myth's Belated DMSI 3.1 Journal

[myth]

Been debating the idea of posting my own DMSI journal for a while. Until now, I've limited my posts in other threads solely to when I'd thought that I could be helpful or informative. But it's felt a bit selfish not providing any substantial DMSI feedback, so I'll give it a shot and see how it goes.

Before I start, for anyone who cares about my mind programming history:

IML: SR (35), ASC (42), BIATBWS (56), E1 (70), E2 (70), DMSI/AOSI (since v1)

I've listened to subs/hypnosis/NLP for ~24 years, starting with subliminal cassettes and including my own self-scripted hypnosis. I've always treated these things as a tuning fork (not to be confused with Shannon's recent radio-tuning relationship analogies) and as a tool to brush any life-acquired cobwebs out of my eyes. As far as I'm concerned, it's not so much about whether DMSI "works for" me (DMSI doesn't "do" work, I do) but how well I work when DMSI's acting as my soundtrack.

Listening pattern before 3.x: daily, directed # of loops when provided. On 3.x: self-directed at times, details withheld to protect the cat herd from itself. May elaborate later. Usual format: A/ultrasonic/FLAC. Started 3.1-B for the first time a week ago.

Since this DMSI journal isn't starting at day zero, I'll play catch-up first, with a prologue (or a pre-log?) to get the last year of DMSI up to date and provide context. I'll get to more journal-like entries after these first posts, but it seems silly to discard a whole year of data that could be summed-up in a few extra posts. If it bores you or seems useless, just skip it; I won't be offended if the whole journal goes unread. Just thought that I'd finally start sharing some feedback.

[myth]

I'm arranging these initial catch-up posts by topic and keeping a consistent format, since they'd probably be unreadable otherwise. Not that that formatting will necessarily help. I'll try to keep them bite-sized too.

Prologue: Externals, part 1.

Opportunity for sexual encounters (up to and/or including sex)

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes. Both opportunities and acting on them.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes. Both opportunities and acting on them.
   
3. Difference in frequency so far? Increased to levels not seen in years, although not yet above anything previously seen. (Note: 96.4% of my time is NOT spent around other people. My social time is very... condensed.)
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Increased sexual attention from women who impress others (physically) more than than they impress me (whole person). Preferred attention, while present, is mostly unchanged.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? Unsure. I prefer those who rate highly on my personal value system, not those who impress others on purely shallow levels.
   

Opportunity for sex (the act)

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes. Both opportunities and acting on them.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes. Both opportunities and acting on them.
   
3. Difference in frequency so far? Short-term uptick, but those aren't new.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? New options have been mostly unusual ones.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? Unsure, as it's not only about their interest in me. Most new responders may impress others (mostly female others?), but very few new responders have actually impressed me. Of course, these results aren't statistically unexpected -- of all women presently on the planet, the group of women that I find attractive is much smaller than the group that I find unattractive, so their respective sub-groups (containing those who find me attractive) are likely to be similarly lopsided. As are any later increases in those sub-groups. Illustration follows (in case the last two sentences confused you).
   
   Illustration: Let's say that I find 5% of all women on the planet attractive enough for sex, which actually sounds pretty high to me. That's 1 in 20. Assuming that 2 random women among those 20 (10%) are attracted to me, there's a much greater chance of those 2 falling into the group of 19 unattractive than either of them falling into the group of 1 attractive. Now, let's raise that number from 2 attracted (10%) to 10 attracted (50%) by way of DMSI, magic spell, love potion, or whatever else and try again. Even if the 1 that I like reciprocates, the other 9 in the 19 may as well be 0 of 19, and I can't exceed 1 because the other 19 don't do it for me. Yeah, you can stack the deck, 5% of 4 billion is still 200 million, etc, but I'm just illustrating the earlier point, not claiming helplessness in navigating it.
   

[myth]

Prologue: Externals, part 2.

Female initiation of sexual encounters (direct physical indicators, strangers)

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in frequency so far? Roughly the same.
   
4. Difference in quality so far?/ Preliminary discussion seems more optional.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? Split. Conversation becoming unnecessary appeals to my laziness. Conversation becoming unnecessary leads to uninformed choices. Uninformed choices often lead to undesirable results.
   

Female initiation of sexual encounters (direct physical indicators, established)

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in frequency so far? Occasional uptick.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? More appreciative and playful.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During.
   

