The World is my Guru and my Sustenance, Attaining Transcendent Experience, Aspects of the Model of Intention (#1570)

Related Documents:
(#1415) SMN, Free Will and Unification of Paradigms
(#1470) Religion/Spirituality, Energy/Information and the Unification of Material and Spiritual Science
(#1495) Relative/Absolute Reality, Empirical/Transcendent, Experience/Knowledge, Unification of Material and Spiritual Sciences and the Coming Paradigm Shift
(#1639) Breaking the Code of Secrecy, the Cosmic Dance includes Light and Dark, the Process of Awakening, the Human Collective Paradigm Shift, plus some comments from the I Ching (#1639)
(#1640) Paradigm Shifts and the Changing Nature of what is 'Fact' (#1640)
(#1663) System Theoretic Metaphysics and the Unification of the Transcendent and Empirical Sciences
Also see other excerpts from my discussions with the Society for Scientific Exploration.

re: postings 1507 & 1508

Thank you for your insightful responses. Sorry for the delay in replying, I have been very busy and have now temporarily relocated from India to London. I go where the flow takes me.

I first respond to some questions about myself as well as the unification of the physical and spiritual sciences, then I address some questions about specifics of the mathematical model of intentional influence.

Re: posting 1507
> You must be lucky to have found a good initiatory system
> or Master that aided your personal experiences of the Ultimate.

I have never belonged to any spiritual or religious tradition and have never had a human guru or teacher. I have been a solitary skeptic for most of my life, unable to 'believe' anything unless I know it deep within. That knowing has only occurred in recent years through gradual realisations. I am sometimes asked "who is your Guru?" and I can only answer that God is my guru. The cosmic essence permeates everything and it is everything that is my teacher. Ordinary everyday events contain profound lessons for anyone who is open to them. By not seizing and controlling life, by not forcing ones limited understanding and often misguided agendas upon life one remains open to the subtle flow and rhythm of life. In this way life becomes a harmonious and deeply meaningful flow of events and it is in this respect that the world is my teacher.

The book "Total I Ching: Myths for Change" by Stephen Karcher says, regarding the hexagram 'Following' - 17:
"Through Following, a very basic and much-prized quality, you are in direct touch with the flow of the Way. You insert yourself into the universal flow of events, the river of time, and are thus able to conform effectively and spontaneously to the unfolding of the moment... your accumulated power and virtue (transcendent insight) connects with the flow of events in such a way that the spirit moves into the world through you... It suggests accepting the spirit's influence gladly, letting yourself be moved and drawn, being connected to the Way, one foot in the world of light, one foot in the darkness."

See a Brief Intellectual History of my Work:

> Many people are not that lucky and it is probably best
> to remain grounded here than to risk exposing oneself to
> illusion or risk being unintelligible.

It is risky to direct one's attention away from 'playing' the game and toward 'understanding' the game, especially when you are surrounded by avid game players who cannot comprehend that there is something to life other than playing the game. These are definite risks but if one does not take risks one cannot escape the common sense illusion. The most important thing is to have an open mind - fully open and willing to accept realisations even if they cause havoc in one's current life because the common sense world-view is built upon fundamental misunderstandings and any paradigm shift is a difficult and risky process. If one remains grounded in (attached to) the common sense illusion one may not ever break through it and move beyond it - that to me is an even greater risk.

> How can one acquire the right training for a transcendential
> experience?

There is no 'correct' way and each must find their own. But there are some general principles. A few of which are:
Detachment: which disentangles one from the game,
Awareness: that penetrates through the veil of sensory appearances,
Intuition: that the universe is not random and incoherent, which opens you up to the deeper patterns and rhythms of the universe and which leads to definite understanding of the true nature of reality.

It is ultimately the cultivation of a deeply personal relationship with one's own inner most being, with one's Self and thereby with the inner most essence of the cosmos. It is coming to identify oneself as an intrinsic part of the cosmos, not as an isolated individual that must mechanistically struggle through a random profusion of material phenomena. That is just the illusion of the senses, it is not the true nature of reality.

To use the computational analogy of a virtual reality game; we are not characters within a game, that is just how it seems through the senses; in truth we are modifications of a virtual-reality generative information process. Our own consciousness is the cosmic consciousness, but when directed through the senses into the game we become entangled within that virtual environment and we become bound by the limitations of the game.

If you chose to draw upon the accumulated wisdom (physical and spiritual sciences) then some caution is required. These are symbolic abstractions derived from experiences but each tradition contains both truth and delusion, and they are surrounded by a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding. It is wise to utilise several approaches so that one can discern the common underlying truth and disregard the many cultural embellishments and distortions.

> it is not enough to propose the good idea of integrating
> the material and the spiritual... We need to ask; How can
> we integrate science and the spiritual? If we know ...
> then the shift will occur naturally, rather than advocating
> for a paradigm shift about what we do not know.

I fully agree. When I say that I 'propose' I do not mean that I advocate it as a good idea, I mean that I am putting forward a clearly defined method of approach. I strongly feel that the conceptual and mathematical approach that I call the "computational paradigm" provides a coherent foundation upon which to work toward the unification of the empirical and spiritual sciences. It gives a perspective that is mathematically representable and which comprehends both the transcendent dynamics and the empirical dynamics of reality and it defines exactly how these two relate to each other. I see it as an information/system theoretic reconceptualisation of ancient wisdom. There is no easy way to convey the full implications of this in a few paragraphs - the whole of my website ( is a series of different perspectives on this and other closely related issues. It requires deep contemplation and subtle paradigm shifts within one's own thinking to be able to see the true potential of such an approach. It is not a product of the old paradigm and it cannot be comprehended from within that paradigm.

