USLM 5.0 (5.11G) vs US 5.11G

[IceAlive]

Happy new year!

The new US program description seems to downplay the LM component from USLM quite a bit. So why is USLM still available for purchase? If having ULSM together is good in some circumstances, how can one decide which is the best between the 2 programs?

US mentions usage is 40 minutes per day on, while the track is 60 minutes long. So how should it be used - play any 40 minutes segment from those 60 minutes randomly? Or start from minute 0, stop at min 40; then on the next day on continue from minute 40, let the track repeat and stop at minute 20, etc? I assume always starting form the beginning is not good since if that was the case, the track would've been 40 minutes to begin with.

Thanks.

[Benjamin]

Hi Icealive,
          I saved a post from Shannon that talks about some of that.

So it's been a while since USLM was released.  The difference between USLM and US is like this: US/LM has LM, and US doesn't of course; but USLM is the upgrade of an upgrade of an upgrade of an upgrade of the original US script, with LM added.  The original US script was designed when the scripting methods were much different, and I had much less knowledge.  Upgrading it has brought it up to each successive generation of new methodology, but it does not change the fundamental design philosophy behind the script statements and goals chosen.  This US is a complete re-write of the Key Script from the ground up, with design and goals chosen based on 5.11G methodologies and current levels of knowledge.  It has a much shorter script, but is much more empowering and comprehensive because the new design and goals chosen allow for full expression of all of my current knowledge.

So if you're happy with US/LM 5.11G, you won't need US 5.11G.  But if you want to know what it is to immerse yourself and your life completely in achieving, experiencing and being ultra success, then you'll want to see what this new one has to offer.

Luck Magnifier was added based on customer requests, and kept because it was as far as I knew making my customers happy.  I have come to realize that "Luck" is defined very differently by different people, and it ultimately tends to result in problems for the program's users because they tend to express the very human tendency towards laziness instead of action, and try to rely on the program too much for doing it for them.  Since I want people to get what they paid for, it makes sense that upon understanding that, I would discontinue using "luck magnifier".  Not everyone did that, of course, but enough people did that I would prefer to take a path that makes for better results, especially since it ends up coming out of my reputation and pay when they are choosing to be lazy.  I don't recall LM being in LTU, but if it is, it's not intended to "do it for you" there either.

I had planned to discontinue USLM and replace it with US.  USLM is still available for a short time, for those who want a copy.  But it will most likely be going away soon.  As to which is better, well, that depends on what you want and what you're willing to do.  If you're willing to hustle to achieve success, and allow LM to help along the way, then either one is a good choice, and you don't strictly need to buy US.  But, US 5.11G does benefit from a complete re-design, re-write of the key script and a completely new selection of goals.  It should be much more efficient and comprehensive in its approach, and there will be a significant difference in how they work and how they affect you and feel while you're using them.  I would say that if you want to focus your whole life on achieving ultra success, then go for US. 

First, let me explain that there really is no such thing as "luck" as most people tend to define it.  Everything, and I do mean everything, happens for one or more reasons.  We call it "luck" when the reasons are not visible to our conscious mind and the results seem to be in our favor, and "bad luck" when they are not consciously visible and the results seem to be unfavorable.  But really, it is very much like a rotating drum with numbered balls in it.  If you know all the starting variable states and all the influences, you can calculate with 100% which balls will be drawn based on when they are drawn.  The issue is that we never have the ability to know enough detail about those factors to make such predictions to that level of accuracy.  The same is true of the influences behind what we can consciously see with "luck" and "bad luck".  But you can influence these factors through getting the subconscious awareness to make certain choices and perform certain actions.  The key is getting cooperation to do that, and then making the base beliefs not result in sabotage or refusal to execute.  Or conscious laziness, coupled with sabotage and or refusal to execute.

Much better than relying on "luck" is to set a major goal, break it down into smaller goals, and then achieve those goals in the right order steadily.  Much like the difference between spending $6 a week on the lotto, vs investing $6 a week in a dividend stock with a good degree of security and a 3.2% return, and then re-investing the returns.  After 20 years of lotto "investment" you are most likely to have lost approximately $4,992, presuming you make 20% back in winnings of what you actually spent.  But if you invested that money in a dividend stock like I describe above, you'd end up with about $11,185.19 with a total of about $2,758 in dividend payments and an annual dividend of about $369 in year 20.  Of course choosing a stock with a higher ROI is going to give you more returns.  I'm just using Coca Cola as an example here.

The idea being... stop allowing lazy people to try to rely on a subliminal and "luck" to do it for them, and get them to do it for themselves, and leverage the subliminal as a force multiplier instead of a magic wand - as it is intended to be.  You don't need a subliminal to be "lucky".  All you need to do is get your subconscious to understand that you want it to help make things more favorable for conscious you whenever it can, without harming others in the process.

How to decide between them is expanded on a little there, but for more clarifications that's a good question for Shannon as i'm not sure.

As for the other question, you can just start it at 20 minutes which is easiest since you don't have to remember to stop it. There's no need to start it and do 40 minutes, then continue the other 20 minutes plus another 20 minutes from the start the next day.

The track is 60 minutes for a reason which is something to do with the build method, though Shannon will have to explain that part.

If he doesn't see this post soon then you may want to post the question in his journal discussion thread.

[IceAlive]

Thanks Ben! What you quote does answer my first question.

Regarding the second question, that I wouldn't have guessed. Just thinking it would be ideal to have those instructions included in the description for those who don't follow the forums. And/or in the general instructions info section of the website.

This aside, I'd indeed be curious why the track can't be made as long as required for a listening loop.

[IceAlive]

Nvm, I went for OPH 5.10G and there the description answers my second question to a degree.

I'm still like "but but but... isn't anything lost if I always listen to t minus of the track and ignore the first part" or "... how on earth is it built - is everything included in every second (or some small interval) given that it doesn't matter which continuous segment I choose to listen to as long as it runs for the prescribed amount of time (+AutoConfig via gut feeling)... ?". However it matters less - if that's the prescription, that's the prescription. Thanks.