at the more proximal levels that are the basis of that more distal relation. Thus, using free will to be in a relation at the physical level, and using free will to maintain that relation, and so maintain our apprehension the experience that relation creates, leaves us unable to use our free will to change the way we are involved in the more proximal relations, because we are bound to our involvement in those more proximal relations by using those more proximal relations as the basis for creating a more distal relation and a more distal experience, which more distal relation can only exist as long as the more proximal relation that is its basis is also maintained.. That is bondage, in that we are literally bound to our involvement in more proximal relations, and to the experiences those relations create, owing to how we are choosing to be involved in more distal relations that create more distal experiences.

Thus, we are always free to change our mode of being from one of resistance to allowing, or vice versa, and so to change the emotional experience we are creating, but we are not free to change our mode of being if we are already in that moment exercising free will to create or maintain a relation that has a particular mode of being as its basis. Thus, we are always free to change our mode of being, but we are only free to change our mode of being if we are not, in that moment, using that mode of being as the basis for creating some more distal experience, i.e., some mental or physical experience, in which case we then are bound in that moment to the mode of being that is being used as the basis for our involvement in the relation that is creating the present moment mental or physical experience.

Thus, to change our mode of being we have to cease, just for a moment, to be involved in the more distal relations that bind us to that mode of being, which means we have to stop focusing upon and creating the experiences that require our involvement in those more distal relations that bind us to that mode of being. You cannot exercise free will to change the way you are creating emotion, to change the way you feel, to change your involvement in the most fundamental and so most proximal Existential relation, while at the same time using your free will to involve yourself in a more distal relation that requires or has as its prerequisite your ongoing involvement in that fundamental relation.

And if you are looking at something unwanted, creating an unwanted physical experience, then as long as you continue to do so you are bound to also remain involved in the more fundamental relation of Existential opposition that is the basis of that unwanted physical experience.

How does one not feel bad when faced with unwantedness? You can't not feel bad when faced with unwantedness. Because the only way you can be experiencing unwantedness, at any level, is owing to your involvement in a relation of Existential opposition, which by its nature creates unwanted emotion. You can't feel good while actively creating an experience that has implicit in its creation feeling bad, i.e., the creation of emotional unwantedness.

So if you can't feel good when faced with unwantedness, and what one wants is to feel good, then what is the answer? Stop facing the unwantedness, stop looking at and focusing upon the unwantedness. Stop actively being involved in a relation that binds you to a more fundamental relation that creates negative or unwanted emotion. Of course this is easier said than done, but only because we have become so habituated to focusing upon the unwanted, so habituated to reflexively pushing against the unwanted, which pushing against requires that we remain focused upon it.

So the first thing you must do to stop focusing on the unwanted is to stop pushing against it. Because as long as you are pushing against it you have to remain focused upon it, and as just pointed out, that focus binds you to the very unwantedness that you are trying to get rid of. Make peace with where you are, for only then can you begin to create differently, for only then can you free yourself to make a different choice regarding your involvement in the fundamental relation of Existential alignment or opposition.

To understand all of this it is helpful a to understand the anatomy of Reality, and the way experience is built progressively through progressive relations of Existence to Itself from the emotional, to the mental, and then to the physical. Understanding the anatomy of Reality one can see how the more proximal relations that create emotional experience are the basis of the relations that create mental and then physical experience, making it then possible to understand how our involvement in the more distal relations that create mental and physical experience can bind us to the more proximal relation that creates emotional experience, and so creates the spiritual bondage that is our inability to align with our Self, the spiritual bondage that is our inability, even though we possess the ability, to involve our self in a relation of Existential alignment with our More Fundamental Individuality, because we are, unknowingly, using our free will in a way that gives us no choice but to remain in a relation of Existential opposition.

And so if we are in a cage it is one of our own making, and one that we ourselves maintain. And the glue that holds that cage together is our own resistance, our exercise of free will in a way that places us in a relation of Existential self-opposition. And the only way to escape that cage is to cease to maintain it, to cease to build it, and the way to do that is by exercising free will differently, i.e., in a way that places us in a relation of Existential alignment. Thus, while the glue that holds the cage of self-bondage together is our resistance, the solvent that dissolves that glue is our allowing.

You can't resist while you are allowing, you can't be simultaneously in a mode of both allowing and resistance, as it has to be one or the other, owing to the principle of experiential preclusion that makes it impossible for an Individual to be simultaneously involved in what are mutually exclusive relations. In order to be in a mode of allowing you have to stop being in a mode of resistance. In order to look South you have to stop looking North. But once you stop resisting you don't have to then be allowing, because once you stop resisting you are already allowing, as once you are not facing North you must then be facing South instead, since you have to be in one relation or the other and if you are not choosing to be in one then that is the same as choosing to be in the other, opposite and mutually exclusive relation.

So, from a mode of resistance do not try to allow, because it will seem impossible to allow that which is so unwanted. In fact, allowing is not about allowing the unwanted, it is about allowing yourself to flow in alignment with your Self, which aligned flow creates the wanted rather than the unwanted. And you can only flow in alignment with your Self if you are not flowing in opposition to yourself, and if you are not flowing in opposition to yourself then you are flowing in alignment with yourself, and you are then in a mode of allowing. Not because you then want the unwanted, but only because you are not pushing against the unwanted, which places you in a mode of allowing, and from which mode the potential wantedness that was always there comes forth as an experience you are creating according to your relation of Existential alignment.

In the end what is spiritual bondage other than the inability of our Individuality to converge with that of our More Fundamental Individuality owing to our inability to create experiences that are mutually inclusive of those that are being created by our More Fundamental Individuality. For as long as we create experiences that have resistance as their basis, we are creating experiences that have as their basis a relation that is mutually exclusive of the relation which our More Fundamental Individuality is using to create experience, which creates a divergence of these two Individualities, which divergence we feel as the sense of Self-separation that goes along with the apprehension of unwanted experience. But when we create experience through relations of aligned Existential flow, then we are creating experience using relations that are mutually inclusive of the relations being used by our More Fundamental Individuality to create experience, in which case there is no need for divergence, and in the absence of the need for divergence, there is a convergence of these two Individualities, which convergence we feel as the sense of Self-connection that comes with wanted experience.

Thus, spiritual bondage is about far more than just the inability to create wanted experience, as it is also about the inability, always self-imposed, to align and converge with one's More Fundamental Individuality, with the other aspect or pole of one's own Individuality, which other pole is just as much what you are as is the Individuality you presently know yourself to be.

The only way for Existence to simultaneously apprehend experiences that are the products of mutually exclusive relations is through two Individualities, because a single Individual cannot simultaneously be involved in mutually exclusive relations. But what if there is a single Individuality, and that single Individuality has projected Itself into another level of Self-relation, where at that level it operates an autonomous extension of that More Fundamental Individuality? It is truly then an Individual, because it is an Indivisible Duality of Existence consisting of an Individual operating at a more fundamental level of Existential self-relation as well as at a more distal or less fundamental level of Existential self-relation. And so it is still a single Individual, but it is an Individual which is operating autonomously at two different levels of Existential self-relation, meaning that at each level of Existential self relation the Individual at that level is able to choose autonomously its direction of flow, i.e., is able to exercise free will freely, without restriction, and so without regard to how any other Individual is exercising free will, be it another Individual operating at the same level of self relation or the More Fundamental Individuality operating at a different level of self-relaion.

That is the nature of the relation between what we call our Individuality and what I call our More Fundamental Individuality. A single Individual operating, i.e., exercising free will, autonomously at different levels of Existential self-relation. What we call our Individuality is operating at what seems to be the most distal level of Existential self-relation, which is the one where those relations create physical experience, while our More Fundamental Individuality operates, i.e., exercises free will, at the more proximal levels, at the levels where emotional and mental experience are created.

To the extent that these two Individualities are involved in what are mutually inclusive relations, there is no divergence of the single Individuality, and where there is no divergence of Individuality there is a convergence of Individuality. However, to the extent that these two Individualities are involved in what are mutually exclusive relations there is a necessary divergence of Individuality, what seems to us to be a separation of Individuality, although there can really be no separating that which is ultimately singular and indivisible. To the extent that these two Individualities are involved in what are mutually exclusive relations there is a necessary divergence of Individuality because that is the only way Consciousness-Existence can simultaneously be involved in mutually exclusive relations, i.e., through the auspices of different and so divergent, but not necessarily divisible, Individualities, which each then create and apprehend an opposite experience.

The More Fundamental Individuality consistently chooses alignment and so consistently chooses to create and apprehend the most wanted experience possible. We, as Individuals, ensconced as we are in physical reality with the attendant confusion it often brings, sometimes choose alignment and sometimes choose resistance or opposition. When we choose alignment we feel good and our Individuality converges with that of our More Fundamental Individuality. When we choose opposition we feel bad and our Individuality must then diverge from that of our More Fundamental Individuality, as we are then each creating opposite and so mutually exclusive experiences requiring the Existence of two different Individualities rather than one identical Individuality.

Thus, spiritual bondage involves not just the inability to create wanted experience, but involves perhaps more importantly the self-imposed and sustained divergence of our Individuality from that of our More Fundamental Individuality, the seeming walling off of and separation of our self from that aspect of our self that is the basis of whatever concept we have of God.

And so if bondage is the problem then liberation must be the answer. But liberation from what, since we ourselves are the builder of the cage in which we reside? Liberation in this context is the ability to freely choose the nature of one's involvement in the fundamental relation in a given moment because they are not bound through attachment or aversion in that moment to a prior choice of relation.