Female initiation of sexual encounters (verbal indicators)

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in frequency so far? Mild uptick.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Pre-physical announcement has increased.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? Mostly before. Spelled-out intent by the pursuer (the responder, in the case of DMSI) seems redundant when the pursuer is truly pursuing. Going from women kissing me passionately and unexpectedly, in the moment, to women prearranging to kiss me feels like a step backward. As does going from women acting on attraction to women telling me that they have a crush and then expecting me to do something. I can meet (and have met) them halfway, of course, but it wasn't previously a requirement for me to do so. Consent/higher value/clear interest are valid counter-arguments; I'm just offering a point of view.
   

Female initiation of sexual encounters (remote indicators)

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in frequency so far? Increased frequency per social outing. Increased parallel impact (more at once). Increased repetition.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Greater enthusiasm. Thanks to social events, mostly in the form of unbroken eye contact, staring, micro-expressions, longer and repeated proximity changes, summoning gestures, dancing, and social rescue pleas. Parallel impact seems competitive-but-respectful.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During. I've always valued sub-verbal conversation with respect to all people and situations, especially as physical dialogue isn't strictly sexual. It's also helpful when in loud and noisy locations.
   

[myth]

Prologue: Externals, part 3.

Physicality from platonic females

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in frequency so far? Roughly the same.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Occasionally more intense. Slightly longer duration. Increased user involvement (autopilot? meet them halfway?). Platonic disclaimers are about the same, if more indirect than direct.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? Conditional. Greater chance of third-party confusion/competition/disqualification.
   

The so-called "celeb effect"

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in frequency so far? Increased parallel impact.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Free stuff and discounts often, but no more than previous. Servers fighting more often and more insistently (and with more competitors) over who gets to serve me. Increased address by name. Greetings becoming more parallel where they used to be serial or even singular. Cashiers start up lengthy conversations, relying on their co-workers to handle spillover.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During. Mostly, this is more of a volume or surround-sound change than a reality change. TBH, though, I never really saw this as celebrity, just as being friendly, familiar, memorable, and triggering of others' familial instincts.
   

Comfort levels of others

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in frequency so far? Increased parallel impact.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Trustworthiness seems to be increasing, even with strangers, although that may be partly a result of being more trustful (healed). Friends increasingly seek my advice and listening skills to the point of fighting over who gets to unload on me. Stories are often either repeated to me within minutes of themselves (and questions within minutes of me having answered them) or assumed to have been told to me in the past when they hadn't been.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During, up to the point of inconvenience. Again, more of a volume or surround-sound change than a reality change.
   

Compliments from others

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in frequency so far? Uptick in unexpected sources and types.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Somewhat higher in praise. More forthcoming and direct. Any self-deprecation is immediately shut down (rather than allowed/tolerated/ignored/debated) by others, which helps reduce the tendency to self-deprecate. Less user argument/more user gratitude and acceptance of compliments.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During. The current user response is one of my primary goals for running DMSI. The responder behavior, while only slightly different from previous, helps support the newer user response.
   

[myth]

Prologue: Externals, part 4.

Effort toward external sexiness

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in frequency so far? Less frequent effort and reduced duration of effort.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? More subtle. Less artifice.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? Unsure, but leaning toward before. Previous effort and excess elicited a more positive external response, although there's some comfort in feeling non-reliant on it. Even so, it's almost as if "effortless sexiness" has been translated into no/low effort toward sexiness with a correspondingly lesser response. "Working harder" has been de-emphasized; unfortunately, it's being discouraged even when "working smarter" hasn't been a presently viable alternative. May also relate to a newer get-it-over-with attitude interfering with take-my-time-and-get-it-right. (If I've confused you: Motivation to start/excel is different than motivation to finish prematurely or to rush a prior step for the sake of reaching the next step sooner. As success and succession share a verb, I'm hoping -- but not assuming, in either direction -- that my subconscious isn't misunderstanding being told to "succeed.")
   

External assistance toward external sexiness

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in frequency so far? Noticeably more frequent.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? More targeted, clear, helpful, and productive. Estheticians, hygienists, dentists, friends, etc have been much more vocal (constructively only) and unsolicited about what they think would improve my appearance. Less unhelpful criticism. While it could be argued that I've become more accepting of criticism, the distinction between a productive suggestion and a shaming insult is hardly subtle. Results of preexisting, recurrent efforts have also become more effective, albeit through practical improvement and adjustment of the methods involved and not through simply relying on wishful thinking or rose-tinted glasses.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During.
   

Onlooker reaction (during PDA)

1. Preexisting DMSI? Mostly at parties.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in frequency so far? More frequent.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Shorter duration. Less voyeurism. More laughter, surprise, and amusement, often by both the user's and the responder's friends.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? Don't care. Only reporting as an observation.
   

