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.

Sources:

  • 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 Amazon.com.
Please follow and like us:

The Right to Serve and Be Served

I Have the Right!

I live in bubble awareness where being right confers a sense of having the right to place expectations on others.

Insistence upon exercising my right validates my belief that I’m living as a separate entity. As separate, I place a level of importance on my needs that others should meet. That level of importance takes the value of others with the intention of declaring them as my own. The more service others give me, the greater my perceived value.

I want to believe I have the right to be served without serving. Taking what I value from others – as though it were mine to take – gives me a sense of authority. As I see it, that authority gives me implicit permission to choose and judge the way others should serve me.

In my bubble, authority means “the right to have, do, and be what I want.” This and my sense of separation gives me a feeling of power  over you. That assumed power validates itself. My concept of rights stems from the fear associated with survival – where the strong survive and the powerful prey upon the weak.

When I judge that I have been adequately served, I feel whole. I feel unwhole when I judge that I have been inadequately served. In this way, I experience my internal self-judgement as an externalized projection, in which I see service in terms of competition between opposing states of mind.

I Sustain the Right

In my separateness, I perceive I must exert my will over that of others to survive. To satisfy this constant sustaining of needs and demands of the will, I expect others to serve me. This creates an emptiness I can’t fill on my own and so I assume power over those I need to serve me.

Recognizing I have needs is my reminder of my choice to defend separation. In separation I can compete and win even when I appear to be losing. By making my opponent appear weaker than me.

When I DO something, it’s right and/or justified. When you DO the same thing, it’s questionable or somehow wrong. Check it out –

When I… I’m… When you do the same thing, you’re…
pass a test… smart! lucky or you cheated.
say it… witty. offensive!
slip and fall… embarrassed. a klutz!
spend money… thrifty. excessive.
tell a falsehood… realistic. a liar!
feel hurt… justified. a drama queen!

This way of thinking maintains my superior view of life. Serving my needs is what’s most important.

I Re-serve the Right

As need dictates my reasons and my rights, I  justify the struggle others must face to fulfill those needs. I provide them a service in exchange for their fulfillment of my needs by setting up a belief in the dominance of my demands. This makes one pause and wonder who is really serving who?

Perspective makes a difference. When I view the workers in a beehive as slaves to the queen, I maximize the value the queen plays in the benefit to the colony. When I view the queen as the slave to the colony, I maximize the value of the workers. This based on how I view myself in relation to others.

In any system there are interdependent, complementary “serve” and “be served” characteristics. By changing perspective to one of equal service to one another, the slave concept disappears.

A tiny shift in perspective results in a huge shift in perception.

Please follow and like us:

Choosing to Just Say No to Choice!

One of my favorite teachers used to say, “It’s not a choice if you can’t say no.” And, of course, there was the 1980s drug interdiction mantra, “Just say no!” That didn’t work out as well as it maybe could have.

What about biased choices? Might the kind of preconceived thinking that are characteristic of bias taint the outcome? And thereby nullify any benefit I might realize from the option? In this case, would there even be an alternative? Maybe my mistake is in believing I am actually making a choice.

 When choosing IS the experience.

Consider how my choice mechanism works within the First-Second Degree of Illumination bubble:

  1. I feel bad.
  2. So, I identify a lack or problem…
  3. That makes me look for a solution.
  4. I accept a solution that satisfies my bias…
  5. Then defend that biased solution as the solution.
  6. This results in regret, and search for a scapegoat…
  7. I feel bad.

If I’m not choosing, what am I doing, then?

Looking at the cyclical nature of my selection mechanism, I’d have to admit that I’m mostly about defending my biases and preconceived notions as truths.

Moving Beyond Choosing

Perhaps it’s time to move beyond this kind of non-choosing defensiveness that in the end simply validates my rightness. Maybe it’s time to investigate another option – one I’ve encountered in the Aha Zone.

The option I refer to is that of Third Degree of Illumination awareness. This level of understanding is perhaps best described as a flash of inspiration – in which, I am faced with a choice between two options that quickly dissolve into no options. One of the two options is that of awakening into acceptance of my accountability for my life – Fourth Degree of Illumination awareness. The other option is to accept the default back to bubble awareness and confirmation that I am right and suffering is real. Back to my choice mechanism that’s worked so well in the past!

What if choosing Fourth Degree of Illumination is not what I think it is, safely inside my defensive bubble of dim awareness. I know what choosing looks like inside my bubble. Perhaps that is why I don’t recognize Third Degree of Illumination choosing when it flashes itself like an explosion into my consciousness.

Within my bubble awareness, I look for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. What if living is not a problem looking for a solution – rather, an expression of consciousness? No choice to make. And so I propose:

Choose to just say no to choice!

Please follow and like us:

Bias in a World of Polarity and Duality

Within my First-Second Degree of Illumination bubble, I perceive reality as duality.  In a system or universe of polarity, there’s bound to be duality. My need to separate out and choose what’s best for me, biases my perception  towards a polarity. I move from a neutral perception, where everything has equal status for my use, into a polarized view of what’s right and what isn’t. What I feel is right and believe has value to me, I consider useful.

What I convince myself is the best choice, biases my experience. This biased polarity becomes the base of my story and intention.

How polarity biases my choice and my experience

From my perspective, I compare everything based on my relationship to it. Due to this centrist bias, I feel I must understand how that relationship functions and then control it in my favor. My judgements derive from this polarity in perspective – my sense of self (the bias-favored “I”) vs not self (them). I vs them then becomes the poles of my duality reality.

How I keep my “earth” at the center of the universe!

Everything in a system has a value that defines its role in the system. Polarity grows out of this value judgement by dividing value from value – like positive vs negative, male vs female, and etc. Thus, my polarities are defined in terms of my VALUES for ME and THEM. The competition between I vs them is actually a competition between apparently objective, yet actually subjective “measurements” of values. Since I bias the comparison in my own favor, I never get to see you in terms of your intrinsic value – only in terms of my own prejudiced value. I affect reality by defining poles in terms of self-centric weighted values!

How much of this and that falls within my paradigm defines the poles of my dualistic universe. The polarities I perceive in duality that I think I understand may be much broader than my conscious awareness of it. Because I hold fast to my belief of ME as the center of the universe, and resist considering alternatives, I may be limiting what I CAN experience. I’ve set the values for polarity within the bounds of safety, propriety, and rightness.

What if there is more beyond my polarized boundaries? Like connection?

  • What other perspectives might I explore?
  • How might a change in my perspective change our experience?
  • Why do I limit myself to just one perspective?
  • Who are we beyond my polarity?
Please follow and like us:

Why Speed-Reading of People Is a Biased Assumption

Living in defense demands that I quickly form survival impressions and act on them accordingly – speed being an essential element.

Because I believe threats to my safety exist at all levels of my being, can I afford not to speed-read my environment?

The need for speed may be an ancient survival aspect of instinct in which fast action was vital to life. I still find this aspect useful in the fast-paced modern world I live in today. My ego uses bias – a heuristic, a shortcut in which I rely on the meme, “good enough, fast enough.”

I infuse my biased assumptions with essentialism. I categorize people and things according  to my perception of their essential nature, in spite of variations.

My biased programs apply physical signs of threat to non-physical levels. For example, I might see all persons larger than me as threatening.

Read more Why Speed-Reading of People Is a Biased Assumption

Please follow and like us: