LastThursday

A Frequentist Approach Ok, it's not on the original @LastThursday psuedo book list, but it is now: Is there a different way to think about action and doing? For example, for many years I used to smoke (reasons) and then I finally managed to conquer the evil weed and feel so much healthier for it. Another example: I used to run long distance regularly and enjoyed it, but for whatever reasons I've stopped, occasionally I think about starting up again. And a third: I had a friend in secondary school but didn't hang out with her really, after a hiatus of nearly thirty years, we met back up again and now we visit each or talk to each other at least every month. What have all the anecdotes got in common? They're all narrative accounts, and as such they have an implied beginning, middle and end. This feels like an incredibly natural way to describe events, so much so that it seems unnecesary to install a different way of describing events. What are the pros of narrative? The main one is simplicity, because it's narrative, it allows you to easily put across the detail of a related set of events in a neatly packaged way. That package is like a container, say a bottle with liquid in it. The liquid is the juice of the events and what happened, the outer edge of the bottle is the confines of the events (in time). It's mentally simple to handle. What are the cons of narrative? The biggest one is that it forces the story teller to demarcate the events such as there can be a feeling of loss or disconnection when the events have finished. There's a melancholy knowing that you may not ever spend time with someone again, or that youth has slipped through your hands, or whatever. Narrative is final and nostalgic and melancholy. But all is not lost. The reality is that the package of narrative can be thrown away, but the innards kept. Put another way, events in life are loosely coupled to each other and happen in a very staccato fashion. This is what I'm calling the frequentist approach. Take my smoking example. I didn't actually smoke continuously from 19 to 40-something, nope, if you were to plot a graph of exactly when I smoked, it would be a very spiky and irregularly spaced out affair. There were times when I smoking 15 a day and long periods of five years or longer when I didn't smoke at all, other times one or two a day. Seen this way, there isn't really a line in the sand from where I stopped smoking. And, I didn't smoke continuously. Everything is a lot more ill defined and sparse. Maybe it's the same with friends you used to see regularly, and then gradually you saw them less and less and then eventually not for long periods (in my case nearly 30 years). But in the frequentist version, the gaps are acknowledged, from days to decades, however there is no beginning or end. This tallies up quite nicely with how time appears as you get older (time doesn't exist anyway), everything feels like yesterday, thirty years or actually yesterday. So instead of missing friends from university and thinking they're lost forever, I'm quite prepared for the eventually that one day and out of blue they'll turn up again in my life. The same for other things, including smoking and other vices. The bottom line is that anything that is done regularly, is a thing done differently each time. Each time I met my friend Sarah, it was a different day, a different situation and a slightly different Sarah. The narrative approach would have me believe that I met the same Sarah in the same situation for X number of years continously. It's a gross simplification. The frequentist approach I advocate, acknowledges that each meeting was separate and unique and only loosely connected to each other. Hopefully, you get a feel for why this is a gentler way of appoaching events in your life. There's no need to say a final goodbye and bury things, just simply acknowledge that it happened many times before and it could still happen again. But neither do you wait around hoping it will happen again, no, you get on with your life and if it does happen, you're pleasantly surprised and not desperate for it. There are many many recurring events in life, and their frequency changes over time, sometimes abruptly, from daily to weekly, to monthly, to decadely. How many more times will I write in this journal? Don't know, don't care, the frequentist in me says it doesn't matter, the narrator in me is a lot more clingy and neurotic: my god there'll be a time when I never write here again, what a drama, how sad this will be!

The No Way Way What sort of person writes down random made up book titles and then makes journal entries explaining them? This person does. This jocular title was really meant to convey the spirit of spirituality in a lot of ways. It's that nonsensical way in which some spiritual types speak. I think the sentiment behind "The No Way Way" and other things like that - the Ineffable Dao - really comes from Zen teaching (with its roots in Dao), where it's simply used to bypass the thinking mind in order to get through to something more raw and true. Really it's in the same tradition as the logic breaking: "this statement is false", in fact that is the most Zen statement in mathematics. Other than being a mind game to play for Zen enthusiasts, The No Way Way embodies a deep truth about reality. That is no matter what we do or say, in the end all said and told it doesn't matter, or more like, there is no-one there to do or say anything, it simply happens by itself. We all start out trying to have a "way" or method for carrying about our business or seeking enlightenment, and we all end up realising that it's impossible to have a "way" because whatever was said and done was the "way" that it happened. It was a way but it wasn't a way. The circularity can drive some logical types insane. There is also an element of Stoicism in acknowledging that even though you may have a method or way of leading life, whatever happens, happens - life doesn't care about your way. The No Way Way is just an acknowledgement of this fact. Maybe the best way of leading life, is to actively choose not to have a particular method for leading it. That's my way or at least the way I would like to choose.