And that's it for the externals. Maybe "a few extra posts" was underselling it. Sorry if it's a bit dry and clinical, but I wasn't really aiming for entertainment. Might start on the internals a bit later/tomorrow, but I can't spend the day on this. Catch-up's a time-consuming condiment.

[myth]

Prologue: Internals, part 1.

Belief in user's own sexual attractiveness (appearance)

1. Preexisting DMSI? Somewhat.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Somewhat.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? Roughly the same.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? More extreme highs and lows. Greater body dislike during lows, but less sadness, helplessness, and self-hatred accompanying it. During highs, feeling more inclined toward wanting to be my best self than trading the person that I am with anyone else (less envy).
   
5. Before/during preference so far? Unsure, as during is still more volatile. One of my primary goals with DMSI is to agree with others' positivity about my appearance, not merely accept and enjoy them feeling that way. As beauty is in the eye of the beholder (personal values differ), I acknowledge that agreeing with attracted beholders may be less realistic than finding my own positive self-perception.
   

Belief in user's own sexual attractiveness (value)

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Apathetically.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? More consistent.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Decrease in importance of the concept of sexual value and a decrease in actually caring about it.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? Before. Feeling sexually valuable during sex can make it more enjoyable. Apathy can make it feel more like a chore. Could be chalked up to resistance or reduced external validation -- unless it isn't.
   

Belief in user's own sexual attractiveness (to others)

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? More consistent.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? More solid acceptance and awareness of who's attracted, who isn't, and their respective standard deviations, accepting the reality, variety, and variance of others' tastes without placing further expectations upon them.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During. Accepting that leopards have spots and that tigers have stripes keeps one from being disappointed when a tiger doesn't grow spots. On the flip-side, it keeps one from over-thinking why a leopard has spots and whether the spots are fake, erroneous, psychosomatic, a vision problem, etc.
   

Meeting halfway

1. Preexisting DMSI? Barely.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? More consistent.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Increased user response to less blatant initiation.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? Undecided. Creates more options, but may fail to filter out the less enthusiastic and the more insecure. Relying on women initiating intensely typically ensured that they had more self-security and strong enough interest in me to act overtly. Well... after weeding out the stalkers. Extra halfhearted and insecure options don't seem like a plus.
   

[myth]

Prologue: Internals, part 2.

Intent to reduce/remove less attractive traits

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? More consistent.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Emotional albatrosses are getting less debilitating as time passes. Other areas seem lower priority or less visible. Or less directly targeted.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During.
   

Intent to highlight more attractive traits

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? More consistent, even when results might be compromised by either factors.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Less concern over appropriate circumstances/setting or over negative consequences. Less proactive.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During, mostly.
   

Sexual availability (emotionally)

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? More consistent.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? More emotionally and sexually available
   in sexual situations. Slightly less inhibited during sex.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? Conditional. During, within an existing relationship. Before, during a ONS. Emotionally-speaking, relationship sex has become more affectionate and easygoing, and incidental sex has become more disappointing. Not really sure if one can transition from incidental to relationship with that dynamic, but the transition was definitely possible pre-DMSI.
   

Confidence in user's own sexuality

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? Slight uptick.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Fewer inhibitions regarding appropriate behavior.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During.
   

Confidence in user's own sexual performance

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? Slight decrease.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? More mutual expectation that the responder's wishes are implicit and clear when they aren't. (Less responder verbal communication, even when prompted. Less responder trust in the user's skills when responding very positively to their consequences, and more responder trust in the user's skills when responding negatively to their consequences.)
   
5. Before/during preference so far? Before. But, to be clear, cross-wired communication may have been strictly circumstantial and may not be representative of a more diverse set of responders.
   

[myth]

Wow, even I'm getting bored of this recap. But a year's worth of overdue feedback is kind of a lot, and "more/less [quality]" isn't very descriptive. Even so, I think that I'll call the prologue done with this last batch of internals and start treating this more like a journal.

Prologue: Internals, part 3.

Social comfort

1. Preexisting DMSI? Somewhat.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? More consistent, but still intermittent.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? More extreme highs and less extreme lows. Vaguely familiar settings have taken on an at-home quality.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During.
   

Social freedom

1. Preexisting DMSI? Somewhat.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Somewhat.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? More consistent.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? More prone to cross social barriers/boundaries when someone's gotten the wrong end of the stick. Less concerned about disturbing people (politely) when the situation calls for it.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During. Similar to what was observed during/after E2, but much stronger.
   

