Social Algebra

I was observing with interest what was called "social algebra". It was the math that created experiential reality. The way in which one's inside in turn arranged their outside, both of which equally "were" the person, but the left-half of the equation, or the 'in-side', was what determined the right-half or the 'out-side', because it always had to balance.

I understood this related to recent meditation work done (myPsiche), which related to a person as an energy-construct. And, that this had come up because in working on writing out a more intelligible outline of some things, I had referred to a person as a 'formula/geometry'.

In writing, it had been only a mental model. Now it was quite literal. But what it showed me was that my concepts had not been exactly correct; I had some base models that were inaccurate.

***

Everything in reality was geometry woven into a math problem, like an algebra equation. This operated on every level (macro and micro) but I was focused on the measure of "a person".

A person, both as a 'core-energy-construct' and their "reality (body and experience)" also as its own 'energy construct', were a formula: those were the two halves of the algebra equation which made up the larger "person as they are in this life" which was basically an equation of core-energy + reality-experience.

The formulas could have many, many different things in them, and instead of numbers and letters, these 'things' were like events, people, situations, environments, objects, relationships. Each of those things had their own value/weight.

Some of these things had their own 'groupings' (like parenthesis), had things that changed their weight (like divisors or multipliers), or had something that fluctuated in its weight 'within that context' (like variables).

The 'energy-construct' which 'was' a person, had a certain... you might call it 'sum-total value' or 'weight' to it.

In writing earlier in the day, I had been talking about how we don't just create our larger reality as some side-effect of a distant nebulous belief system pattern, but rather, that our larger reality (our body, our events and situations, etc.) WAS our energy very literally: one source.

I had referred to the overall energy as "a shared file": that our core energy 'was' our body, 'was' the events, etc. as if there was no separation of these things at all.

This was corrective; it was saying that YES, all the energy that made up a person's experiential reality (including their body) indeed 'was' the person quite literally. BUT, that it wasn't just like, a person held Energy-A and that also 'formed' for them, relationship A, event A, body element A (that the outer reality was 'composed from' A, literally, and so was the same). As if, you could not experience A unless you held it.

It wasn't quite that ... singular or specific. Yes, "A" would determine 'what was on the other side of the equation', but it determined it in overall weight, NOT in detail.

So it was more like: the person held Energy-A, which had a certain overall value/weight to it. That was on one side of the equation (the 'inside' as opposed to the 'left' side in math).

But then, from the sum total of possible energy, which is also-them because they-are-everything, they chose a combination of energy to 'balance' A, for the other side of the equation (the 'outside'; body/reality). So they might choose X, Y and Z for that 'balance'.

Yes, XYZ is indeed a part of them, but they are 'arbitrary' parts. They could be changed, without the overall weight of the equation changing; different things could be substituted for them. As long as the overall equation balanced.

***

Separately, secondarily, the more important 'corrective' concept was that, it wasn't that a person was a certain group of energy, and everything-else in the universe was not-them. That was how I had been thinking of it previously.

It was that all persons are inherently everything; all that energy; literally, "all numbers are infinite".

But they choose to 'hold onto' ("pay attention to") "being a certain group of energy". Yes, this is similar in end-result of course, but not quite the same thing at root.

And they 'created'--and it was indeed creativity at work here--the 'balancing half' of the equation" [their body/outer-reality] out of "the rest of them" (the larger 'everything' of energy).

I saw that this is the difference between different lives. One might have a very similar 'core constructive' weight-of-equation on the left/inside in multiple lives, but the right-side 'creative combination' of body/experience that balanced it out, could vary radically.

Almost as if one were exploring "every possible variant equation of being X".

So yes, it's true that both sides of the equation were 'composed of them'--literally. But you might say, there were two halves in a way; one was a core-energy construct they had chosen to 'hold'; the other was 'the perfect mate'--the right-half of the equation, in this case being the body/reality, the 'experience' of the person in a space/time model.

***

I had been thinking of it as if a person held energy A, and as a result, things also constructed of energy A were in their reality. If you let go of A, those things in reality had to vanish because they were 'composed of' that same energy. Or if you wanted Q in your reality, you had to 'add' that energy. Or whatever; in any case, I had a direct "value inside = value outside" model on it.

This was showing me that the fundamental of that idea was correct (in terms of, "there is a balance, and what you hold inside in terms of energetic patterns, geometries, is what determines what you experience outside"). But the detail of that idea was incorrect (in terms of, "the experience does not have to be A; it merely needs to be equal to A").