@soos_mite_ah and @modmyth, I've got to second that. You're both extremely articulate in your journals, and you both write about things I wouldn't even consider or even knew existed. I find it both enlightening and entertaining (even if that's not the aim). And I might be taking notes on style for my journal... Keep it up both! Don't cringe too much

No, your question was clear. Maybe. But you're question is why are people attracted to this sort of jerkish behaviour? And my answer is, is that it reminds people of their parents. Parents sometimes have to be firm, aloof, abrasive, shout at you, ignore you, tell you off and so on: for your own good; and at other times you're their princess and the most wonderful thing that ever graced this earth. As a child you learn to respond to both these types of behaviours - you learn to like it. One day you realise you've crossed the threshold into adulthood, but you still respond well to dickish parental like behaviour. You also enjoy "my special princess" behaviour too. Obviously, the only cure is to grow up and not tolerate being manipulated in this way by other adults. Or do what I do, and just ignore them if possible, and if that doesn't work, be so obstinate and difficult that they eventually learn to treat you with respect.

You mean when some people "parent" others? It's because most people are simply grown up children, and respond well to being treated like a child.

Journal Etiquette Every community needs its rules of conduct, even if these are not explicitly written down. The Journal part of this forum is no exception. There are actually few rules which are enforced here, so there can be a temptation to have a free-for-all approach to interacting with others on here. One feature that is very much missing is being able to keep Journals closed to comments by others. Some journallers wish to have an online space where they can work things through for themselves, but also just to have the ability share in their journeys; but really don't want to interact with others in any way in their journals. Until this feature is added (it should be), then simply putting "Closed" in the title of the journal, should be a good enough signal to others: respect it! I'm not sure if it's possible to delete other people's comments from your journals, but this again should be a feature that's available. Journallers should have complete control over their content. Until then Journallers should be able to request commenters to remove their comments if necessary. Other journallers are more tolerant of people commenting in their journals (me included), but still may not want to have prolonged discussions which disrupt the flow of the journal. I think the journaller should be within their right to simply ask the commenter to move to PM if necessary. Or simply just raise the question in the main forums, where it will get more eyes anyway. Anyone seeing something interesting in someone else's Journal, should first consider if it says "Closed" in the title, if so, then DO NOT COMMENT. Be respectful. You should also consider if your comment is actually helpful to the journaller, or to other people who might read the journal. "Me too" comments should be avoided, except if you have something new and interesting to add to the journal. All comments in a journal should be directed to the journaller, or at least acknowledge them in some way. Having prolonged discussions with other commenters in someone's journal without involving the journaller, is just plain rude and disrespectful, DON'T DO THIS. Any form of personal attack or harassment in a journal is completely out of order, as it would be for any face-to-face interaction. If there is a problem that needs resolving then do it through PM in a civil manner, or involve a mod. It is an extremely underdeveloped attitude to attack others, even if you think you have a right to do so. This forum is about being a developed and conscious human being. Grow up and don't attack people for any reason whatsoever! Do not gossip about or otherwise discuss other journallers in PM without their knowledge. This can lead to bullying, group think and unfair treatment of the one being talked about. Always think to yourself: would I like being talked about without my knowledge? If someone contacts you in PM wanting to discuss another member on this forum without their knowledge, then politely decline. Anyone journaling, should be completely aware that their content is completely public to the internet, even if they don't want comments in their journal. It is unreasonable to expect people not to take your content and comment on it or use it elsewhere without your permission. It is very much a public space. If you don't wish your content to be used in any way, then don't use this public space to journal in, go somewhere else. The journals should be a respectful space for freedom of expression for the journal's owner; and so that others can learn from them.

You don't think that sexual orientation could ever be fluid over a life time? And, if a fetish can be developed why not an orientation for boobs or a beard? If your orientation is programmed at birth, then how does it take into account the huge array of different sizes and shapes of people? Does genetics orient you to find behaviour or appearance or smell attractive? Sorry, braindumping.

What about my attraction to red leather thigh high boots? Must be my genetics...

@Zigzag Idiot that's very true and often with persistent physical pain, such as back pain. It's an intriguing phenomenon, why isn't all pain constant? Why does it rise and fall? My guess is that if pain were uniform and unrelenting (some pain is), then this would be too debilitating and unproductive, it wouldn't give you a chance to fix the causes of the pain. Hmm interesting.

@Zeroguy mind is just the hold music. @mandyjw does that mean you've been out of your mind all this time?

On Pain Pain, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Actually that's not true. In it's plainest form pain is useful for two things: slow down, stop, recover; and, don't do it again. There's two main types of pain, or more like the word pain has more than one definition. The first is bodily physical discomfort, you stand on a Lego brick in bare feet and feel pain. The other type of pain is negative emotion. Your long term partner dumps you and you feel emotional pain. The reason for the conflation of the two pains is that they are both negative sensations, and both can induce bodily sensations. As can be seen from the two definitions of pain, its intention is transparent and innocent. If you were to listen to the pain, and then go ahead and remove the source of the pain, then the pain stops. Pain isn't there to corrupt our lives or to make life miserable, no, in fact it's there to make life less miserable. It's a strong signal that there is something wrong and it needs to be attended to. How does this innocent signalling get corrupted? Mind is linked with emotion. So mind can trigger emotions of all types, including negative painful ones. Emotion is also linked with mind, emotions can trigger thought, and this can set up a negative feedback loop. This means that emotional pain can be self-sustaining, via thought. So instead of looking at the causes of emotional pain and setting those right, or simply just letting go and forgetting negative emotions, the emotional pain is kept alive by repetitive thoughts. In that sense, bodily physical pain is less prone to being corrupted, it's hard for mind to cause physical pain simply through thought. If your hand is too close to the fire, you pull it away; if your boyfriend is mentally abusing you, you should pull away. So what's the best way to interrupt the negative feedback cycle of thought and emotional pain? The main weapon is awareness, an awareness that thought itself can trigger emotional pain. You can't stop thought from arising when it does, but you can disengage from following through. It's a skill that can be learnt, and you start that by meditating and observing thoughts but not letting them take hold, you keep bringing yourself back to some sort of anchor, such as breathing. With enough practice you start to allow yourself not to get involved with thought if you don't want to: you have control. If negative emotions are not constantly re-triggered, they eventually lose their importance: what use is it to feel pain about a girlfriend that dumped you five years ago? None. For those happiness seekers out there, pain is not an opposite to happiness; pain is happiness, its sole intention it return you to equilibrium, equilibrium is then happiness. You don't have to feel pain, but if you don't have pain when it's necessary, you won't adjust course back to equilibrium and happiness. Your default state is happiness. Pain is intelligent and guiding, begin to master thought so it doesn't distract you from pain's lessons.

BTW, since I'm practising this: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20201123-the-psychology-behind-revenge-bedtime-procrastination I thought I would offer some titles for self-help books that could have been (or might actually be) (yes I'm utterly random): On Pain - yellow thunderbolt on the cover The No Way Way - greyish white cover with person walking away on a straight track, all slightly blured and greyscale Fundamental Personhood - partially built brick wall half way up, then blue sky above The Handbook of Death - showing street scene from Mexico's Day of the Dead One Rule For Acing Life - green chalboard on cover with ten rules nine of which have been crossed out Quantum Decision Making - interference fringes looking like a blurred barcode on it's side, greyscale The Manifestation Manifesto - deep purple cover no graphics Forty Days And Forty Nights At Home - large picture of Covid-19 virus, mostly dark reddish colour Son of Buddha - mostly white with stylised mountain scenery in charcoal Circadia - sun on front cover on cyan, moon on back cover on very dark grey Alice in Suburbia - a red curtain with a hand just about to pull it away framed by a white window That's all folks!

I don't know this guy. I don't follow him. I don't know why the YouTube algorithm recommended this. I don't know why I even clicked on it. I don't know why he has more subscribers than Actualized.org. But at least I do know that all corporations are interested in is taking your money. And, this guy explains it all in clear language: Interestingly, I feel temped to go no shampoo. Can I do one month? If I do, then I'll journal all about it.