And here I would like to say something about the concept of liberation as it is often spoken of in Eastern religious traditions. Liberation is seen as a state reached where it is no longer possible for the Individual to fall into spiritual bondage. However, for an Individual operating within the level of Existential self-relation where physical reality is created, and probably for any level of Individuality, there is no such state, because the very nature of the Individual and free will is such that in order to be able to create the wanted, in order for there to be convergence, there must always exist the possibility of creating the unwanted, there must always exist the possibility of divergence. It may be that the choice becomes clearer and so becomes easier, so that it is less likely that one will choose resistance rather than allowing, as it is easy to choose between getting hit on the head with a hammer or getting an ice cream cone, but the possibility of spiritual bondage must always remain viable because where spiritual bondage is not possible choice is not possible, and where choice is not possible there is no free will, and where there is no free will there is no Existence, which itself is not possible as there is nowhere that Existence is not.

Jesus of Nazareth was clearly a liberated and enlightened Individual for much of his adult life, and yet he wound up being nailed to a cross, a situation which I must assume was for him an unwanted experience and one which involved some divergence of his Individuality from his More Fundamental Individuality, which he referred to as his Father.

So do not seek some state of being in which you will be forever happy and never having to make a choice, because there is no such state, as such a state is a rainbow that is forever out of reach, because it is an illusion. Instead, seek a state where you understand what your choices are, and then choose wisely. And if on occasion you don't choose wisely it's not a big deal, because every moment comes with a present, which may be why it's called the present, because in each moment we are presented with the opportunity to choose anew, and to choose differently, if we so choose, how we will be in relation to our More Fundamental Individuality, which choice determines whether we will, in that moment, converge or diverge from that Individuality, and also determines whether the experiences we are creating and apprehending in that moment possess the quality of wantedness or unwantedness, respectively.

The negative and positive limitations inherent in the Individual's creation of experience

Steven Kaufman — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:55:17 +0000

Body:

All experience is the product of a relation in which the Individual that apprehends the relation must themselves be involved. The necessity of the Individual's involvement in some relation in order to create whatever they apprehend as experience imposes certain limitations upon what it is possible for an Individual to create as experience in any one moment according to the relations in which that Individual must already be involved in order to create what they are already, in that moment, apprehending as experience.

The limitations upon what an Individual can create as experience in any one moment is limited by the relations in which that Individual can become involved in a given moment, and the relations in which an Individual can become involved in a given moment are limited by the relations in which that Individual is, in that same moment, already involved. The relations in which an Individual is already involved limit the relations in which an Individual can become involved in that same moment in both a negative and positive way, in a way that is both negatively and positively restrictive.

The relations in which an Individual is already involved limit the relations in which an Individual can become involved in that same moment in a negative way because it is not possible for an Individual to be simultaneously involved in opposite or mutually exclusive relations. Thus, if an Individual is involved in a relation with an Underlying Actuality in a way that creates a particular experience, then it is not possible for that Individual, in that same moment, to be involved in a relation with that Underlying Actuality in a way that creates the opposite experience, since opposite experiences are always the product of opposite and so mutually exclusive relations. Thus, the negative experiential limitation limits experience by making it impossible for an Individual to simultaneously be involved in the mutually exclusive relations necessary to create opposite experiences, and therefore limits the Individual to creating and apprehending, in any moment, only one or the other of any experiential duality or complementarity, or some portion of both, such as wave and particle, or position and momentum. Thus, the phenomena of w-p duality and quantum uncertainty do not have a material cause, but have an Existential cause, and are purely functions of the way experience is created as the product of some relation of Consciousness-Existence to Itself.

This same negative experiential restriction operates at all levels of experience, not just at the quantum level, although so immersed are we in experience that we take its operation in the creation of everyday experience for granted and do not recognize its operation at those levels, the same way it is not recognized even at the quantum level for what it is, i.e., a limitation upon what it is possible for an Individual to create and apprehended in any one moment as experience. Scientists, ensconced as they are in a material framework, and so in a framework of material causation, continue to try and explain this negative restriction as the product of some sort of material mechanical effect, when it has as its basis the very way in which experience is created. This negative experiential limitation is responsible for most if not all interpersonal conflict, i.e., the inability of each person to see the others side, and it is responsible for why for everything you know there is something else you can't know. It is responsible for the creation of an experiential blind spot consisting of whatever experiences are the opposite of those you are already experiencing.

However, there is also a positive experiential limitation, a limitation that limits the creation of experience in a positive way according to the relations in which an Individual is already involved in order to create what they are already, in that moment, apprehending as experience. The relations in which an Individual is already involved limit the relations in which an Individual can become involved in that same moment in a positive way because any relation in which an Individual becomes involved must be mutually inclusive of the relations in which that Individual is already, in that moment, involved. That is, because the relations in which an Individual can become involved in any one moment cannot be mutually exclusive of relations in which they are already involved, the relations in which they can become involved must then be the opposite of mutually exclusive relations, and therefore must be mutually inclusive of relations in which they are already, in that same moment, involved.

Whereas the negative experiential limitation dictates what an Individual cannot know according to what they already know, the positive experiential limitation dictates what an Individual must know according to what they already know. Whereas the negative experiential limitation dictates the relations in which an Individual cannot be involved according to relations in which they are already involved, the positive experiential limitation dictates the way in which an Individual must be in relation according to relations in which they are already involved. And since all experience is created as the product of a particular relation in which the Individual that is apprehending the experience must themselves be involved, the negative experiential limitation, in dictating the relations in which an Individual cannot be involved according to relations in which they are already involved, dictates what it is not possible for an Individual to create and apprehend as experience according to the relations in which they are already, in that moment, involved in order to create what they are, in that moment, already apprehending as experience.

And since all experience is created as the product of a particular relation in which the Individual that is apprehending the experience must themselves be involved, the positive experiential limitation, in dictating the relations in which an Individual must be involved according to relations in which they are already involved, dictates how an Individual must create and apprehend experience according to the relations in which they are already, in that moment, involved in order to create what they are, in that moment, already apprehending as experience. It is this positive experiential limitation, which is the corollary of the negative experiential limitation, that is responsible for the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. That is, it is this positive experiential limitation that dictates how the other aspect of a quantum system will be apprehended as an experience according to the relation already established with one aspect of the quantum system, because the relation established with one aspect of a quantum system, which then creates an experience, limits in a positive way the relation the Individual can establish in that same moment with the other aspect of the quantum system, because those relations must be mutually inclusive of each other, as they cannot be mutually exclusive. This is the basis of what Einstein referred to as "spooky action at a distance." It is not the result of any mechanical cause, but is an Existential cause creating an experiential effect. That is, it is a result not of any material cause and effect, but is a result of the way experience is always created as the product of some relation of What's Actually There to Itself, and of the limitations that arise unavoidably from the necessity of the Individuals involvement in a relation in order to create what they apprehend as experience, and the way their involvement in other relations limits in both a negative and positive way, through the unavoidable preclusion of mutually exclusive relations, and the unavoidable inclusion of mutually inclusive relations, that Individuals in the moment or simultaneous involvement in other relations and so the experiences that any Individual can create and apprehend in any one moment.

There is nothing that says that if you becomes involved in a relation with one aspect of a quantum system and creates an experience as a result that you also have to be in relation to some other aspect of that quantum system and create experience as a result. But if you are involved in a relation with one aspect of a quantum system and then become involved with another aspect of that quantum system, then the positive experiential limitation dictates that the second relation must be mutually inclusive of the first, and so the second experience created will be one that is created as the product of relation that is mutually inclusive of the first relation.

As Individuals we are not limited to creating one experience at a time as we are not limited to being involved in one relation at a time. We are, in any moment, involved in countless relations and creating countless experiences. However, although we can be involved in more than one relation at a time, we cannot be involved in mutually exclusive relations at the same time, e.g., we cannot face North and South at the same time, because if we are in one relation then we are, by definition, not in the other mutually exclusive relation.

And so it is that while facing North we cannot see what lies South. But while facing North we can see many different things owing to our involvement in many mutually inclusive relations, i.e. relations that are inclusive of the more fundamental relation of facing North. But we can't see things that would require our involvement in the mutually exclusive relation, i.e., we can't see things that would require that we face South. Thus, if to experience something we would have to face South, we are precluding from becoming involved in that relation as long as we remain involved in the relation in which we are facing North. That is a negative limitation, and that is the experiential preclusion that makes it impossible for an Individual to simultaneously create and apprehend experiences that would require that Individual's simultaneous involvement in mutually exclusive relations.

And this negative limitation can be very subtle in its limiting effect, and yet without mercy in the absoluteness of the limitation it imposes. For instance, if while facing North you see something that is very beautiful and you don't want to stop seeing it, in order to remain involved in that particular relation that creates that particular experience, you not only have to remain involved in the relation that creates that particular experience, but you also have to remain involved in the more fundamental or proximal relation that makes that particular and mutually inclusive relation possible, which is the relation in which you are facing North.

But now let us say that while you continue to create the experience of the beautiful object you would like to see what lies to the South as well. But you can't. You can't see what lies to the South because you can't look South because that would require you to be in a relation that is mutually exclusive of the relation in which you must be involved in order to see the beautiful object, in order to continue to create and apprehend that experience, because creating the experience of the beautiful object, being in the relation in which you create the experience of the beautiful object, also requires you to be facing North, and so requires you to be in a relation that is mutually exclusive of the relation that is facing South.

But the subtle part of the limitation is as follows: you don't understand that being in the one relation requires you also be in the other more fundamental mutually inclusive relation. We take the more fundamental relation for granted, but the more fundamental relation is just as essential to the creation of the experience of the beautiful object as is the particular relation that creates that particular experience, because in the absence of the more fundamental relation there could be no more distal mutually inclusive particular relation creating the particular experience of the beautiful object.

In terms of the creation of visual experience we understand these relations and their limitations, but in terms of the creation of conceptual experience we do not understand these limitations because we do not understand all the more proximal levels of relation necessary to create a particular concept. That is, we can easily understand why we cannot see something that lies to the South while refusing to stop looking at something that lies to the North. But we do not understand that this same limitation applies to the creation of all experience, at every level, which includes mental-conceptual experience. Thus we do not understand why we cannot understand or comprehend a particular concept owing to the fact that we are in essence refusing to stop creating and apprehending some concept that requires our involvement in a mutually exclusive relation.

Everything you know, every thing you believe, everything you conceive, involves you being in a relation that is the equivalent of looking North or South, meaning that it involves your participation in a relation that makes impossible your simultaneous involvement in any mutually exclusive relation, that makes impossible your simultaneous involvement in any relation requires you to be in a relation that is mutually exclusive of any and all of the relations in which you must be involved in order to create what you are, in that moment, apprehending as the particular concept or belief or knowledge. That is the negative experiential limitation, that is the experiential preclusion, and that is what creates an experiential blind spot consisting of whatever experiences are the opposite of those you are presently creating and apprehending.

Likewise, everything you know, every thing you believe, everything you conceive, involves you being in a relation that is the equivalent of looking North or South, meaning that it involves your participation in a relation that limits you to being involved in relations that are mutually inclusive of any and all of the relations in which you must be involved in order to create what you are, in that moment, apprehending as the particular concept or belief or knowledge. That is the positive experiential limitation, that is experiential entanglement, and that is what limits our creation of experience to creating only those experiences that require our involvement in relations that are mutually inclusive of those in which we are already involved. Thus, when one aspect of a quantum system is seen or experienced as being in a certain spin state, the way the other will be experienced, i.e., what is experienced as the spin state of the other, is then determined by the positive experiential limitation that dictates that the way the other aspect is experienced must be a product of a relation that is mutually inclusive of the relation that created the experience-spin state of the one aspect.

Thus, the reason creating one experience instantaneously determines how the other is created is because the particular relation that creates the particular experience of one spin state limits the particular relation that creates the particular experience of the other spin state to being one that is mutually inclusive of the particular relation that created the particular experience of the one spin state. Put another way, the reason creating one experience instantaneously determines how the other is created is because the particular relation that creates the particular experience of one spin state determines, through positive experiential limitation, i.e., through experiential entanglement, the particular relation though which it is possible to create the experience of the others spin state, because those two relations that create those two different and yet related experiences must be mutually inclusive of each other. And they must be mutually inclusive of each other because they involve an Individuals simultaneous relation to what is a single quantum system, or a singular Underlying Actuality. Thus, being in a particular relation to the quantum system and creating a particular experience means any other simultaneous relations to that same quantum system by the same Individual that create any other experience must be relations that are mutually inclusive of the particular relation.

Let us consider this positive experiential limitation in the context of facing North. Facing North involves a relation to the quantum system we can call Earth. Being in that relation causes one to create the experience of seeing what lies North. While in that relation with the earth any other relations, i.e., anything else that is seen, must occur within the context of a relation that is mutually inclusive of that relation, i.e., must be a relation that has as its basis the relation of facing North. Thus, the mutually inclusive nature of the relations that must be used to create simultaneous experiences involving the same quantum system, or the same Underlying Actuality, cause an experiential entanglement between those experiences, in which there is a consistent relation observed between the apprehended experiences owing to the mutually inclusive and so entangled nature of the relations that an Individual must use to create those experiences.

The experiential limitations limit the individuals involvement in relations, but it is the relations in which the Individual is involved that create what the Individual apprehends as experience. Thus, the limitations in limiting relations limit the creation of experience, both negatively and positively, according to what relations are not possible and according to what relations are only possible.

Whereas the one limitation creates an experiential blind spot consisting of the experiences that are the opposite of those we are presently experiencing, the other fills in that blind spot with experiences that are mutually inclusive of those we are presently experiencing. Thus, when we conceive that the world is flat we don't know that in that moment we cannot possibly conceive of the world as being round, we don't know that the negative experiential limitation is operating, because the positive experiential limitation is also operating, allowing us to create the experience of the earth as being not round, which mutually inclusive experience fills in the blind spot, giving us the illusion that we are seeing both sides of the issue, when we can really only ever see one at a time.

That is, we don't realize that our inability to conceive of something has nothing to do with the actual nature of things, but has only to do with the relations in which we can and cannot become involved owing to relations in which we are already involved as we create what we are already apprehending as experience, limited both negatively and positively according to what we are already conceiving and believing to be reality.

And the creation of experimental results is ultimately nothing more than the Individual's creation of experience and so involves and invokes the same limitations inherent in the creation of any experience.

Existential cause and experiential effect

Steven Kaufman — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:58:42 +0000

Body:

We do not live in a material world. That we live in a material world is an illusion. The material world is an experiential world, and as such it is a reflection that rests upon the Mirror of What Actually Exists, and it is in the world of the Mirror that we actually live, whether we know it or not. That is, the material world is not itself an illusion, as it exists as a reality, i.e., as an experiential reality, as a reflection exists on the surface of a mirror. The illusion is that material reality is what actually exists, or is what is actually there where it appears to be, as it is also an illusion to think that a reflection is what is actually there where it appears to be, as what is actually there is whatever it is upon which the reflection rests.

And in the case of the reflection that is material reality, what is actually there upon which that reflection rests is Existence-Consciousness, i.e., that which through relation to Itself both creates and apprehends experiential reality. And so the materialists have it backwards, which is to say, they see the relation between material reality and Consciousness in a way that is the complete opposite of their actual relation. That is, materialists see material reality, or some version of material reality, e.g., quantum reality, as being the source or producer of Consciousness through some sort of material cause and effect. However, this is like saying that the reflection that rests within a mirror somehow produces the mirror within which it rests and upon which its very existence depends.

But because materialists do not recognize that there is a mirror, because they take material reality in one form or another for what's actually there, it must then seem to them that material reality is the cause and Consciousness the effect, when again, their relation is the exact opposite, i.e., Consciousness is the cause and material reality or experiential reality, is the effect. Consider that you were raised in a world where you were taught that reflections were the reality, were what's actually there, and then at some point you become cognizant of a mirror. What then are you to make of the mirror and of its place in reality? The position of actuality, of cause, is already occupied, and so the mirror must somehow be crammed into the position of effect. This is what has happened in the materialist view of reality, wherein one attempts to account for Consciousness within a framework where material reality is taken as causal, for what's actually there. That is, Consciousness is seen as effect not because it is effect, but because that is how it must be seen within a materialistic framework.

It is as if one spent their life thinking that a board was the causal reality, and then they came across a tree and then went about trying to figure out how the tree comes from the board. It is absurd, but it is how it must seem when one confuses cause for effect, and vice versa.

The problem for idealists has been explaining how the somethingness of material and experiential reality can come from the seeming nothingness of Consciousness. That is where the Relational Matrix Model of Reality and reality comes in. The missing link has been: how does Consciousness-Existence create experience, and so create what we, as Consciousness, apprehend as material reality? And the answer is very simple: by being in relation to Itself, and as a result or effect of that relation, creating something that the Consciousness involved in the relation apprehends as experience.

And this is not an explanation devoid of science. To the contrary, it is an explanation that rests upon the furthest reaches of science, as it rests upon the limitations of experience encountered as scientists have tried to quantify and examine the smallest bits of material reality, i.e., it rests upon the phenomena of wave-particle duality and quantum uncertainty. Scientists have not yet figured out the basis of these phenomena because they continue to look at them within a materialistic framework, i.e., within a framework where material reality is still seen as primary and therefore causal. There are many who have understood that these phenomena indicate that Consciousness must be part of the equation, but there are few if any who understand that in that equation it is Consciousness itself that is causal and material reality, experiential reality, that is purely the effect.

The primacy of material reality is the flat earth idea of our time. That is, it is an idea that seems logical, based upon appearances, but from a broader perspective is seen to be but an illusion of perspective. Scientists operate within that framework and hence operate within a framework that is the opposite of the actual situation, and so it is not surprising that they have been unable to comprehend the meaning of phenomena which, when understood, obliterate the framework from which they operate.

And so we actually live in a world of Existential cause and experiential effect. That is, the cause is/are the relations of Existence- Consciousness to Itself, and the effect is the experience apprehended by Existence-Consciousness. However, the relations of Existence-Consciousness to Itself do more than just produce experience. That is, the effect of the relations of Existence to Itself have as their effect more than just the production of an experience.

If the relations of Existence-Consciousness to Itself produced only experience, then there would only be two complementary experiences; i.e., wanted and unwanted emotion. If the relations of Existence-Consciousness to Itself produced only experience there would only be the two most fundamental complementary experiences; ; i.e., wanted and unwanted emotion, because there would only be two relations possible; first level relations of aligned or oppositional Existential flow, producing wanted or unwanted emotion, respectively.

But the relations of Existence-Consciousness to Itself do not just produce experience as an effect. Rather, the relations of Existence-Consciousness to Itself also produce as an effect a Relational Structure composed of Existence-Consciousness as it is being in relation to Itself creating what it is apprehending as experience. And so the Cause produces an Effect and an effect. That is, the Cause, i.e., Existence-Consciousness, through relation to Itself, produces as a result or effect two different effects, one of which is composed of Itself and the other of which is not composed of Itself. And so the Cause becomes Effect and then can once again serve as Cause, creating another Effect and effect, and on and on, ad infinitum, creating a progressive and fractal structure of Reality composed of Itself as it is being progressively and iteratively in relation to Itself, while at the same time creating a progressive series of experiential realities that have as their basis the progressive relations of Existence-Consciousness to Itself made possible by the Relational Structure that evolves through the progressive and iterative relation of Existence to Itself.

Thus, because the relations of Existence-Consciousness produce both Effect and effect, it becomes possible for Existence-Consciousness to produce more than one pair of effects, more than one pair of experiences. And because the relations of Existence-Consciousness always produce both Effect and effect, what happens is that the ongoing, progressive and iterative relations of Existence-Consciousness to Itself in producing an effect, i.e., an experience, also produce as an Effect the basis of the next progression of experience, the basis of the next effect. And so what we apprehend as experiential reality is a progressive series of experiential complements, extending from the emotional, to the mental, and then to the physical or material. And underlying that progressive series of experiential complements is a progressive Relational Structure composed of Existence-Consciousness being in relation to Itself, which Relational Structure cannot Itself be an experience, because experience is of a different nature than Existence-Consciousness.

And so we do not live in a material world, and so we do not live in a world of material cause and effect. Material reality does not cause Consciousness as an effect. We live in a world of Existential cause and experiential effect, where Existence-Consciousness is the cause and experience the effect. Consciousness causes material reality to arise as an effect of its relations to Itself.

Therefore, the brain is not a material reality that produces Consciousness, rather, Consciousness through its relations to Itself produce the Relational Structure we apprehend as brain. It is not a question of how does the brain produce Consciousness, it is a question of how does Consciousness use the Relational Structure we apprehend as brain to create experience for Itself, to become involved in relations with Itself that create higher order physical experiences.

What we apprehend as brain is composed of Consciousness, as is everything, as is empty space. The ability to create experience, to apprehend experience, is intrinsic to every point in the Universe and beyond. However, the type of experience created is dependent upon the ability or way Existence can be in relation to Itself. And what the brain does is allow for relations that would otherwise not be possible, and so allows for the creation of experiences that would otherwise not be possible.

For Consciousness to create and apprehend experience it has to be in relation to Itself and for it to create and apprehend a particular experience it has to be in a particular relation. The relations that create emotional experiences are different than the relations that create mental experiences, and the relations that creates mental experiences are different than the relations that create physical experiences. Consciousness cannot just decide that it is going to have a physical experience and produce for Itself such an experience in the absence of the Relational Framework composed Itself that allows for the particular Existential relation that produces as an effect that particular type of experience.

And underlying what we apprehend as the material reality we call brain is the Relational Framework or Relational Structure composed of Existence-Consciousness that allows for the Existential relations that produce as their effect what Consciousness then apprehends as physical experience. And so again, the question is not how does the brain produce Consciousness, but how does Consciousness, structured as what we apprehend as the brain, produce a particular physical experience?

But even more interesting is the question regarding how Consciousness, through its exercise of free will, through its intrinsic ability to choose its direction of flow relative to Itself, uses Itself structured as brain to control Itself structured as body. And it may be that this exercise of choice manifests in what is apprehended as quantum spin states.

Underlying every atom, every quark, every gluon, every whatever, even space, is Consciousness structured in relation to Itself, Consciousness being in relation to Itself and as a result of those relations being configured into a Relational Structure that is composed of Consciousness and so composed of, at each and every point regardless of scale, that which has the intrinsic ability to choose its direction of flow relative to Itself.

I used to think that quantum randomness was a function of the same experiential limitation that creates the phenomena of wave-particle duality and uncertainty, until I realized that underlying every experience, no matter what we call it, and no matter how small or large, is Consciousness that is free to choose to flow this way or that. And whatever we apprehend as experience is the result of that choice, and so how can we predict what will happen when what happens is something that occurs as a result of a choice over which we ourselves have no control, because that choice rests within the thing itself, just as the choices we make arise ultimately from within our self.

Do not let the moment take you out of the Now

Steven Kaufman — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:14:17 +0000

Body:

Last night I had a dream, and in that dream there was a billboard that contained the following message:

"Do not let the moment take you out of the Now."

Now usually I do not remember such things but in this case it was clear enough that upon awaking from the dream I repeated it and so was able to still remember it in the morning. Then, in my usual morning meditation, I focused upon this phrase to see what understanding would come forth.

The result was a vision of Existence and experience in a sort of cross-section, where Existence was a mirror and experience the reflection that rests upon that mirror. Now for some time I have understood the relation between Existence and experience to be like that of a mirror and a reflection, but I had not before seen their relation in this exact way, i.e., in cross-section, and with this degree of clarity.

And so as I usually do, on the days I do not have to go into work, I spent the morning writing.

Below is a drawing of the relation between Existence and experience seen in cross-section.

Drawing 1 top
-------------------------------------------------------
Now - the Mirror - Existence-Consciousness -The Self-
The More Fundamental Individuality

----------------------> Flow of the Self
-------------------------------------------------------

The moment- the experience- the reflection apprehended by the Individual
________________________
wanted experience

-------------------------------------------------------
Now - the Mirror - Existence-Consciousness- The Individual

--------------------> allowing - aligned flow
-------------------------------------------------------
Drawing 1 bottom

Drawing 2 top
-------------------------------------------------------
Now - the Mirror - Existence-Consciousness -The Self-
The More Fundamental Individuality

----------------------> Flow of the Self
-------------------------------------------------------

The moment- the experience- the reflection apprehended by the Individual
________________________
unwanted experience

-------------------------------------------------------
Now - the Mirror - Existence-Consciousness- The Individual

< ------------------- resistance- oppositional flow
-------------------------------------------------------
Drawing 2 bottom

These two drawings depict all that is happening in the creation of anything we experience, because everything we experience is the product of our Individual flow in relation to the flow of our More Fundamental Individuality, and that relation is always either one of aligned or oppositional flow, depending on our chosen mode of being as allowing or resistant. Experience then is created as the boundary or reflection that arises where our Individual flow meets the flow of our More Fundamental Individuality or Inner Self.

Very few people understand how experience is created and its actual cause. Most see only experience and know nothing of the Underlying Actuality of their own Existence and of the relation of Existential flow that creates experience. Lao Tzu knew and he wrote about it, and about the flow. He called the Now the Tao, and he said that pushing against something only creates more of what you are pushing against. And he also said that to be like the Tao is to be allowing.

Seeing only experience one reacts to experience rather than proactively creating experience by consciously choosing to allow. And in reacting to experience one becomes bound because one is then choosing unconsciously rather than consciously their mode of being as allowing or resistant. One is always free to choose one mode of being or the other, allowing or resistance, but if one is reacting then to some degree they are letting that choice be made by not by themself, but by the previously created experience, in which case then the next created experience simply mirrors the last created experience and on and on. It is as if one decides what color to paint their house not based upon the color they want to paint it, but upon the color that was used to paint the last house.

That is how we live, painting our houses not according to how we ourselves want to paint them, but according to, i.e., as a reaction to, how the other houses have already been painted. That is, that is how we create experience, not according to what we want to create as experience, but according to how the last experience was created, as we react to that experience, unconsciously rather than consciously choosing our mode of being, and so unconsciously rather than consciously creating experience as wanted or unwanted as a reaction to the last experience created, as a reaction to the experience of the moment, in which reaction we are letting the moment take us out of the Now, letting the experience of the moment divert our attention from the way in which we are flowing our Being in the eternal and timeless Now that is not different or other than what we Are.

That is what is meant by saying do not let the moment take you out of the Now.

Do not let the experience that you are having in this moment take you out of alignment with your Self.

Experience is secondary to how we are choosing to flow our Being. Experience is always secondary to how we are choosing to flow our Being. Our Flow is causal, experience is its effect. However, when we see experience as primary, as causal, we then allow our Flow to become an effect of that misperceived cause, and in so doing our view of reality becomes turned upside down from its actual relation. And so we apprehend an unwanted experience and we react with resistant Flow, and in that resistant Flow we create more unwantedness, which we react to with resistant Flow, and on and on. It then seems that we feel bad, that we experience unwanted emotion, owing to what we misapprehend as cause, i.e., owing to external unwanted circumstance, and so we try to modify our emotional experience not by changing our Flow from resistant to allowing, not by changing the actual cause, rather, we try to modify our emotional experience by acting upon what to us appears as causal, which is external circumstance-experience. And the way we act upon unwanted external circumstance is almost always with an attitude of resistance, by trying to push it away or eliminate it, which unbeknownst to us, is itself the actual cause of experiential unwantedness, both emotional and external.

Unwanted emotion precedes unwanted thought, and unwanted thought precedes unwanted external circumstance, i.e., unwanted physical experience. Likewise, wanted emotion precedes wanted thought, and wanted thought precedes wanted external circumstance, i.e., wanted physical experience. And all of this is caused by oppositional or aligned Existential Flow. Experience is the effect, We are the cause. But we treat experience as the cause and so we react as effect to that misperceived cause. But no matter how much experience seems to be causal, it remains always an effect of the actual cause, which is how we are flowing in relation to Our Self.

What happens at the surface, in the moment, as the experience-reflection, depends on what is happening Now, depends on what is happening within the Mirror, and specifically depends on how Existence in the Now is flowing in relation to Itself, i.e., whether that flow is aligned or oppositional.

When you are in the Now, conscious of the Now, it is easy to maintain aligned flow. Actually, the only way to be in the Now is to already be flowing in alignment. When the focus is on experience alone, one loses sight of the Now, and then one simply reacts to the experience of the moment. But when the focus is on the Now, then the reflections that come and go are less likely to distract one from the underlying Reality of their own Existence.

Most people are not aware of the Now, of the underlying Actuality. For them the reality rests solely in the reflection, in what they experience, not knowing that the more fundamental Reality is that which apprehends experience, and through relation to Itself creates experience.

Most people spend their lives simply reacting to the reflections that arise on the surface of what they are, which reflections arise owing to the relations with Themself in which they are involved, and which reactions create further relations that create further reflections which they then react to and on and on and on….. Unaware of the actual causation of the experience-reflections, they seem to be random or caused by forces outside of one's own self. And so a reflection arises that is unwanted and we reflexively push against it, and in that resistance flow in opposition to our Self and in so doing create more unwanted reflection-experiences. Likewise, a reflection arises that is wanted and so we reflexively allow it and in that allowing flow in alignment with our Self and in so doing create more wanted reflection-experiences.

When I remember what I am I do not react to experience and so do not let the moment take me out of the Now. When I forget what I am, I react to experience and in so doing let the moment take me out of the Now. My days are a mixture of both of these situations, in varying degrees.

The Pursuit of Happiness

Steven Kaufman — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 19:49:11 +0000

Body:

Happiness is not to be pursued, but must be created by the Individual who wants it. One can try and pursue happiness, and in that pursuit one may on occasion seem to find it, but as often as not, or perhaps more often, one seems to find instead the opposite, i.e., unhappiness.

This is because in the pursuit of happiness one often uses resistance to try and get to where they think happiness is to be found, and in that resistance one creates unhappiness or unwantedness. That is, when happiness or wantedness is pursued, as if it were something that exists independent and apart from the Individual that apprehends it, then the Individual sees happiness as being somehow inherent in some object or person or status, and they then pursue and go after the shiny object, thinking that once it is possessed that the happiness they believe to be somehow inherent in the thing will then be theirs.

And once the person gets the thing they may, for a moment, feel some happiness, but whatever happiness they feel is not actually coming from the thing they now possess, no matter how much this seems to be the case. Rather, whatever happiness they feel is being created by them because their attitude toward the thing they now possess is one of complete allowing, and it is that attitude of allowing that creates happiness or wantedness, just as it is the attitude of resistance that creates unhappiness or unwantedness.

All experiential wantedness and unwantedness is created by the Individual that is apprehending it, according to a relation in which they are involved with their Inner Self, with their Soul, with their More Fundamental Individuality, with God, with their Source, with the Tao, with Absolute Existence, or with whatever name one wants to give to that Aspect of Ourselves from which our Consciousness flows and is projected, and from which Aspect our Consciousness continues to flow and continues to be projected, as long as we remain organically alive and thereby involved in the relations with Existence that create what we apprehend as physical reality.

An Individual operating and creating experience at the level of Existential Self-relation that creates for that Individual physical experience is a projection of Consciousness. That is, an Individual that is creating and apprehending physical experience is Consciousness that is being projected from a Consciousness that is Itself operating and creating experience at the more fundamental levels of Existential Self-relation that create emotional and mental experience.

The larger and more fundamental Consciousness from which we, as Individual Consciousness's, are projected is as much our True Nature as is our Individual Consciousness. Thus, each Individual is actually one pole of what is ultimately an Indivisible Duality of Existence, with the other pole of that Indivisible Duality being the more fundamental Consciousness that is projecting Itself into the third level of Existential Self-relation as the Individual Consciousness, which Individual Consciousness then, owing to the relations in which it subsequently becomes involved at that third level of Existential Self-relation, creates and apprehends physical experience.

And in almost all cases, for at least some period of time in the organic life of the Individual Consciousness, and for many for their entire organic lives, the Individual Consciousness loses sight of this other aspect of Itself, this other pole of its Existence, that part of Itself from which it is inseparable and which is as much Itself as is its projected Individuality.

The recognition of this ultimate identity and inseparability of the Individual from their More Fundamental Individuality is at the heart of the Vedantist philosophy of non-duality, in which philosophy the Individual is referred to as the Atman and the Source Consciousness or More Fundamental Individuality is referred to as Brahman. And in the Vedantist philosophy, the process or means by which the Individual is able to lose sight of this other aspect of Itself, lose sight of the larger Existence from which its own Individual Existence is being projected, and so lose sight of what is ultimately its own True Nature, in which case the Individual then considers itself to be nothing more than an individual, i.e., some sort of isolated and particulate entity, is referred to as maya.

The Vedantists consider the process by which the Individual loses sight of Brahman, i.e., maya, to be inexpressible. And in this regard I am in disagreement with the Vedantists, because I have found it possible to understand the functioning of maya as being a result of the unavoidable functioning of the limitation of experience that makes it impossible for an Individual to simultaneously be involved in the mutually exclusive relations necessary to for that Individual to create opposite or complementary experiences, which unavoidable experiential limitation has manifested itself most vividly in physical experience in the form of the phenomena of wave-particle duality and quantum uncertainty.

That is, the same experiential limitation that makes it impossible for physicists, or for any Individual, to simultaneously be involved in the mutually exclusive relations necessary to create opposite or complementary experiences, and so only allows an Individual to create and apprehend one or the other of those opposite experiences, or some portion of both, in any one moment or now, is the same limitation of experience that makes it impossible for an Individual to conceive of, i.e., apprehend as an experience, its True Nature as being ultimately non-experiential as long as that Individual continues to be involved in the mutually exclusive relation that creates what that Individual apprehends as the opposite conception-experience of itself, i.e., the conception of itself as what is ultimately only an experience.

In short, the extent to which we identify with our physical selves, which physical selves are experiential in nature, we are not able to identify with our non-experiential Self, because those two experiences are created as the result of what are mutually exclusive relations, and so cannot be created by a single Individual in the same moment, in the same now, meaning that as long as the Individual is involved in the relation that creates the one experience, i.e., the experience of themself as some sort of physical entity, they cannot be involved in the relation that creates the other, opposite experience, i.e., the experience of themself as Consciousness.

Thus, the operation and functioning of maya is nothing more than the functioning of the unavoidable experiential limitation, i.e., the limitation upon what it is possible for an Individual to create as an experience in any one moment, owing to the necessity of the Individual's involvement in some relation in order to create whatever it is they apprehend as experience, which necessary involvement makes impossible that Individual's simultaneous involvement in the mutually exclusive relation necessary for that Individual to create and apprehend the opposite experience.

However, more detailed specifics regarding how maya operates is a story for another time. This story is about how the Individual creates experiential wantedness or unwantedness, i.e., happiness or unhappiness.

And that story is as follows; regardless of whether or not an Individual is or is not aware of their True Nature, all experiential wantedness and unwantedness is a function of how the Individual is choosing, in each moment, to be in relation to their More Fundamental Individuality, to the other pole of their Existence, to the Consciousness from which their Individual Consciousness is being projected.

Specifically, when an Individual chooses to be in an attitude or mode of being that is allowing, that Individual is then in that moment involved in a relation of aligned flow with their More Fundamental Individuality, in which case the experiences that Individual creates and apprehends in that moment as a result of their involvement in that relation have the quality of wantedness. Conversely, when an Individual chooses to be in an attitude or mode of being that is resistant, that Individual is then in that moment involved in a relation of oppositional flow with their More Fundamental Individuality, in which case the experiences that Individual creates and apprehends in that moment as a result of their involvement in that relation have the quality of unwantedness.

Thus, as previously stated, all experiential wantedness and unwantedness is ultimately a function of how the Individual is choosing to be in relation to their More Fundamental Individuality. But when an Individual is unaware of the presence or functioning of this relation, owing to the operation of maya, and thus unaware of their True Nature as that which both creates and apprehends experience, it must then seem to that Individual as if the wantedness and unwantedness they experience is inherent in the experiences themselves, inherent in the objects of experience. Put another way, when maya operates, in which case one's True Nature is hidden, then the Creator of experience is also hidden, giving experience the appearance of being what's actually there, when what's Actually There is the Consciousness-Existence that, through relation to Itself, is creating and apprehending the experience. This is analogous to what happens if one sees what is only a reflection, but is unaware of the presence of a mirror, in which case the reflection appears to be what's actually there, when what's actually there is the mirror.

And once it seems that experience is what's actually there, it also seems that wantedness and unwantedness are inherent in experience itself, in which case the Individual spends their time trying to do what is natural, which is trying to create a wanted rather than experience, in the only way that seems possible, which is by pursuing those things that they think will, once they possess them, will cause them to feel happy.

And what happens in this method of trying to create experiential wantedness and unwantedness, in unawareness of the actual relation that is responsible for the creation of those experiential qualities, one often chooses to be in a mode of resistance in order to pursue those objects, in which case the Individual unknowingly and inadvertently creates unwanted rather than wanted experience.

The reason wanted objects seem to make us feel good is because we find them easy to allow, i.e., we reflexively allow them, and so easily enter into a relation of aligned Existential flow, which relation then creates experiential wantedness. And the reason unwanted objects seem to make us feel bad is because we find them easy to resist, i.e., we reflexively resist them, and so easily enter into a relation of oppositional Existential flow, which relation then creates experiential wantedness. Again though, in the absence of realizing that this relation between the Individual and their Inner Self is always, in every moment, operant, and is what is actually producing the wantedness and unwantedness associated with any experience, it must then seem that those qualities inhere in the experience itself, which appearance leads to what is referred to in Eastern philosophies as attachment and aversion, which is simply the reflexive clinging to experiences that seem to have a quality of wantedness and the reflexive pushing away of those experiences that seem to have a quality of unwantedness, respectively, both of which place the Individual unknowingly in a mode of resistance and so in a relation of oppositional Existential flow with respect to their More Fundamental Individuality.

