The Law of Compensation

In my bubble of limited awareness, compensation means to make up for (a loss or lack) by exerting an opposite force or effect. Every action compensates for some lack. This “law” confirms my belief in separation and justifies my sense of justice. Yeah, it’s probably another one of those self-referential paradoxes.

Sir Isaac Newton codified this law into his third law of motion. “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

Basically, this law says that you get what you give. The more you contribute in life, the more you receive from the Universe. Of course the opposite is also true.
(Hurley, The Law of Compensation)

Using the Law of Compensation

Some say they have amassed fortunes as a result of mastering this law. My payment to them in the currency of money, attention, behaviors, and perceptions illustrate how I use their belief in the law to compensate for my sense of lack. Thus, enriching their bank accounts at the expense of mine. See, it works for them, so must work for me, too! That’s what makes it a law.

You can get anything you want in life if you help other people get more of what they want. (Granados)

As noble and useful as this appears, it makes one significant assumption. It assumes lack as a condition that must be compensated for with right, justified, and/or proper action. Further, it supposes that one can invest some energy and as a result reap a guaranteed reward of their choosing. An enticing idea. Particularly in the West, where wealth is seen as success in life, those sensing lack for any reason may find application of this law irresistible.

Compensation in Terms of Value

I attach value to everything in order to make comparison judgments based on my personal value. Things have no value until I invest my life-force energy in defense of a judgment – “rightness.” When I judge a loss in rightness value, I work to compensate for it.

Thus, judgment requires perception of value. Investment requires value judgments. I invest in value judgments with value judgments in order to make value judgments.  I guess that settles the self-referential paradox question. It’s a paradox!

Could the “law of compensation” be a conceptual misinterpretation of the natural law of accountability in which the universe accounts to me by presenting my beliefs to me? Perhaps compensation is a law in my universe because I believe in and defend the perception of lack.

Does the earth realize a loss regained when it compensates for evaporation by returning huge rivers of water to the ocean?

In Defense of the Secret

When something is secret, it’s hidden. How do I defend for or against what I’m unaware of?

In my bubble of limited awareness, I work at keeping a secret from myself, limiting my awareness. To remain in this trance, I hide a secret – substituting real with imagined data I choose to defend. Protected within my comfort zone fortress, I experience what I want rather than what is – even when I don’t like it. I didn’t say I was good at this!

What About the Secret?

What if I’m not seeking truth? Maybe it’s far too frightening, mind-boggling, and/or pointless for me to entertain. Instead, I want to experience a reality of my own making. Might that imagined “reality” require me to keep a bit of mystery, an unknown element, a secret? After all, if the secret were revealed, my fanciful reality might not be able to handle it.

Would secreting certain information out of my conscious reach allow me to hold onto beliefs that support my uncertain reality? With beliefs like lack, for example, I can entertain fantasies of competition. Through competition, I feel I can win back and compensate for what I’ve lost. When I become aware that any lack I experience is but a chosen perspective, I resolve the paradox, and the secret begins to reveal itself.

How Do I Defend the Secret?

In order to know the secret, I must trade all that I understand for it. To do this, I must question with full intent what I hide from myself. In this way, I willingly offer up my defense of overt rightness for covert understanding.

In order to do that, my will to understand must exceed my need to defend what I presently believe. I must get around my confirmation bias. To know the truth of something requires conscious thought. Knowing my propensity for blocking awareness of truth, I would want to challenge any concept I believe is true.

Thus, a single, well-defended secret prevents my limited mind from waking out of a hypnotic trance of my own making. I am good at this!

Why Do I Defend the Secret?

I like to think I have control of this world, able to make accurate predictions. This keeps me busy working to satisfy survival needs that distract me from knowing the secret. If revealed, the secret might end my fantasy, which might appear as death to me. This because the world I’ve worked so hard to build might be in jeopardy of oblivion. I’m not down for even the thought of that, so I defend myself from the secret – to the death!