Social connection

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? Roughly the same.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Less verbal. Communicating more effectively without speech while communicating less effectively with it.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? Conditional. During, for the non-verbal side. Before, for the verbal side. Non-verbal has become nearly telepathic in both directions. Verbal has gone from competent or eloquent to tongue-tied in both directions, which could be related to my brief-but-dense social life, but, if so, it doesn't really explain the non-verbal improvement or the two-way aspects.
   

Social trust in others

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? Feels as if it's been nearly restored to levels not seen in almost a dozen years.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? More discerning than ever before, but mostly back to the original trust-until-burned default.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During. It's more like a slightly refined version of my original setting after over a decade of disruption within intimate relationships. This was another primary goal for myself with DMSI.
   

Social enthusiasm

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Apathetically.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? Less consistent.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Less ambient excitement. Incidental highs and lows from a baseline of waiting to be impressed.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? Mostly before. Even on earlier versions of DMSI, I could romp happily into a room and feel like I'd brought something into it. Now, I walk into a room expecting more from it, as if I've gone from both producer and consumer to solely consumer.
   

Emotional self-control

1. Preexisting DMSI? Yes.
   
2. While listening to DMSI? Yes.
   
3. Difference in consistency so far? Roughly the same.
   
4. Difference in quality so far? Less suppressive and more "acknowledge -> process -> decide -> forgive (myself or others) -> reflect calmly -> move on." More mental reminders that emotions are just subconscious messages that are too complex (thank you, cognitive dissonance) to be worded as simple thoughts. Makes the "process or suppress" choice a lot more straightforward, like the emotional equivalent of deciding to treat the source of physical pain instead of reaching for an aspirin to ignore it.
   
5. Before/during preference so far? During. Helps considerably in fast-tracking fear, embarrassment, and frustration. Less so for guilt, since that sometimes involves re-shuffling the personal right/wrong/neither lists and seems to take longer.
   

[myth]

Tempted to say something unoriginal, like "It's journalin' time!" but I'm no Ben Grimm -- and I seem to have said it anyway. Go, me.

Day... something or other. I've lost count. Let's call it "Sunday" and leave it at that. Probably a good time to explain how I've been listening to 3.1. Not sure why, but, ever since 3.0.1, I go into pure input mode (and can-barely-sleep mode) on listening days and start executing/sleeping on non-listening days. Wasn't necessary until 3.x, and I can't explain why that's changed. So I alternate listening (usually one week on/one week off), well within the P3/P4/P5 time range, and bootstrap my way there instead. I'm hoping that the on/off thing will become less necessary after more execution, unless it relates to the newest 5.5 tech more than it does to the sub goals. I've been doing 2 loops, as originally directed for 3.1, but I might consider experimenting a bit, now that Shannon has relaxed that instruction.

So, anyhow, the past few days were timed as an execute week, partly because Friday night was a planned social night. It was also the first social night since starting 3.1-B, and, yeah, B definitely seems different from A. Went to a club. Saw plenty of people that I've known for years. Nothing new there. Then things got weird. The most unsettling ex of my life showed up for the first time in 5+ years, which brought up all sorts of concerns, but, thankfully, a mutual friend acted as a buffer, while a couple others tried to take my mind off of it. And I indulged in their suggestion to drink myself a little calmer. Auric shield or not, it felt like a terrible time to call attention to myself and a potentially good time to derail state shifting. Maybe not the bravest idea, I know, but drinking seemed less avoidant than leaving.

So, that hiding-drunk-in-a-corner plan didn't derail very much. I don't think that B allows hiding quite as much as A does. I'll skip the step-wise suspense-building of I-did-this/someone-else-did-that, but, in spite of my attempts to hide, the two most interesting women that I'd noticed earlier in the night had both (separately, in their own ways) come up to me, introduced themselves, chatted for a bit, and danced with me. And that was all them. The way that I'd been 2 years ago, I'd have probably gone home to avoid the ex and would never have met either of them that night. Seemed like a net-positive result. And like B's gonna be what B wants to be. And not all that gently.

[RTBoss]

I don't recall where I saw it, but I think Shannon mentioned that the aura shielding is only part of the A script. If you used B, I don't think the aura shield was actively powered, but clarification on that would be welcome.

[myth]

I don't recall where I saw it, but I think Shannon mentioned that the aura shielding is only part of the A script. If you used B, I don't think the aura shield was actively powered, but clarification on that would be welcome.

Yeah, I'd been on B at that point. Maybe I'd misunderstood, but I'd thought that the auric shielding was in both, while only the emotional shielding for healing was in A. I wouldn't mind the clarification either.

