Following on the previous, but split-out to a new topic for clarity:
Now, the problem with psychic ability is that people you talk to always expect you to somehow be working with the same sense of reality they are, and merely to know a lot of secrets. I look back on the early days of RV in public, when it was mostly represented by insane people like Dames, and how everybody talked about viewing your own death and God and every imaginable target like it was just so fun and viewers were tough but still perfectly ordinary people, excepting their occasional omniscience, which mysteriously could not be found in those claiming it and selling it.
It’s such a fairy tale. Anybody viewing seriously for a good length of time is definitely going to cease being that perfectly ordinary person. If they don’t, then whatever they’re doing isn’t viewing. Of course, if they’re cool, they will perfect the art of “acting” normal, so to others it is not apparent that their entire way of looking at reality has shifted a zillion times until their whole framework of what is real and what is alive would be incomprehensible to most people. But to pretend that the process does not radically affect fundamental belief systems about reality, about identity, about time, is to simplify it to the point of absurd. I think the reason there are so few longterm viewers is because the psychological impact of it is more than nearly everybody’s willing to adapt to, so people just fall by the wayside, the chronic cognitive dissonance gets resolved by their instantly walking away from it, sooner or later.
Viewing, in MY experience of it anyway–although spontaneous ‘esoteric experience’ has some part of this with me too I admit–gradually tends to dissolve a lot of the assumptions about reality, and depending on one’s experiences with it, that can impact the area called “identity”.
Identity is arbitrary. And, it’s share-able. It’s a collection of information, no different in some respects than an event or a complex object.
Whether something is perceived “as” an identity depends on the psychic in question. If you hold firmly to yourself (as is considered, historically, ‘the way, truth and light’ for remote viewing), then when you look at, say, a tornado, or Ganymede, you will mostly be aware of all that destructive windpower, or that big hunk of ice-ball in the sky. Because in official RV, nobody gives a damn whether these things are alive and aware. Nobody really wants to know what Ganymede is like. They want to see on paper that it’s a space object of ice because that matches the known feedback. The whole issue with identity tends to freak people out, even plenty of viewers I know. They aren’t sure if they should consider it possession, or what; many consider it ‘dangerous’, to work like that. I consider it awesome and fascinating.
If you allow your identity to flow, and to share, then it might be different, like it has been for me. You may find that you ARE the tornado, a nearly ineffable experience, or that you are sharing your perception with Ganymede, as if IT is remote viewing YOU, as a mutual shared experience. If you fall into a zen sort of merge with a metal recycling bin, you may momentarily share ‘some degree of awareness’–and the addition of yours may ‘add’ to that of the MRB’s to allow this to happen.
But when you are done, it makes you an Animist. That word until now has mostly meant a religious perception that “god is in everything” – trees, rocks, birds, people, whatever. My interpretation of it is slightly more wholistic, mostly that I don’t really have a definition of ‘god’ to fit the western perspective to start with–if we’re going to use that word to mean ‘consciousness’ or ‘awareness’ then I’m ok with it. But I believe that even non-autonomous, non-self-aware “things” have ‘awareness’. It is just of a different degree than we have. (We are really complex entities, in some respects.) Whether a psychic has enough “flexible identity” to allow other identities to join theirs, or merge/overlap, is what seems to drive “how” the psychic will perceive that thing (or person, or entity, or planet, or tornado, etc.).
And like everything else in the universe, identities are energy. Like trees, dining tables and televisions, they are ‘collections of energy’ operating as a singularity: a ‘thing’ that is an ‘identity’. I’m PJ, that is a table, there is a tree, that’s my TV–what’s the difference, except that I am seemingly autonomous and self-aware, and the tree is seemingly NOT autonomous, and whether it is self-aware I have no idea but I suspect moreso than humans suspect, and the TV is not self-aware (I believe) but does have some degree of ‘awareness’ simply because all its physical components are comprised of ‘consciousness’, which is a property of the vibrating energy that creates mass. The “degree of awareness,” and whether it moves into self-awareness (which is simply a high-degree), and the “degree of autonomy,” which I suspect is simply a higher number on the awareness chart also, is most of what separates us. That, and that I am mobile in the frequency-bandwidth we consider physical reality, within which I have opposable thumbs.