> I am sure that funds will not come for this type of research.

Perhaps not for the work that is directly related to spirituality because there is too much prejudice and misunderstanding, however, as our understanding of the holistic nature of reality increases this inevitably leads to profound insights and new technologies, which themselves would be of interest even to those who are trapped in materialist superstitions. For example, from my own work there arises a new mathematical model of a "general system" which is also a model of "general distributed computation". This provides an algorithm that gives insight into and control over all information dynamics within complex systems. This has the potential to revolutionise the IT industry and the way that humans design, create, manage and analyse systems of all kinds.
More info on this aspect:
Notice to Software Developers:
Notice to Scientists:

I have yet to find anyone to respond to these claims seriously, people have been silent, but there are many people anonymously browsing through the source code and mathematics on my website, many of whom are associated with various companies around the world. Perhaps it will have to be commercially developed before scientists will accept that it is possible for such a thing to exist. For a software developer there need not be difficult issues of metaphysics and world views and so on, they simply need to realize that it is an effective algorithm for processing complex information, hence perhaps it may be more easily accepted and developed in that context.

By this example I am saying that there is a core work that is too controversial to gain direct support but arising from this there will be many profound ramifications that will make their mark on the world and will thereby gradually muster support and acceptance for the core work.

> if you are funded, then you better do not let the world
> know you are being paid for this.

Just as the world is my teacher it is also my support. I gave up all responsibility for my own support and threw myself upon the mercy of the universe, trusting that if my work was to go ahead then circumstances would mobilise to sustain it. And the world has looked after me with constant and attentive care. Working through the hearts of others and through random events all of my needs have been met. When one is in the flow of the cosmic dance then the whole world moves about one in the most beautiful harmony, which could never have been planned and managed. It is said that the sage keeps to the path of non-action that leaves nothing undone. The cosmos is intelligent and it wants to be known, it will support you if you approach it with openness and sincerity. However if you approach it through egoic isolationist mechanistic concepts and you try to seize it and control it then life inevitably becomes a struggle and the profound creative potential within each moment is lost.

For a while I was exploring the avenue of forming a company to develop and market the software and then to channel those funds into an organization who's purpose was to explore and communicate the metaphysical and spiritual dimensions - however I came to realize that this whole approach was based on an underlying distrust of the process - I was thinking that I needed to control it. In the end I have given it out for free and let it spread primarily by word of mouth. I chose to let the world do what it will with the new technology and new ideas, and I trust that the process will unfold according to the same harmonious dance of creative energies that has given rise to it. It is a small part of a much larger process, an inevitable paradigm shift that cannot be controlled, a phase transition of the human collective consciousness.

Re: posting 1508

> does your model factor in the strength of opposition.

Yes it does. In the document Mathematics of Intention, in the files section of SSE, there is an example of two people willing for opposing outcomes for a single binary system. This can be extended to more people, more systems, more complex systems, different degrees of focus or will power and so on.

In the case of competing wills, the model shows that they cancel each other out. If they both have equal will power and equal focus but are willing for opposite outcomes of a binary system then there will be no net effect and all the effort becomes entropy or wasted effort. If the system had more states than just two then the two states willed for would be more likely to occur and the other states would become less likely.

> basically your model makes good sense, but you may need
> to modify it after various runs or trials.

Very true. The main point at which the model can be tuned is the value of 'e'. It need not be the base of the natural logarithm, it might be some other value. This could be determined by experiment.

> One thing I do not really grasp is your use of force.

The word 'force' is just a mnemonic, D.A originally defined it as nomicity (management) but I personally found the word force more useful. However if you wish to understand the concept accurately then forget all words and just look at the mathematics. For signals of any kind the amplitude can take positive or negative values and the square of the amplitude is the power of the signal. In this model the signal power is the will power and what I describe as force is simply the positive square root of the will power - it is the magnitude of the will amplitude, which is then distributed to various target states via the focus. Thus it is the magnitude of the active will that is available to be directed toward system states and to thereby influence them.

> this does not account for speed or velocity ... a few
> masters can make things work faster than hundreds of novices.

In the context of the computational model of reality all processes are event driven and thereby operate only in the moment - the eternal Now as some people call it. As the moments blur together our minds experience emergent phenomena such as time, space, speed, velocity, force and so on.

In the model of intentional influence it is the focus of the will and the sustained focus over successive moments that characterizes a master from a novice. The master's will is tightly focused and it does not waver, thus they produce more pronounced effects much faster than a novice.

> do not assume that intentional focus goes into free space.

In the model the intentional focus is directed at particular system states. In the context of the model the dynamics are not occurring in space and any concept of free space is a high level emergent phenomenon of our experience of reality - i.e. space and time are products of the mind, they are a part of relative reality, a part of the game rather than the underlying information dynamics that manifests and sustains the game.

If by "goes into free space" you meant 'unfocused' and without a particular target then I can only say that " intentional focus" must be focused in some way, hence it does not go into free space.

> The more the complexity the less the probability of
> success in any event processing.

Very true, this is one of the properties of the model. I call this the state space reduction effect. Two other effects I call power/amplitude magnification and renormalisation reduction. These all operate to different degrees in different scenarios, sometimes competing and cancelling and sometimes constructively reinforcing each other. The interplay of these determine the resulting effectiveness of intentional influence on a system and knowing how to manage these can increase one's effectiveness.