And it's just as easy to believe that your body is 'inside' consciousness - it's so obvious, here I am having a conscious experience of a body. But then again, with consciousness 'inside' is the wrong word. The body is not really inside consciousness, the body is consciousness (along with everything else).

Predicting the future is a fun excercise to do. I'm no Ray Kurweil, but I have a few ideas that I entertain, some of them seem like near certainties. I have no idea about timescales in general, but you can judge for yourself how long it might be before it happens. Anyway, here's a list of things that I find interesting: Nuclear Fusion - seems to always perpetually be 30 years off. But nonetheless it will happen. Once it really takes hold, it will probably supercede all types of fission reactor, as the waste products (Helium, Tritium) wil be politically and environmentally less sensitive. Also it will complement mainly green energy sources to provide constant output, when the sun doesn't shine. Driverless Vehicles - this is coming soon, and once accepted and deemed as safe as a human driver, will be everywhere. The change will be swift and seemingly overnight. There will be a rapid decline in car ownership, as driverless vehicles will be used more like a taxi or Uber. Electric Vehicles - battery technology will just keep on improving. The infrastructure for electric vehicles will also massively increase. Again I reckon in the next 10 years more than 50% of cars will be electric or hybrid. Hydrogen Aeroplanes - the first hydrogen powered aeroplane will be produced in 10-15 years, and the industry will never look back. Tailored Gene Therapy - gene therapy will be a lot more readily available, cheaper and safer. A large number of genetic diseases will be curable or at least controllable. Smaller and less debilitating genetic conditions, will also be treatable. Fast Vaccine Rollout and Turnaround - the current pandemic will hugely increase our ability to create and rollout new vaccines, as new viruses take hold. The length of time needed to create vaccines will allow us to keep many diseases in check, quickly and effectively. A.I will help create new vaccines. Age Reversal - this nut will be cracked and damage caused by age to most cells will be reversible, giving people more youthful appearances and allowing most people to hugely extend their lifespan. If this can be done for all parts the of the body, then indefinite lifespans will become normal. In the very long term, this will be made available to everybody. This will have complex and unknown ramifications for society. Biological 3D Printing - this will continue to evolve to the point where most major organs (except the brain), will be replaceable and grown from your own stem cells. This will complement and be part of the Age Reversal process. To a degree this technology is already here. Bone, cartilage and muscle will be printed for reconstructive surgery, and perhaps for cosmetic plastic surgery. There will be fringe groups practising self body augmentation. People with organ damage such as heart disease will have new organs printed, and be fully compatible with their bodies. Automation - artificial intelligence will continue to evolve and will infiltrate the work place. Whilst this is just a trend that's been happening since the Industrial Revolution began, it will accelerate over the next 10-30 years. Whilst it may seem that large numbers of people will be out of work, capitalism is inherently greedy and will want to put all those "spare" people to work on the things A.I. can't do. It won't be an end to wage slavery. The range of things to which A.I. will be put to use will surprise everyone. Universal Basic Income - whilst there's a lot of wrangling about this at the moment, it will become acceptible eventually as different countries compete with each other to put this in place. If automation increases unemployment, UBI will help people lead poverty free lives. There will be constant downward pressure on UBI as this is not compatible with free market capitalism. But UBI will increase over time as people see the benefits of it. UBI will not be a panacea however, most people will still want to work because they are not able to provide a purpose for themselves. Hyperrealistic Androids - the different strands of robotics will converge to create an artificial human. There will be a huge range of other robots in many different areas - they will be widespread and accepted in society. But humanoid robots will create the most disruption to society. They will initially be rare, but become common place especially in care and hospital settings, but also for the sex industry (this already happens), and dangerous situations or jobs (e.g. riot police or military). Facial gestures, mannerisms and voice will be extremely lifelike. There may be measures put in place so that androids can be readily distinguished from humans. Androids will have special laws around safety, legal responsibility, status as people. You will be able to marry an android, or adopt an android child. Virtual Reality - directly interfacing with the brain, will become more common, but not universal. This may be especially so for amputees with synthetic limbs (although these may well be biologically 3D printed in future) that need to be finely controlled. But this technique will also be used to directly stimulate vision, sound, and touch areas of the brain, giving full immersion. Computer graphics capabilities will become so advanced that it will be nearly indistiguishable from reality (albeit of a possibly fantasy world). The first Brain VR game will appear in the next 30 years. Virtual People and CGI - with advances in A.I. and computer graphics, it will be possible to create fully realistic intelligent characters for computer games, as avatars for work meetings, and as stand ins for you, allowing you to effectively clone your online presence. Laws will need to be put in place to allow your virtual doppelganger to transact on your behalf. Your virtual persona will do your biding as a proxy for you. You could also choose to be a completely different person, under your complete control. This will be used for instances where complete anonymity is needed, but still allow you to express yourself (even as someone of a different or neutral gender, ethnicity and so on). Video for consumption (such as YouTube) will be able to be completely realistic CGI freeing up content creators. Capturing 3D spaces will be very common, and will nearly eliminate the need to film on location. Eventually, video will not be admissable as evidence, as it can't be trusted. Impersonation will be rife. The porn industry will employ very few actors, CGI will be the norm. Dream and Thought Capture - people's innermost thoughts will be captured by computer. It will be possible to record sounds and visual images being imagined by a person, using sophisticated A.I. (this is already being done) and potentially direct brain interfacing . This will have implications for security and passwords will be phased out in favour of biometric log in for most things. You may eventually have a device (some sort of evolved smart phone), that records everything and allows you to review and remember what was said and done. This will be useable legally by authorities. Super Smart Phones - it's hard to know how smart phones will evolve, but form factor will become a lot slimmer (possibly credit card thin), batteries will last for weeks (solid state batteries are coming), and computing power will rise exponentially. You will be able to walk around a room with your phone, create a 3D virtual scene instantly and populate it with completely realistic CGI people (maybe of yourself), automatically create a video and post it on social media. Smart phones may also monitor your vital signs and automatically alert authorities of impending medical conditions. They will monitor absolutely every aspect of your life and be able to organise and assist you when necessary. Every smart phone will have a sophisticated and completely general A.I. built into them, it will function like a human in a credit card form factor. Talking of which, credit cards and money will completely disappear be replaced by these phones. You'll still be able to make calls, but people will laugh at you for being "ancient".