So I can chop down that tree and seemingly impose my will upon all those things. That does not mean they are not identities of their own, merely because I have more autonomy and mobility than they do. A sewing machine has a destiny for which it was designed just like a human does. All things long for evolvement, even seemingly inanimate objects. Inanimate doesn’t mean unaware. It merely means not-biological and not-communicative within the bandwidth of physical reality. When humans focus in a different way, they are able to ‘connect’ with such things, and with the addition of their awareness, gain some understanding of that seemingly inanimate object and whatever ‘awareness’ it actually does have.
I learned this by accident, not by viewing, and managed to ‘magically fix’ a sewing machine as a result of truly understanding, for the first time, its role and its potential. By convincing it that I could help it find that potential, and selling us both a vision of how awesome and powerful it could be in my world, how useful to my life, if only it worked, it suddenly did, after hours of crying frustration on my part. Sure, skeptics will rightly point out that I have no proof I didn’t just PK the machine in some fashion, but some of that is being self-centered, I think; I attribute consciousness to everything being composed of it, so I consider all changes to be ‘joint ventures’ between my intent and the focus.
Some Seth-ian and ACiM folks might suggest that since reality reflects me, it was only me that changed. I would agree with that, however, I think recognition and respect for everything around me is part of recognition and respect for myself. Recognizing that I, on some level, worked with energy to mutually create a given thing, does not imply that the thing “doesn’t exist,” it only implies that it is a part of me. I believe that framework should empower people to recognize how fabulous reality is, to see the profound significance of symbol in sidewalks, and sliding glass doors. Instead it often causes people to devaluate and dismiss everything around them as ‘fake illusion’ while they try to ‘transcend’ it.
Thus far in life, every surprisingly-cool thing I have ever pulled off, from occasional PK to plenty of RV, has been a side effect of genuinely appreciating and granting respect , whether informally and I knew what it was, or formally in RV when I didn’t know what it was. Gratitude goes a long way.
Some magicians do experiments where they attempt to commune with a given elemental. Some monks do experiments where they attempt to commune with a small stone. What is the difference? The stone happens to fall within the red-bandwidth of the rainbow of soul, within the frequency grouping we call physical reality. So we can see and touch it, unlike the ‘elemental’. But maybe the stone IS an elemental: it is simply one within our spectrum. They are both “identities”. The physical or other detail is its own question. But they are no less identities than a tree or a person. They simply don’t have the same complexity, intensity, and degree of ‘awareness’ that humans do.
And we are the elementals of larger awareness. When we merge with something less-aware, it’s a downright religious experience for it, to share in our “expanded consciousness”. When we merge with something more-aware, it’s a downright religious experience for US, to share in its “expanded consciousness.”
So in addition to all the “entities” which have “identities” — from humans to aliens to shamanic creatures to astral entities — we also have the situation of reality, composed of energy, of which consciousness is an inherent part, a whole vibrating, cycling universe of awareness. In my world, although I don’t operate like this except when working on psi or philosophy, everything has some degree of awareness, and on the whole, no matter the degree or nature of it, I consider that “thing” — that metal recycling bin, that tree, that television — and, that moon, that tornado — to be an ‘identity’ of sorts.
Not your average interpretation of ‘identity’ I agree. But that is mine. And because all things are an ‘identity’ to some degree, if I add enough of my own consciousness to the mix, I can perceive ‘as’ them or ‘through’ them or ‘with’ them — not just OF them. Not just from the perspective of a human looking on. But from the perspective of a living universal translator, that can “sit in on or share with” nearly anything.
Now when I choose to access a given identity — let us say ‘the target’ is that tree, or my TV, or a tornado, or a moon — is it merely a matter of finding the beat pattern and place on the sine-wave that their vibrating energy inhabits, and somehow getting your attention there?