And so pursue happiness if you must, but know that there is an easier way, and a more effective way, which is to not pursue it, but to just create it, by choosing in any moment to allow rather than resist, to let be rather than push against. Just try it and see how it feels, i.e., see whether you create and apprehend in the moment of allowing or resistance emotional wantedness or unwantedness, as emotions are the most fundamental experience and so are the most directly and immediately reflective of the aligned or oppositional relation of the Individual to their More Fundamental Individuality, which relation is itself a direct result of what the Individual is choosing as their mode of being in that moment.

Everything we want we want because we think that in having it we will feel better, that we will experience a more wanted emotion. In our delusion we try to get there by arranging external reality in a way that we can reflexively allow, but in getting to that arrangement we often have to enter into resistance, and so create the opposite of the experience we wanted to create, i.e., we create unwanted rather than wanted emotion. Also in our delusion we forget why it is that we wanted the object in the first place and so just keep going after it regardless of how the pursuit of it is making us feel.

However, if you can realize that the goal is always a more wanted emotion, and that that goal can be reached regardless of the arrangement of external reality, as the experienced emotion is actually a function of a different relation, then it is easier not to cling to the wanted object of experience or push against the unwanted object of experience, which then makes it easier to choose to remain or become involved in the relation that actually creates wanted experience. But if you forget or don't realize what it is that you are actually always after, and forget or don't realize the actual cause of experiential wantedness and unwantedness, then clinging to the wanted object and pushing against the unwanted object seem to be the only viable options, in which case the Individual then becomes trapped in a self-perpetuated loop of delusion and confusion, inadvertently creating unwantedness while in the pursuit of wantedness.

This is not a world of suffering. It is a world where it is just as easy to create the opposite of suffering as it is to create suffering, one just needs to know which button to push on the machine of experimental creation. However, because most people are unaware of both how experience is created, as well as what it is they actually want, which is just to feel better, to create and apprehend a wanted emotional experience, most people go about trying to create experience in a way that is the opposite of the way it is actually created, pushing the button of resistance rather the button of allowing, and so end up producing results that are the opposite of those they intended to produce.

But as they say, it's all good, because even in the delusion and confusion and the inadvertent creation of unwantedness, the purpose for which we came is still being served, as we serve that purpose regardless of whether or not we are cognizant of our True Nature and regardless of the degree to which we create wanted or unwanted experience while we are here. It's just that it's usually more enjoyable to serve that purpose when one understands the rules of the game we are playing, regardless of whether or not one is cognizant of the purpose of the game itself, which purpose is, once again, a story for another time.

The Either/Or Nature of the Individual's Mode of Being as Allowing or Resistant in the Creation of Experiential Reality

Steven Kaufman — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:35:56 +0000

Body:

You can stand on a ladder and go neither up nor down. However, the relation of the Individual to their more fundamental Individuality or Self is not like this. That is, there in no neutral position that an Individual can adopt relative to their more fundamental Individuality. The relation between the Individual and their more fundamental Individuality is always one of either allowing or resistance, i.e., flow in alignment with or in opposition to the flow of their Self. And it is this relation that determines the most important aspect of what any Individual creates and apprehends as experience as the result of the relations in which they are involved with the rest of Existence, because it is this relation that determines whether the created experience, be it of the emotional, mental, or physical variety, will have a wanted or unwanted quality.

Thus, if you are not in a relation of allowing then you are in a relation of resistance, and if you are not in a relation of resistance then you are in a relation of allowing. Put another way, in order to be in a relation of allowing all you have to do is cease to be in a relation of resistance, and in order to be in a relation of resistance all you have to do is cease to be in a relation of allowing. Not being in one relation is the same as being in the opposite relation.

The importance of this is that we often find ourselves wanting to feel better, but unable to do so. That is, we find ourselves unable to place ourselves in the relation of Self-allowing that would create for us a more wanted or less unwanted emotional experience. And the reason we are not able to place ourselves in that relation, the reason that we are not able to allow, is because we are instead, at some level, choosing to be in a relation of resistance instead. We want to feel better, and we also want to keep pushing against something, but we can't do both. It has to be one or the other, because one involves a relation of Self-allowing and the other involves a relation of Self-resistance.

We think we should be able to feel better while still doing the thing that is actually making us feel bad, because we don't understand the connection between our mode of being as allowing or resistant and what we create as emotional experience. And so we get stuck feeling bad because we try to feel better by pushing away the bad feeling, and in that pushing we generate more rather than less unwantedness, and we also become unable to be in the relation that would create a more wanted emotional experience. We just cannot be simultaneously in what are mutually exclusive relations. If we are involved in one then we are not involved in the other, and so if we are trying to push something away then we are not able to be in the relation in which we are not pushing against something.

The main point of all of this is that in order to feel better all that is needed is to cease resistance, to let go of some degree of resistance, because every degree of resistance released adds another degree of allowing. The object of resistance is not important. No other action is necessary. In fact, any other action will be counterproductive and lead to more resistance and the creation of more unwantedness. One does not have to cease resistance and then allow, for ceasing to resist is itself allowing. Once you are not resisting, and therefore allowing, you can from there become more allowing. But if you are resisting then you cannot, from there, be allowing. If you are resisting then you have to become allowing through a cessation of resistance. That is, if you are to be in the relation in which you are allowing then you must cease to project yourself into the relation in which you are resisting. Put another way, you cannot continue to project yourself into a relation of resistance and at the same time project yourself into a relation of allowing.

It is also true that while in a relation of allowing it is not possible to be in a relation of resistance. This is why if you are in a really good mood, i.e., being very allowing, then you are not bothered by external circumstances that might not be to your liking, because in the absence of resisting or pushing against those circumstances you do not generate emotional unwantedness. But if you choose to focus on one of those circumstances and cease to allow it, you find your good mood has evaporated, and in its place is an unwanted emotion, i.e., a bad mood. And then, once you are in a bad mood, even insignificant circumstances seem bothersome, because then your general relation is one of resistance in which you are generating emotional unwantedness.

There is in the creation of experience a sort of momentum. The better you feel means the more allowing you are being, and the more allowing you are being the more wanted will be all the experiences you create through the relations in which you become involved while in that mode of being, making it easier to find things that are wanted that are easy to allow, while also making it harder to find something unwanted that it seems necessary to resist or push against. Conversely, the worse you feel means the more resistant you are being, and the more resistant you are being the more unwanted will be all the experiences you create through the relations in which you become involved while in that mode of being, making it easier to find something unwanted that it seems necessary to resist or push against, while also making it harder to find things that are wanted that are easy to allow.

It seems to me that habitual, unconscious, and reflexive resistance toward the unwanted is the primary reason that Individuals experience far less wantedness than they otherwise could. We seem to have this notion that it is our duty to push away and rid ourselves of the unwanted so that the wanted can come in its place. What we do not realize that it is our very resistance toward the unwanted that is itself the thing that is keeping us from experiencing the wanted.

We all want wanted experiences, that is the nature of Existence and there is no getting around that. The question is, how are we going about getting what it is that we cannot help but want? That is, are we thinking about experience as something we can get or as something we ourselves create? It is a subtle but vital distinction.

When experience seems to be something we can get it seems to be something that exists independent of us, the Experiencer of it, and so it seems that to get the wanted we first have to get rid of the unwanted , to make room for the wanted by clearing out the unwanted, and in thinking about experience in this way it seems that resistance toward the unwanted is the way to the wanted, and so that is what we do, reflexively resist and push against the unwanted. Or when thinking of experience in this way, as Experiencer independent, when we do find something wanted we think that to keep feeling the wantedness we have to cling to it, to possess it, to control it, which is itself a form of resistance. This reflexive clinging to the wanted is referred to as attachment, whereas the reflexive pushing against the unwanted is referred to as aversion, and both require the Individual to be in a mode of Self-resistance, in which case the Individual is involved in a relation that must ultimately create what that Individual apprehends as experiential unwantedness.

And so, when experience is seen as Experiencer independent, which it is not, our natural and unavoidable desire to have wanted experiences leads us to inadvertently create the opposite of what we want, as we end up trying to create wantedness through resistance and so not only end up creating what we don't want, but also end up in a position in which we can't create what we do want.

Conversely, when experience is understood to be something that we ourselves create, as Individuals, according to how we are choosing to be involved in a fundamental relation, then it no longer seems that the way to get the wanted is to get rid of the unwanted. Instead, in that context, when the unwanted appears, it then is seen that the way to create the wanted is to first stop creating the unwanted. When the wantedness and unwantedness of experience is seen as a reflection of one's own allowing or resistance, as one's own creation, then attachment and aversion have no basis, as those are attitudes that can only exist in the context of conceiving of experience as Experiencer independent, as a sort of object, as something that can be clung to or pushed away.

And so, when experience is seen as Experiencer dependent, which it is, our natural and unavoidable desire to have wanted experiences leads us to consciously create what we want, as we do not end up trying to create wantedness through resistance, through either attachment or aversion, in which case, i.e., in the absence of resistance, we must then be in the opposite relation, which opposite relation creates the opposite of unwantedness.

The Individual's Conscious or Unconscious Creation of Experiential Reality

Steven Kaufman — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:07:55 +0000

Body:

All experience is the product of a relation in which the Individual that is apprehending the experience is involved. All experience, in its wantedness or unwantedness, is a reflection of the Individual's mode of being as allowing or resistant, a reflection of whether the Individual is choosing to flow with or against their more fundamental Individuality or Self as that Individual is involved in the relation that is creating the particular experience it is, in that moment, apprehending.