What is the best way to play the game of intent and consent in sexual attraction? I don't have definite answers, but I'm going to try my best to explore this in a rational way in what follows. Let's lay the groundwork. I'm asuming that these are given: It's impossible to read someone's mind directly. The only way of proceeding in a situation is with information. Are these two things related to each other? In order to proceed in a sexual scenario, decisions have to be made on whether to act or not to act, to escalate or not. All good decisions are based on having enough information to work with. If there isn't enough information, there is a risk the decisions may end up being a bad ones. By bad decision, I mean the whole spectrum of outcomes from not achieving your intention, to potential trouble with authorities, and to causing prolonged suffering for all involved. The first point indicates quite clearly that you should be extremely suspicious of "I know what they are thinking" type of ideation, or "I just know they feel the same way". It is in fact not possible to know this at all. The only thing that can be relied upon is the information being communicated by the other person. Most of the time the signals (information) given by another a person are ambiguous or lacking. No form of communication is perfect. Information can be ignored, badly communicated, or misinterpreted. Acting on imperfect information risks a bad outcome. We also rely on a personal mental model of attraction to fill in the blanks in information. Perhaps we're taught that information about reciprocal sexual interest is often held back deliberately: "she's playing hard to get". And that, for example, this is simply a way of testing your persistence or ability to follow through? There are a thousand and one other ways to "fill in" missing information. This modelling is both useful and a distraction at the same time. Both parties may have dysfunctions in the way they communicate intent and consent, and having a mental model of what should happen "on average" in a situation can help here. On average, women and men behave differently within sexual attraction, and that can help in making decisions on escalating. However, everyone is different, and it can be impossible to know one person's particular way of presenting their intent or consent. To a large degree, some risk has to be taken in order to obtain good information. But this requires the person taking the risk to be very mindful of the reaction to their risk taking. A sexual scenario can proceed in fits and starts until both parties have enough information to work with, until they are certain of each other's intent and consent. One important part of mental modelling is empathy, that is, seeing the situation from the other person's point of view. This may involve taking into consideration other people outside of the immediate situation, and whether the person is in fact able to escalate in any meaningful way. Another, is whether both your intents mesh well together. Maybe you simply want sex, but the other person wants a family. There may be clues, or you might have suspicions about intent. There will be a large amount of non-verbal signalling within sexual attraction, and maybe even more so than with verbal signalling. Signals can be subtle and overlooked or misinterpreted. Again a risk has to be taken, but the reaction read as clearly as possible and paid attention to. Broadly, the reaction is either good or bad, proceed or stop. If the reaction is verbal, then take it at face value and act on it immediately. Being that gathering information is key to starting a sexual relationship, one strategy is to simply ask up front for information. That is, when enough signals of interest are given, and before escalating further. Obviously, in the heat of the moment, if things are escalating quickly, then no more information is needed. But in more ambiguous and drawn out situations, it may be prudent to outwardly ask for more information. Now, it could be that doing so will upset the dynamic in an established but ambiguous relationship, but it servers two purposes. Firstly, it gives you information on which to make better decisions by, perhaps by both sides. Secondly, it forces the other person to think about what they want and to resolve the ambiguity. Both parties should be "grown up" enough to take the consequences. If the relationship doesn't survive this, then no more needs to be done - open communication is critical for ongoing relationship in any case. What does consent mean? It simply means "yes proceed". But consent may not be given verbally, so either experience is needed or some amount of risk taking is necessary to establish if consent is given. By risk, I mean a small amount of escalation, but that's highly dependent on the situation, there's no one rule for it. But, touching escalates more than talking for example. Maybe a verbal risk can be taken, or a very light and quick physical touch can, it depends on context. If the reaction is neutral, and not negative, then care can be taken to see if furher escalation is possible. There may be a limit of escalation at which the other person simply says "no" or reacts negatively, in which case you should de-escalate immediately and perhaps disengage from the situation entirely if appropriate. Or if other positive signals were given, to give space to the other person to make a decision for themselves if they consent or not. It may be they have other concerns and you're not fully aware of their context. By giving consent, they themselves may be taking a risk. Patience is needed. Ok that's enough. It's good to get my thoughts out. A lot of this happens very quickly and instinctively in a "live" situation, it takes practice to embody it fully.