I think I fear knowing in most situations more than I fear not knowing. Perhaps I defend the secret because my intention is to be unaware.

Who Defends the Secret?

With secrets, I create and sustain a persona of unawareness in which I experience a sense of me rather than me. I am who I imagine myself to be.

Even when experiences are hard to bear, I’d rather defend a known reality than to seek an unknown alternative. Thus, my limited awareness further limits my awareness.

Perhaps when the fundamental secret is revealed, I’ll discover that it is my intention to limit my awareness by defending the secret.

Limitation by Design

Do I limit my experience – on purpose?

In my bubble of limited awareness, although I believe I live with trillions of other beings, I alone live within my thoughts. Everything and everyone I experience in this dimension of limitation are literally and figuratively phantasms of my imagination. To me “they” are simply concepts in competition with other concepts. My perception of a walrus, for example, is a concept that competes with my concepts of everything else. I’ve limited my perception of this because it is not everything else.

Everywhere and whenever I notice, I’m faced with solid evidence of limited experience in the form of paradox. That is, nothing is as it appears – ever! Everything appears as a paradox of  unreasonable reasons, illogical logic, timeless timeliness, and perceptions of lack in wholeness.

Adaptation = Limitation!

One explanation for this paradox comes from the theory of evolution. I perceive as I do as a result of millions of generations of adaptation to changing environment. Thanks to Mr. Newton, I now know that evolution follows the law of conservation of energy. Thus, it has keenly honed my senses to perceive me in relation to a limited number of needs-related aspects of my present environment. Rather than to compare me to ALL that is not me, I compare me with only that part of not me that I consider matters to me.

I don’t perceive EVERYTHING – even within the limited space of my own body. Just what I NEED to perceive in order to survive long enough to pass my genes along to the next generation. Those senses, skills, and education I don’t need or don’t use often enough fade away. That’s evolution through adaptation.

Attention = Limitation!

In this way, my mind considers every thing, person, or place as a concept.  To manage the perpetual competition among these concepts, and to avoid overwhelm, I limit the number I’ll attend to at any one time. That’s intentional limitation!

Evolution, then, is the result of a paradox in which one must limit their sensual and conceptual life experience in order to fully live.

Purpose = Limitation!

Perhaps the purpose of my life is not the achievement of wholeness – a paradox in that one cannot achieve what one already is. Rather, maybe my life’s purpose is to notice the enjoyment I get from the paradox of limitation by design.

The Unless Option

Within my bubble of limited awareness, my policies conceptualize beliefs in the form of conditional statements, “if/when a condition is true, then do the following action…” It’s straight-forward and simple logic – the kind I use everyday. I perceive something so, I apply an action to it – even when that “action” is to do nothing. This, however, does not account for other options.

What happens when I insert “UNLESS” into my formula?

That is,

  • If/When I think a certain condition is true, then I will do a specific action… UNLESS…

The “unless” option introduces a challenge to my certainty about the original condition. Maybe it’s not true as I perceive it. This applies to every aspect of reality – from objective to subjective. Often this comes up when I realize my actions produced a result contrary to my wishes.

The First Action

In every case my first “action” is to process a thought. Thoughts are perhaps the only “things” I can perceive. For example, my companion says something nice to me. From their appearance to their words to my interpretations and judgements of the situation – all my thoughts.

There are times when thinking is the resultant action. What is the thought that prompted it? Because my thought process looks like, “If this condition (an idea/concept), then this action (a further idea/concept that may appear as physical activity)…” UNLESS…

Unless something else is at play here – which prompts me to ask myself some questions that challenge their underlying belief.