Also, auric shielding may also not have applied in quite the way that I would've hoped either. I've never been entirely clear on whether it's intended to keep DMSI's effects from being "borrowed" by others, whether it's intended to prevent DMSI's effects from upsetting bystanders, or both. But it'll definitely put a damper on things if I'm holding back with enthusiastic responders to avoid agitating a grudge-wielding ex. Mostly because I know that she's actively trying to keep that grudge at bay. Whether you fear bears or not, poking one in the eye -- when it's trying not to eat you -- is probably just asking for trouble.

[myth]

Didn't expect it, but 3.1-B feels like a lot of fun. The dreams are getting less redundant than they were when I'd last been on A. On B, it's been back to things like the puzzle dreams from my childhood/adolescence (where I'd have to solve mazes, logic puzzles, math problems, etc with physical objects in the dream), only, now, it's more like multiple puzzle booths inside an an impossibly large convention hall or an endless warehouse strewn with labyrinthine paths that lead from puzzle to puzzle. Almost as if the dream puzzles are individual pieces that fit into a larger jigsaw puzzle, and I get to see the bigger picture as each piece gets solved. Yeah, like that's not an obvious metaphor.

Oh, and there've been plenty of sex/popularity/flirting dreams too, which is unusual for me. Also, during lucid or semi-lucid dreams, there's been more difficulty than usual in telling memories of reality apart from memories of previous dreams. Not sure if other people remember previous dreams inside their current ones, but I sometimes do, even if the memories are unavailable during the waking hours between them.

I've experienced very little resistance on B too. 4 loops seemed comfortable for most of the week. Yesterday's attempt at 6 loops was a bit on the disorienting side. May try 6 again today to see if the disorientation increases, continues, or abates. As I'm tackling brain fog from an entirely unrelated direction, I'm expecting the disorientation to fade as I get used to more loops.

Unlike A, B seems to be executing for me on listening days and allowing me to resume normal sleeping patterns. Not sure about the aura, since I still won't be around people again for another week or so, but, if my dreams are trying to take on false modesty (among other things, things that I thought would be more in A's wheelhouse), that seems like execution to me. I'm also getting more online contact from women who hadn't emailed me in months or years, had been thinking of me, and had felt compelled to email on listening days. Seems like I may not have to bootstrap on B, like I did on A. Either that, or B's just stronger for me in general -- which could mean, among other possibilities, that taking another non-listening (execute) week might generate interesting execution differences in comparison to bootstrapping on A.

[Shannon]

I don't recall where I saw it, but I think Shannon mentioned that the aura shielding is only part of the A script. If you used B, I don't think the aura shield was actively powered, but clarification on that would be welcome.

Yeah, I'd been on B at that point. Maybe I'd misunderstood, but I'd thought that the auric shielding was in both, while only the emotional shielding for healing was in A. I wouldn't mind the clarification either.

Also, auric shielding may also not have applied in quite the way that I would've hoped either. I've never been entirely clear on whether it's intended to keep DMSI's effects from being "borrowed" by others, whether it's intended to prevent DMSI's effects from upsetting bystanders, or both. But it'll definitely put a damper on things if I'm holding back with enthusiastic responders to avoid agitating a grudge-wielding ex. Mostly because I know that she's actively trying to keep that grudge at bay. Whether you fear bears or not, poking one in the eye -- when it's trying not to eat you -- is probably just asking for trouble.

Auric shielding is in A and B. Emotional shielding, which does an entirely different job, is only in A.

Auric shielding is only intended to act as a protective effect. It's designed to prevent you from being negatively influenced or affected by others energy-wise as much as possible. So when haters are stewing at home on how much they hate you, their hate is being sent to you and then you are happily redirecting it to a /dev/null output.

[myth]

Auric shielding is in A and B. Emotional shielding, which does an entirely different job, is only in A.

Happy to know that I wasn't misunderstanding that part.

Auric shielding is only intended to act as a protective effect. It's designed to prevent you from being negatively influenced or affected by others energy-wise as much as possible. So when haters are stewing at home on how much they hate you, their hate is being sent to you and then you are happily redirecting it to a /dev/null output.

And that's why I was hoping that it might apply to the ex in question. I don't think that there's another person on the planet who resents me more.

Energy-wise, I'd say that the aura seemed unaffected, even if I've seen it slightly more "on" than it was then. As far as my own behavior, I still held back in my actions with responders far more than I otherwise might've (stopping at dancing), having had sympathy for the fact that the ex was trying to stay indifferent to me. I'm not sure if further selfishness would've produced a better result, but it didn't feel right at the time.

Also, not sure if it's useful to know, but, so far, there hasn't been any of the past aftermath that usually occurred after she'd been reminded that I still exist and that some people do see me positively.