Plenty of the things I talk about I haven't investigated in depth (spoiler). Mostly it's scraps of learning I've picked up here and there and then a bunch of observation and intuition. That means that I'm probably wrong at times, but that's just fine, you'd be kidding yourself if you think you have a perfect understanding of the world; nobody does. Our knowledge and understanding is a constant work in progress. How solid is reality? This would seem like a non-question. Reality is reality right? There's the ethereal world of thought and emotion and then there's stuff you can throw around and it hurts if it hits you. It's a binary world if anything. What about the stuff in between, is there anything there? I would say yes, but it's uncommon. There is a kind of semi-world of not quite thought and not quite solid. This makes perfect sense if we regard thought and solid reality as a continuum, two parts of the same thing: a unity. The solid world of reality is thought in the last analysis, and that goes in both directions; it's then just left to philosophy to decide whose thought it is. What kinds of things fall into this semi-real category? Ghosts, daemons, UFOs, other dimensions, timeslips, tulpas, Bigfoot, Electronic Voice Phenomena, telepathy. These are the staple of paranormal investigations. They're unscientific, mostly because they are not fully solid and therefore experiments can't be performed on them. They can be highly personal experiences, but they may also be shared with other people. But largely they're one off events or at least very prone to very specific circumstances and set ups. I say they can't be dismissed. We want to believe. Can any of this be forced in some way? Can we turn thought into a wispy reality, or even go so far as to let others see our creations? If we put aside whether thought is under our control or not, we are talking here about ambiguity and belief: is it thought or is it solid? Both. How to even start? Take the art of tulpamancy (https://www.reddit.com/r/Tulpas/), here we set up a thoughtform from scratch. This is very much like building up a character in a novel say, where we imbue them with attributes and characteristics of their own. Eventually, they become autonomous. This may seem fanciful, but the people in your dreams behave this way, they recoil when you try and kiss them (say, lol), they have autonomy. Once a tulpa is autonomous then s/he can then take the next step and become solid - obviously with their blessing. This semi-reality of thoughtforms overlaps with areas such as bi-location: seeing people in two places at once (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilocation). In this case the thoughtform (of the bi-locator) has become real enough to be experienced by other people. Or take the Scandinavian experience of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vardøger. I expect that if you force a tulpa ("forcing" is putting time and energy into its creation), and then maybe share this tulpa with someone else, then the chances of it manifesting into semi-solid reality would be higher. The idea that strong belief (thought) can create forms "out there", has legs. Are UFOs for example real or not? Are they thought or reality? I would say it sits right in that point between the two. They are brought into existence by thought. Again, don't get confused, thought probably doesn't belong to you. The source of thought is the same source that creates UFOs, they are both manifestations of the same source, thought is then only correlated to reality - cause and effect is woolly here. This is why it's dismissed by science, which deals with hard cause and effect, or at least with mathematically provable cause and effect: probability theory. Probability theory requires a large number of events to get any juice out of it: https://home.cern/science/accelerators/large-hadron-collider. UFOs can't be cracked by probability theory, there aren't enough events. What all this is touching on is that thought influences or at least is correlated to some sort of solid reality. This is both stupidly obvious - I think about moving my arm and it moves - and also extremely subtle - I knew that you'd call me and you did. The Law of Attraction is simply an extension of arm moving, I have a thought and then three months down the line, it becomes solidly real. We don't quite believe it when it happens, because the intervening three months has made us forget and the cause and effect is ambiguous and ill defined. There is even hard scientific evidence that at least on the quantum level that thought influences reality (https://www.originsofconsciousness.com/origins-of-consciousness/new-evidence-of-mind-over-matter2). Even more mind blowing is that observation (a.k.a. thought) affects the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser, at least on the quantum scale. The meta view of all this, is that at some level, thought is indistinguishable from solid reality. And also, that there is a whole spectrum between pure thought and pure solid reality. Be careful what you wish for.