That having been said, there are two ways an Individual can create experience: consciously or unconsciously, or put another way, deliberately or reflexively.

The Individual, through its relations to Itself, through its relations to the rest of Existence, creates what it then apprehends as experience. Experience is the product of the relations of Existence to Itself. However, once experience has been created and apprehended by an Individual, it then may seem to the Individual that they can be in relation to experience itself, and create further experience that way. However this is an illusion. An Individual can no more be in relation to an experience than they can be in relation to a reflection in a mirror. One can see a reflection and think that it is what's actually there and so try to be in relation to the reflection, but in the end what one is really being in relation to is the mirror, because the mirror is what's actually there.

Likewise, it may seem that experience is what's actually there, it may seem that experience is Experiencer independent, but this is an illusion. What's actually and directly there where experience seems to be is Existence, albeit Existence being in relation to Itself. Experience is the reflection that rests in the mirror of Existence. And so it may seem that one can be in relation to experience, and it may seem that one can create experience by being in relation to experience, but what the Individual is always being in relation to is what's actually there, which is Existence. Therefore, regardless of what may seem to be the case, every experience is created as the product of some relation of Existence to Itself, and not as the product of some relation of Existence to an experience, or as a relation of an experience to an experience.

However, because it seems that experience is Experiencer dependent, because it seems that experience is what's actually there, because it seems that experience exists as it is experienced to exist regardless of whether or not it is being experienced by an Individual, it then seems to us that we can create experience through our relation to other experiences, and so that is what we try to do, and that is the way most people most of the time try to create experience, which is by trying to control experiential reality, by trying to control that which has already been created as an experience, which is quite analogous to trying to shut the barn door once all the cows have run out.

Most people do not understand that what they experience, and especially the wanted and unwanted quality of what they experience, is always the product of a relation of their Individual Existence to what I call their more fundamental Individuality or Self. (Many would call this the Soul or Inner Self or God.) Most people do not understand that all experience is Experiencer dependent and has no existence whatsoever outside the context of their involvement in the relation that creates what they apprehend as experience. Most people think that what they experience exists as it is experienced to exist regardless of their experience of it as such. most people think that experiences just sit out there already existing just waiting for us to happen across them.

And because most people have this erroneous or illusory idea regarding the nature of experience as being Experiencer independent, they think that wantedness and unwantedness are properties the inhere in the experiences themselves, rather than something that is created along with the rest of the experience according to a factor over which they have complete and total control, which factor is how they are choosing in that moment to be in relation to their more fundamental Individuality or Self.

And because most people have this erroneous or illusory idea that wantedness and unwantedness are properties the inhere in the experiences themselves, they try to control how they feel, they try to control the emotional experience they create, i.e., they try to create wanted emotional experiences or avoid unwanted emotional experiences, by trying to arrange external reality in a way that will appear wanted so that when they look at it they will reflexively allow it rather than resist it and so will reflexively and unconsciously place themselves in a relation of alignment rather than opposition to their Self and so will create a wanted rather than unwanted emotional experience as a product of that relation.

However, they do not know that this is what they are doing. As far as they know they are just doing what is necessary to try and feel good, to try and create a more wanted emotional experience. It may seem that the thing or person that makes you feel good or bad is making you feel good or bad, is the cause of your wanted or unwanted emotional experience, but that is only an illusion. The thing or person that seems to make you feel good or bad is just the experience you are either reflexively allowing or resisting, respectively, which reflexive allowing or resistance, unbeknownst to you, places you in a relation of alignment or opposition to your Self, and it is that relation and that relation alone and always that creates your wanted or unwanted emotional experience.

But when we are unaware of this relation and how it produces our emotional experience, it then must seem that the thing or person we are reflexively allowing or resisting is responsible for how we feel. And so we blame others and the world for any negative emotion we feel. As a result we try and minimize those negative emotions and maximize wanted emotions by trying to control the world around us and the behavior of others in a way that we will be able to reflexively allow rather than resist. Or conversely, we attribute our good feeling to some thing or person and so we cling to that thing or person, not knowing it is our own allowing of them and its resultant Self-alignment that is really responsible for the wanted emotion we feel.

The problem with this method of experiential creation i.e., reflexive and unconscious experiential creation, is two-fold. First, in trying to create an emotional experience according to the arrangement of physical or mental reality, we are trying to create experience backwards, in an order and arrangement that is the opposite of the way it is actually created. Experience is created progressively, as the result of progressive Existential relations, from the emotional, to the mental, and then the physical. It is the quality of the emotional experience created as wanted or unwanted that dictates the quality of the mental experience that arises from that emotional relation, and it is the quality of the mental experience created that dictates the quality of the physical experience that arises from that mental relation.

And because of this, in order to control external reality and other people so that we can reflexively feel good, we often have to push and push, and so place ourselves in relations of self-opposition and create unwanted emotion while we are trying to arrange external reality in order to feel good. And the more we create unwanted emotion the mare likely we are to end up creating unwanted thought and unwanted physical experience with that emotion as its basis. And so we can work and work and work and suffer and suffer and suffer to get things just as we like them and so for a moment feel some relief, for a moment cease to resist and reflexively allow, and so for a moment create a wanted emotion, but in the next moment or the next something will come along to change that arrangement, and we will have to get back at it, pushing and pushing to control things that are really, for the most part, out of our control.

Which brings us to the second problem with this method of experiential creation, i.e., reflexive and unconscious experiential creation, which is that in trying to control external circumstances we are, for the most part, trying to control things that are not really within our ability to control, as those circumstances usually, if not always, involve other Individuals and the way they are choosing to exercise their own free will.

And so in trying to create wanted emotion reflexively, by controlling external circumstances, we are really going about trying to create a wanted emotional experience the hard way, in a way that goes against the grain, in a way that is based upon an illusion regarding the nature of experience, rather than in a way that takes into account the actual nature of experience and especially the actual nature of emotional experience, as something that is always created as a product of the aligned or oppositional relation of the Individual to their more fundamental Individuality or Self.

So if trying to create a wanted emotion, or avoid unwanted emotion, by arranging external reality so that we can reflexively allow or not resist and so reflexively place ourselves in a relation of alignment or non-opposition with respect to our Self, is what is meant by unconscious experiential creation, creating experience without being conscious of the real relation that is responsible for what you are experiencing, then the opposite is non-reflexive or deliberate experiential creation, experiential creation where the Individual is conscious that it is a choice they themselves are making that determines the wanted or unwanted quality of what they apprehend as experience.

Experiential reality is always the product of Existential relations, it is not their cause. Existential relations are the cause of experiential reality. The relation comes first then the experience. And then comes another relation and another experience, and another relation and another experience and on and on and on…. Experience is therefore not the cause of experience. Experience is never the cause of experience, although it may seem to be when experience is thought of as Experiencer independent. The cause of experience is always some relation of Existence to Itself, because it's Existence that's actually there where experience seems to be. The cause of experience is always some relation of Existence to Itself, and the cause of wanted and unwanted experience is always the aligned and oppositional flow, respectively, of the Individual relative to their more fundamental Individuality.

Once one understands that the wanted and unwanted character of experience is the product of this fundamental and truly unavoidable relation, i.e., the relation of the Individual to their more fundamental Individuality or Self, one may then focus upon their involvement in this fundamental relation rather than the arrangement of external reality, and in so doing one may learn to control their involvement in this relation regardless of the arrangement of external reality, in which case external reality will begin to arrange itself according to one's conscious and deliberate involvement in that relation, rather than according to one's unconscious and reflexive involvement in that relation. It is the difference between driving with your eyes open or your eyes shut. Ether way you are going down the road, the question is, how much are you going to enjoy the trip?

Whether you know it or not what you experience, especially in its wanted and unwanted character, is the product of this fundamental and unavoidable relation, and so you can either drive through life with your eyes open or your eyes shut. But the thing is, unless and until one recognizes the nature of experience as Experiencer dependent, as a product of one's own involvement in relations with the rest of Existence, there does not seem to be a choice. That is, the very idea of consciously controlling what one creates as experience can only appear as a valid option in the context of a notion of experience as being ultimately Experiencer dependent, as something in which the Individual has a say or central role in creating.

Regardless of what is going on externally, or even mentally or emotionally, you have the ability to choose in each moment a relation of Self-alignment rather than Self-opposition, regardless of the choice you made in the prior moment. That is free will, that is the ability that inheres in every point of Existence, in every Individual, regardless of scale. You do not have to make that choice reflexively, according to whether you are in that moment looking at something wanted or unwanted. Rather you have the ability to make that choice consciously and deliberately, to choose Self-alignment rather than Self-opposition, and so consciously and deliberately choose to feel good, to create a wanted emotion, regardless of external circumstance. It may not always be easy, but it is possible.

The thing that indicates, in each moment, whether you are in that moment choosing consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or reflexively, to be in a relation of Self-alignment or Self-opposition, is how you are feeling in this moment, i.e., the quality of the emotional experience you are creating in this moment, in this Now. Because experience is progressive, the mental and physical experiences can have some lag time, and so are not as reliable in determining your in the moment relation to your more fundamental Individuality or Self. However, emotional experience is the direct and immediate reflection or product of that relation, which is why emotional experience has nothing other than a wanted or unwanted character.

This is why if you are to create experience consciously rather than unconsciously, deliberately rather than reflexively, you must become aware of what you are feeling, you must become aware of the emotional experience you are creating in the moment, and then you will be able to steer yourself toward a better feeling emotion according to what you are feeling, rather than according to some presupposed notion of what external arrangement will reflexively "make" you feel good or better.