Because there is really no such thing as A and Q, you understand; those are "creative variations in form/dynamics" which is the surface of our reality; A and Q at root are just geometries.

In other words one could, if they decided to, replace the exterior-experience "A" with say, Q and a small portion of L as multiplied by C, and some R divided by W. As long as that combination had the equivalent weight. So even though the person still held the energy-of-A, they could change their outer reality. A did not have to equal A, because A is, at base, a number or shape, and so if you looked at the weight of the energy, you saw that there were a variety of creative ways you could combine energy to 'balance/equal' A.

A person could 'let go of' a certain energy like R as part of their core construct, yet still have R in their experiential reality, because R-mitigated-by-something-else was the equivalent of A, which they still did hold, and they had increased their N to compensate, keeping R.

It occurred to me that maybe this is partly why a person can 'deal with' problem energies in their life, and improve, yet not improve in the one area that they were rather hoping they would as a result. Because it isn't just about the energy but about the creative choices for how that energy manifests.

So the 'detail' of what composed "the formula of outer reality" was in fact flexible, not just by modifying the core-energy-construct which was the primary side of the equation, but by "creatively arranging" the energies which were the "experiential reality" side of the equation.

I was observing how in every area of a person's life, the formula of a person had to be put together so they were 'balanced', like in algebra how the two sides of the formula match. Both sides of the formula WERE the person; literally, not just figuratively.

I'm trying to think of an analogy for this. I'm really not a math nut so this is tough! Let's see. If I use 'time' instead of objects/money, maybe I can example it.

Let's say that a person chooses how much non-working time they have in their life. (We choose our jobs, our second-jobs, our free-work, etc. and end up with X hours 'non-working-time' for the left side of the equation.) This spare time 'composes' what we are measuring here.

Now for that spare time, we "creatively choose" how to fill it (its balance). We can fill it with people and relationships, with events and situations, with hobbies (arts and skills), with chores (we choose whether we clean and mow vs. whether we ignore it or hire someone so we have the time), or we can sit around staring at the TV or meditating or whatever we choose to do.

The point is that we have a "core value" of time, but what we balance that with what fills it. That can be radically different from person to person, but in the end it is always a 'value balance'. It is all the person's choice, and it is all the person's life; the overall 'person+experience'. The core issue is how much non-working time (energy) they choose to hold. But the balance is whatever they choose to equal that.

***

So then, as a third thing, I was observing the interchangeability of the elements of the formula or equation. Everything at a lower level was a geometry, but it was curious how what this meant was that "everything was equal" in a way -- not the same, but equal.

What is worth more, a square or a triangle? Well, neither. They are not the same, but they inherently have no greater value than one another. However they have a different formula, different geometry, different ratio, so you might say they have a different weight; and one would fit better into some spaces than the other, as a creative issue or a matter of convenience.

In this vision, everything was a geometry, which meant that a person, a relationship, an event, a situation, all of these were "mix and match"-able as a result.

You could take the energy of a person who exists in your reality but you have little relationship with but find attractive (say a neighbor) and, if it were of equal 'weight' for the equation-of-you, you could replace that with "a better relationship with your cat" or something.

I saw that these variations happen in our lives constantly and we see no surface relationship to them so we don't realize what is going on.

You could take a relationship that is, say, "a lack of money," and you could replace that with a combination of situations happening every-so-often that have some different element (let us say perhaps an emotional feeling of being less qualified than someone else in your work, or less socially cool than someone, or less loved by your dad than your sister, you get the idea).

You could take a physical thing like your nice new car, and you could replace that with a lesser car, some really fun events, and a new friend.

I might add there was a clear sense of the 'positive/negative' and 'lack-of/abundance-of' kind of energies being "recognizeable" in the different elements. Almost like positive and negative integers. Or like the ratio in geometry, where the 'angle' of different shapes varies and so one might tend to choose something "more triangular" to match a certain energy or weight.

You could take a situation that is powerfully negative (say, an abusive mate or boss), and replace that with chronic or recurring pain or illness. So you'd have a good job and loving wife but a bum knee. The energy has "infinite variation in form in dynamic". That part is totally creative.

In other words it's not like, "If you want your abusive boss to vanish from your life, the energy which matches or IS that value must vanish from you." Curiously and to my surprise it wasn't like this. One could in fact maintain the same energy if they chose, but change the arrangement, inclusions, of the other side of the equation.

