written in November '05

About the Walls

This is just a little paradigm about paradigms I wanted to write for some time.

Every reality vector that has a higher tolerance than another reality vector will not be accepted. Because of reality being a subjective interpretation, there is no absolute right or wrong.

Let's say person A has the reality vector RA, person B the vector RB. If A makes a statement that is not in the reality tunnel of B (or to say: not inside the tolerances of RB) B won't accept the statement as true.

Instead, B will be pretty sure that he's right and A's wrong.

A might come to the same conclusion, depending on it's own vector. If RA's range of tolerance does not include B's point of view, he will think that B simply didn't understand. But that's not the only option.

If A has a wider reality vector so that RB can fit into it, there will only be a single-direction disagreement. Another interesting experience is that if A tries to enlarge B's tolerance level, so RA could fit into it, this won't work.

I can already hear you scream “But that's wrong! If people understand what you say, they can be convinced.” That's true indeed, but to convince someone he has to accept your arguments. And to accept your arguments, they have to be tolerated as true by that person and therefore have to be already in his reality vector tolerance.

If you're convincing someone of something he didn't accept as truth, you "proved" your point by arguing inside his tolerance borders. So the path was there, it just wasn't walked. You can't - except by force - convince someone of something he fully interprets as wrong. Reality is a very, very individual game and only the people themselves can change the rules of their vector.

Popular Examples

Here are a few examples of often upcoming discussions.

Morals

I guess this is the typical example that everyone, who's mentality is spiced by satanic viewpoints, experiences sooner or later. I guess you've already seen vegetarians fighting with carnivores over the Holy Grail Of Being-Good.

But let's not make it easy, let's take an example that's not so obvious: Death.

It indeed sucks if someone we love or care about has died. It is bad for me, because I can't see this person anymore, I can't talk to this person anymore.

But how bad is it for the guy that sold me my breakfast today? He lost nobody, nothing changes for him. I wouldn't expect him to be downed by the fact that I lost someone.

If we take this a step further, we could also have a look at how bad the death of a human being is in a larger scale - or should I say: How good?

Facing the (undeniable) excess population we got ourself on our sweet little planet, every dead human is a step towards a human / nature equilibrium, towards freedom and towards less regulations.

Change brings possibilities, change means the powerful circle of birth and death. You have to break down a house to build a better one, imagine we would keep all our old houses. The earth - or also: our universe - seems to be a (more or less) closed system (paradigm-wise), not Santa Clause' magical sack, where all the wonderful things come out. Everything that dies releases it's essences back to the system and becomes the source for everything that is going to emerge.

You might say that there were deaths that affected whole societies. True, in some sense. 'Cause if you think of it, was that society directly affected by the death of a person? Or did this death have an impact on so many individuals (microcosm) that you could observe the effects in the whole society (macrocosm)?

Viability

Some people - in recent times especially constructivism-geeks - like to tell me (no, others too) that I'm wrong with my critiques based on the viability of a model of reality.

Of course it's true that functionality is a good indicator for a good model! The problem comes when people try to convince others of their models by arguing with their valuations of "viability."

This discussions usually don't take very long, as my sense of viability is often not recognised as viable enough. Another impression I had was that this people don't even know what's viable to them! Or it's a very precious secret, as I often can't get information on this topic out of them.

It's like those guys never had a satanic/luciferian thought! “What means viability to you?” - “Viability! What else?!” They could as well tell me masturbation is evil because the bible doesn't like it (to jazz the metaphor it up a little).

Again, I hear screams in the invisible audience: “So, dumbass! What's your value of viability then?!” I have to admit, this is hard to formulate without some explicit or implicit context. But I'd abstract it as …

A movement in reality(!) towards freedom (not peace), towards more control and a direction that does not conflict with my true will.

And this albeit (sensual) recognized effectiveness, as it is arising in oneself. One thing I really care about is the consciousness of the paradigm of reality. But let's get back to that later. We could define the true will in this context as the thing that's left when you substract all external caused programmings, the thing that lies between the individual and the whole.

“What about the "control"-thingy? That is empiric verifiable!” - That depends on your view of truth. If you're riding the "Only proved things are true" horse, you must be glad that someone invented empiricism. But does that a priori mean unproved things can't be "true"? And - in the light of this article - must a proved fact be true, or does this depend on truth' definition?

“But I don't understand that all as "viable"!” - That's not further astonishing if you read this article.

Reality

This is a lie that just won't die. I don't really know why this "paradigm" is that much unrecognized, even in occult groups. Perception is one of the first big walls in your mind you run into, whether you do Magick or try to "evolve your mind." Most people think of reality as "the things that are real"(sic!) or "that are actually happening."

So, how do we know what's actually happening? “Observation!” Not really. Observation is the interpretation of information. Interpreted by our senses and every filter in your mind between the inside and the outside. We only believe that what we perceive is real, because for most people it's the only source of information.

So, any other ideas to know what actually is? “Empiric research!” You mean to try something and observe(!) it's outcome?

Sometimes I get the feeling evolution goes in circles. The little mammals we're succeeding weren't aware of the doubt of perception, no questioning of reality. Mankind evolved and gained the ability to realize this limit. And what does the proud race of men do with this ability to be aware of the walls?

They ignore them, they take the blue pill, they cover their ears and go “Lalalalala!”

Be warned …