Why take the time and effort to arrange external reality so you can reflexively feel better for a moment or two when you can cut out the illusory middle man and just feel better directly by choosing consciously to be in a relation of Self-alignment, in which case you feel better and at the same time lay the experiential and relational foundation for creating more wanted mental and physical experiences, rather than doing the opposite, i.e., being unconsciously in a relation of Self resistance as you try to arrange external reality to your reflexive liking, in which case you lay the experiential and relational foundation for creating more unwanted mental and physical experiences?

Knowledge is power. Knowing that you are the creator of what you experience, especially in its wanted and unwanted character, gives you the power to consciously choose to create wanted rather than unwanted experiences. Not knowing that you are the creator of what you experience leaves you thinking that you are either the benefactor or victim of circumstance, rather than the creator of your own experiential reality.

Attitude is more important than thought, and thought is more important than action, as it is the attitude of allowing or resistance that will determine the character of the emotion and it is the character of the emotion that will determine the character of the thought that flows from that emotion, and it is the character of the thought that will determine the character of the physical experience that flows from that thought.

The Experiential Basis of the Spiritualist /Materialist Duality

Steven Kaufman — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:25:03 +0000

Body:

All experience is the product of some relation of Existence to Itself. More specifically, all experience is the product of some relation of an Individual Existence to some other part or aspect of Existence, as that product is apprehended from the Individual's side of the relation. Thus, all experience is the product of a relation in which the Individual that is apprehending the experience is involved. Therefore, in the absence of the Individual's involvement in a particular relation, there is no particular experience created and apprehended by that Individual. Conversely, every experience which an Individual apprehends requires the involvement of the Individual in some relation in order to create what is apprehended as the experience.

And for every relation in which an Individual is involved creating a particular experience, there is a mutually exclusive relation in which the Individual cannot be simultaneously involved, which mutually exclusive relation is necessary to create the opposite experience. Therefore, for everything we experience there is something else we cannot, in that same moment, experience. This is because experience is not what's there, but is always something we ourselves are involved in creating, according to our involvement in some relation with some other part or aspect of Existence.

I call this limitation the principle of the impossibility of an Individuals simultaneous apprehension of opposites. It is this principle that is responsible for wave-particle duality and quantum uncertainty. It is this principle that makes it impossible to feel good when you feel bad and vice versa. It is this principle that makes it impossible to know that the Earth is round as long as you think it is flat. It is this principle that makes it impossible to believe in evolution while believing in the biblical version of creation.

And it is also this principle that fuels the Spiritualist/Materialist, or Spiritualist/Science debate, because it is this principle that makes it impossible for the Materialist to apprehend what the Spiritualist knows as long as they continue to see the world as composed of what is only experience. Because as long as they are involved in the relation in which they see the world as composed of matter or energy, of some physical experience, or even a mental experience, it is not possible for them to become involved in the relation in which they can apprehend that the world is composed of Existence, of Spirit, of Consciousness, i.e., composed of that which is not an experience, composed of that which is the opposite of experience.

All experience comes in pairs of opposites or complements because all experience is the product of a relation, as that product is apprehended from one side of the relation that creates it. And so what we experience is always one side of a two sided coin, so to speak. And for every relation in which an Individual can be involved that creates one experience, there is an opposite, mutually exclusive relation which, if the Individual were involved in that relation, would create the opposite or complementary experience. Put another way, for every relation that creates the Individuals experience of one side of the coin, there is an opposite mutually exclusive relation that would create the Individuals experience of the other side of the coin. (Remember though, there is no coin in the absence of the Individuals involvement in the relation that creates it. ) And so we have hot/cold, good/bad, wanted/unwanted, wave/particle, light/dark, etc, etc. But owing to the principle of the impossibility of an Individuals simultaneous apprehension of opposites we can only experience one or the other of these experiences, or some portion of both, in any moment, because they are all the products of opposite and so mutually exclusive relations, which means that of we are involved in one relation creating one experience then we cannot be involved in the opposite relation necessary to create the opposite experience.

There are three different types of experience: emotional, mental, and physical, and each of these three different types of experience has a different fundamental duality that derives from the opposite and mutually exclusive relations in which Existence can be involved that create that particular level of experiential reality. The most fundamental relations are those that create emotional reality, and these are relations of either aligned or oppositional Existential flow, which create wanted or unwanted emotion, respectively. The next level of relation is the one that creates mental or conceptual reality, and those opposing relations, which I have yet to specifically identify, create the concepts of Existence and experience. Lastly there are the relations that create physical experience, and those opposing relations, which are penetrating or penetrated, create wave and particle experiences.

The important thing here is that at each level of experiential reality, emotional, mental , and physical, there is a fundamental experiential duality and owing to the impossibility of an Individuals simultaneous apprehension of opposites, being involved in the relation that creates one of these experiences makes it impossible to be involved in the relation necessary to create the other experience. And so it is that when you feel bad you can't feel good, because while you are flowing in opposition to your Self you can't be flowing in alignment with your Self. And so it also is that when physical reality appears as a particle it cannot appear as a wave, because the relations that create each experience are mutually exclusive of each other.

And for the same reason, when you see the world as composed of experience you can't see it as composed of Existence, as composed of Consciousness, as composed of that which through relation to Itself both creates and apprehends experience. The Materialist, or Experientialist, be they a scientist or otherwise, can no more comprehend the validity of spirituality than can someone who is looking North simultaneously also look South. It is not the fault of the Materialist or Experientialist that the other side of the coin remains hidden, it is just that they have a perspective that does not allow the other side to be seen, to be created as something they can experience. The Materialist or Experientialist is being limited by an experiential mechanism of which they are not aware, and of which they cannot possibly become aware unless and until they release their grip on their idea of the primacy of experiential reality, on the idea of experiential reality as having an existence that is in any way Experiencer independent, because that idea is mutually exclusive of the idea of experience as being completely Experience dependent.

The Experientialist sees experience as primary and that which apprehends experience as secondary, which is why they try to account for Consciousness as the product of some sort of neurological mechanism. Conversely, the Existentialist sees Existence as primary and experience as secondary, and so tries to explain experience as the product of Existence or Consciousness. Both cannot be correct. One sees these two realities in their actual relation, the other sees them in what is the opposite of their actual relation.

We cannot do other but view ourselves, i.e., Existence, through the lens of experience, and that lens presents ourselves to us in the form of experience, in the form of emotional, mental, and physical experience, and moreover, in the form of emotional, mental, and physical dualities. And so when we feel we must feel good or bad, and when a physicist tries to identify the character of a thing it must appear as wave or particle, and when we conceive of what we are, when we conceive of the world, of our nature and its nature, we must see it in terms of Existence or experience, as composed of either Existence or experience, for those are the most fundamental conceptions of reality and themselves represent the fundamental reality duality.

The question often posed is: What is the nature of reality? However, this is really a trick question because reality as a whole consists of two completely different and yet related realities, and the overall nature of reality can only be understood in the context of these two realities and their relation to each other. Thus, the nature of reality is that there are two realities; the reality of experience and the Reality that, through relation to Itself, both creates and apprehends experiential reality. And though these two realities are completely different in nature, in as much as one is created whereas the other is uncreated, they are nonetheless inseparable, like a mirror and the reflection contained within it.

We think that what we experience as reality, and especially what we experience as physical reality, is what's actually there. For example, we see a rock and we think that what's there where the rock appears to be is just that, i.e., a rock. However, what we experience as reality isn't what's actually and directly there where the experience seems to be, because what we experience as reality is just a boundary that's created where Existence here and there meet, as that boundary is apprehended from the perspective of our Individual Existence as we take part in the relation that creates that boundary, that relative existence, which we then apprehend as experience. Put another way, what we experience as reality isn't what's actually and directly there where the experience seems to be, because what's actually and directly there is the fundamental Reality of Existence, and experience is just what seems to be there, the same way a reflection can seem to be what's actually there where there's really only a mirror or some other reflective surface.

And just as we look out at the world and think that what's actually there is what we experience as being there, so it is that we look at ourselves and think that's what's actually here where we are is also some sort of experience. That is, we look at ourselves and see a man, a woman, we see short, we see tall, we see black, we see white, etc. etc. However, just as what's actually and directly there where we see a rock, or any object, or even empty space, is the fundamental Reality of Existence, what's actually and directly here where we see ourselves is that same fundamental Reality. However we don't see ourselves as that, we don't know ourselves as the fundamental Reality, because we instead know ourselves as the other type of reality, i.e., as an experiential reality, as what is only a reflection that rests on the surface of our True Nature.

This condition, wherein the fundamental Reality sees Itself and the world as being composed of what is only an experiential reality, and in so doing loses sight of Itself, loses sight of its True Nature, is referred to as self-ignorance or maya, and how this condition is created and maintained by an Individual point of Existence can be understood when one understands not only the Experiencer dependent nature of all experiential reality, but also the limitation by which any Experiencer is bound in their creation of experience. That limitation is that for every experience you are creating there is an opposite experience you cannot create in that same moment, because every experience you create requires that you be involved in some relation with Existence and your involvement in that relation makes it impossible for you to be simultaneously involved in the opposite relation necessary to create the opposite experience.

Thus, it is the nature of experience as being the product of a relation that creates the Spiritualist/Materialist duality as an extension of the fundamental Existence/experience mental-conceptual duality, while it is the unavoidable and inviolable limitation inherent in the creation of experience that blinds the Materialist to the Reality apprehended by the Spiritualist. It is also true that the Spiritualist can be blind to the reality of the Materialist. Experiential reality is not unreal, it's just not as real as that which, through relation to Itself, both creates and apprehends it.