I often think back to those three short years I spent at university. I wasn't aware of it at the time, but it really was a sharp change in my circumstances. I had managed to escape the misery and loneliness of being a teenager of effectively a one parent family: and I was welcomed with loving arms into a new family of like minded individuals. I gradually learned to be an adult and self sufficient over my time there. One other thing that nearly escaped my attention was how diverse my immediate set of friends were. Growing up in inner London, I had been exposed to different ethnicities and cultures early on, indeed having a foot in two cultures myself, this never felt unnatural to me. However, at university this was taken to another level, and I felt very at home with it. I'm really not sure if I naturally gravitated to having friends of different cultural backgrounds, or if with hindsight it was simply my openness and willingness to speak to anybody who would listen to me. It became a running joke at one point that our immediate clump of friends were like the Benetton adverts going around at the time. I personally went out with a Dutch/Nigerian (who gave me a run for my money in intelligence and only 17 at the time!). There were two Hong Kong Chinese mates doing psychology - a discipline that couldn't be any further from the engineering I was doing - turns out right at the end of university one of them was gay. There was a gaggle of Pakistani girls who were a good fun, and one of the them married the other Chinese bloke after he converted to Islam. My other good friend was a Ugandan Asian who eventually conceded that I was better than him at maths, when I did his final year computer graphics project for him (!) That guy also new Libyans, other Ugandans and a shy Mauritian who I variously hung out with. I used to play pool regularly with a black Ugandan (doing computer science) who always had an eye for the women and would regularly turn up to try and woo one of the few white Anglo women I had as a friend (she was another super intelligent engineer, and I fancied the pants of her too). In my final year I frequented with a Sri Lankan, and Indian, and a London Asian (Pakistani extraction I think?), oh yes and a couple more Nigerians. Anyway, I really do miss that diversity of experiences and the many Asian weddings I went to were great fun! Middle class suburbia is just so staid in comparison: I need more cultural excitement in my life. This was us, but we were waaaay less trendy:

That's 100% correct. However, a normie wouldn't see it that way, they would think they were normal.

It's the normies running the asylum. I count myself lucky to have strayed on to the path, even if it's hard sometimes.

I can see it now, all black, with ominous large white letters: "KNOWING" "Leo" "Gura".

Just the idea of tiny houses appeals very much to my minimalist tendencies. The following shows that you don't need to have complex skills to build a house, just banging and screwing:

So @LastThursday what style of music do you like? ?

Stop thinking, Start Living by Richard Carlson. Does what it says on the tin.