  1. “What ELSE could I be perceiving than what I’m perceiving right now?”
    (“My observation of this situation is right, unless…”)
  2. “How ELSE might I perceive this than how I’m perceiving it right now?”
    (“I’m doing the right thing, unless…”)
  3. “Why ELSE might I perceive what I’m perceiving right now?”
    (“My intention is right, unless…”)
  4. “Who ELSE am I than the one perceiving what I’m perceiving right now?”
    (“I am right, unless…”)

When I practice such thought provocation, I break up stuck thought patterns, clarify my intentions, and promote understanding of what I’m creating.

How Questioning My Manifestation Process May Lead to Enlightenment

Within my bubble of limited awareness, my manifestation process works like a computer input-output (I/O) system. As in a computer, the outcome of a process can provide feedback that modifies the input to the next cycle.

Seems like a fairly straight-forward and simple process – change the input, change the outcome, repeat. Each cycle of the manifestation process provides input to another. Conservation of energy!

Each manifestation cycle starts with an intention that provides input to the process, the outcome of which illustrates and often amplifies the intent. The amplified illustration of intent offers feedback that is much easier to measure than was the input intention that started the process. In simple terms:

Intention in -> amplification process -> amplified illustration of intention out => feedback => intention in to next cycle…

Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO)

Much of the time, my quiet inner intentions are “hidden” behind much louder outcomes that grab my attention later. That means I feel that I’m aware of my intentions later along my timeline than when I set them. Right now, for example, I’m dealing with the manifest illustration of an intention I may have set into process minutes, hours, or days ago – maybe longer.

And then there is the data issue:

Spend enough time in deep enough conversation with artificial-intelligence experts, and at some point, they will all offer up the same axiom: garbage in, garbage out. It’s possible to sidestep sampling bias and ensure that systems are being trained on a wealth of balanced data, but if that data comes weighted with our society’s prejudices and discriminations, the algorithm isn’t exactly better off. AI is evolving much more rapidly than the data it has to work with, so it’s destined not just to reflect and replicate biases but also to prolong and reinforce them. An algorithm, after all, is just a set of instructions.

Of course, there’s another solution, elegant in its simplicity and fundamentally fair: get better data. (Groen, 2018)

What happens when the algorithm trains on poor data? The algorithm simply processes and amplifies whatever data I feed it. When my intention is unclear (garbage in), as it might be when emotionally charged, for example, the machinery of the program will supply my senses with feedback that looks unclear (garbage out) – amplified!

Questioning Manifestation

To manage feedback, I apply awareness-inducing challenge questions. To the degree I’m aware of these questions, I become aware of my true intentions – and maybe myself in the process.

First, let’s take charge of the process by owning it: “My intention led to the outcome I perceive.” Then, let’s reverse the manifestation process to discover our hidden agenda:

  • “What” questions turn observation of outcome into feedback – “What do I feel, hear, and see?” (the manifestation/illustration of intention)
  • “How” questions turn feedback into expressions of intention – “How does this [observation] illustrate my intention?”
  • “Why” questions expose and define intentions – “Why does my intention feel, sound, and appear as I feel, hear, and see it?”
  • “Who” questions challenge the identity of the source of intentions – “Who am I who perceives this as I do?”

What might happen were I to extend this questioning process to EVERY manifestation? Even those that appear to me to be owned by someone else? After all, aren’t my “observations” of others actually MY perception of their process? Am I not the one doing the perceiving and interpreting in my world? When someone I care about is having a difficult time, is it not me who perceives them having a difficult time? I may agree with others that my friend is having difficulty, and yet, is it not me who perceives others in agreement?

Beyond Manifestation

At some point, I may apply the above questions to EVERYTHING I perceive. Until then, questioning that which appears as mine alone will provide a window into the hidden world of my ego and maybe light the passageway into full enlightenment.


  • The Walrus Online, How We Made AI As Racist and Sexist As HumansBy Danielle Groen, Illustration by Cristian Fowlie, Updated 8:56, May. 17, 2018 | Published 10:19, May. 16, 2018.
  • Noble, Safiya Umoja. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. NYU Press. Paperback book available on