On one hand this was good news, because it meant that even without some profound inner change, one could in theory change a given element in their experiential reality.

On the other hand this was bad news, because it meant that even if you DID change some profound inner thing, one could in theory still have the same thing in their experiential reality they had hoped to change, because on some level the Being was choosing to keep that element in the equation and compensate by changing other things instead.

On the other hand (...I know, I'm out of hands), it might not be preferable to change a given thing in one's "outer" reality without changing it on the inside, because the overall 'weight' of the life-energy would be the same; you would just be trading one issue for another, in a simplified sense.

***

In algebra an equation has to balance. There are no rules about the 'unique values' on each side, only about the 'balancing' of the overall weight/value of each side. So as a simplified example, the right half of your equation COULD say:

[(10 + 39 + 6 + [-20]) / 7] * 4

or, it could say

(([2+8] + [5*5]) / [2+3+2]) * [2+2]

And if you wanted to have more of 2 and 5 in your life and none of the -20, then you might create the latter as an alternative. Even if you had not changed the 'core' energy of the left-half of the equation, you could do this.

Of course, 39 might be the love of your life, and -20 your miserable job with the boss you hate, and you might end up with a so-so relationship and a so-so job as a result -- like the "yin/yang" situation, it's all a balance.

It isn't a matter of specific detail, like A=A (so having A in your primary energy-construct means A on the outside experiential reality), it is instead a matter of overall result, like 10 is the same as 3+7 is the same as (21+[-11]), so if you're holding 10 as a Being, you can choose what is in your 'personality' reality to equal that energy. Am I making sense?

***

So to recap, this was three related realizations:

1 - a person's life in this reality was not a singular-energy 'inside' which was merely 'perceived as if' it were on the 'outside'. That was over-simplistic. Rather, it was a combined 'weight' of geometry/energy inside which they 'creatively matched' with equivalent weight of geometry/energy on the outside. So yes the two were totally connected--the inside DID create the experience-of-outside--but they were not as literally-the-same-thing as I'd thought.

2 - it is not that a person is a chunk of energy and then there is everything-else in the universe. A person is by nature everything because 'all numbers are infinite'. However they are
(a) "paying attention to holding/being" a certain 'core construct of energy' as a 'Being'; and
(b) "creatively compiling a reality-experience" that 'equals' that core-construct as a 'Personality'.
All of this energy is accessed-directly from the shared-file which is "everything" (one point in space/time, infinite potential). So in a larger sense everybody is everything, but there is definitely a smaller sense of what we choose to 'be' as a so-called 'soul' and 'explore' as a personality 'in this life'.

3 - everything we are capable of experiencing in/through this body-personality is a geometry and it is totally mix-match interchangeable. There are some recognizeable 'similarities' in energy, as in positive/negative, as in 'some things are more triangular than others' so to speak. But people, objects, environments, events, situations, relationships, etc. are all merely geometries at base. Any one of those can equal all or a part of any other, and they can be combined with others, mitigated-by others, multiplied-by others, etc. in much the way that combining numbers or shapes can change the overall result.

***

One might ask, "why does this matter?" Well, it's armchair philosophy of course.

But I've been wanting to better understand my reality experience, how it reflects me, how I can use inner-methods (meditation/ magick/ etc.) to modify this, how my experience defines me, and so on.

I've also wanted to better understand how to get certain focii into my life -- such as 'psi receptors and transducers' in my body woken up and beginning to be neurally mapped, should such a thing exist (I think it does, though the idea came from Ingo Swann's writings), to work on my remote viewing. Both these senses as part of my body, and remote viewing as an event and outcome, are part of my larger reality, so any structuring-of-self I want to do here, gets back to my philosophy about reality, my body, and how to "consciously evolve" in the ways I want.

I think it's sometimes important that our left-brain have some kind of "mental model" for the things we are working on with "intuitive" efforts. It isn't that our left-brain models are likely to be perfectly accurate, by any means. I think 'the nature of reality' is a little too complex to fit into anything our brains could come up with. But I think a philosophy that feels like a framework allows a person a sense of 'grounding' and so an ability to 'reach out and stretch' more, with less off-balance, insecurity or confusion. We create within that model until we outgrow it and get a new one. But having a model is important for psychological reasons.

I realize I brought all this on by a whole evening spent writing about a person as a fractal-formula so it's my own fault. But it strikes me as hilarious that my brain found a way to truly model the infinite flexibility of reality and self as an algebra equation. Math phobics are probably going Noooooooooooooooooooo!

PJ