+- Subliminal Talk (https://subliminal-talk.com)
+-- Forum: Men's Journals (18+ NSFW) (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-Men-s-Journals-18-NSFW)
+--- Forum: Men's Journals (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-Men-s-Journals)
+--- Thread: UMS (/Thread-UMS)
RE: F-it let's do it. UMS - ncbeareatingman - 08-06-2019
To find 18 thousand dollars, I'd feel thank you Life,Life you have sent me some money,available and I made my self avaialbe to this money, be it on the street,in bushes,trash can..ect.... Id welcome it with out one ounce of guilt. honestly if it came to me as such in this kind of state,I'd welcome it with out hang ups. UMS is powerful Wharrgarbl.( BTW I've always liked your handle "Wharrgarbl" for some reason!) :-)
RE: F-it let's do it. UMS - Darwinn - 08-06-2019
Thanks Keith , your openness of spirit is uplifting.
I don't know what I was processing and if it comes to me or I understand better at some point I'll share. It wasn't about guilt though, the non verbal communication I felt I was getting was that guilt was more egotism and self indulgence.
RE: F-it let's do it. UMS - Shannon - 08-06-2019
The limiting belief that abundance has requirements before it can be achieved? Achieved "correctly"? "Fairly"? etc?
RE: F-it let's do it. UMS - Darwinn - 08-07-2019
That would be the simplest explanation, however experientially it was more sincere than a limiting belief. What I got was that material wealth is indifferent, you can have it if you want, but desiring and getting it because of laziness, status/insecurity and entitlement was contemptibly irresponsble/egoic/inauthentic/incongruent with real worth or value. that's about as well as I can put it into words.
RE: F-it let's do it. UMS - Shannon - 08-07-2019
(08-07-2019, 12:59 AM)Darwin Wrote: That would be the simplest explanation, however experientially it was more sincere than a limiting belief. What I got was that material wealth is indifferent, you can have it if you want, but desiring and getting it because of laziness, status/insecurity and entitlement was contemptibly irresponsble/egoic/inauthentic/incongruent with real worth or value. that's about as well as I can put it into words.
More sincere than a limiting belief? My friend, what you describe IS a limiting belief. Sincerity level doesn't tell you anything but how much you believe it.
UMS should get you past that.
RE: F-it let's do it. UMS - Darwinn - 08-07-2019
I'll only talk to my subjective experience and without claim of knowing what it was. From past experience, limiting beliefs feel mutable and internal, this felt external, communicated from without and within and felt like an immutable truth/law. Something like don't forget cause and effect/ mind the consequences of ego driven behaviour.
Shannon...I entered the lottery which I don't normally do. The numbers which came up were all one digit down from the numbers I chose, for example I chose 38 and 39 and 37 and 38 came up. this was for all numbers bar two which I actually got. This seems like a pretty unlikely coincidence.
RE: F-it let's do it. UMS - Shannon - 08-07-2019
(08-07-2019, 04:55 AM)Darwin Wrote: I'll only talk to my subjective experience and without claim of knowing what it was. From past experience, limiting beliefs feel mutable and internal, this felt external, communicated from without and within and felt like an immutable truth/law. Something like don't forget cause and effect/ mind the consequences of ego driven behaviour.
Let's consider this rationally. What happens if you accept this belief as being valid? You will now be in conflict with and be in resistance to the execution of the program at the conscious level. That is likely in addition to being in those states at the subconscious level.
We know that the subconscious mind is incredibly powerful, but we also know that the conscious mind is much more powerful in the moment in most cases. When the conscious mind decides something is true, it can make that thing true regardless of the subconscious. That's how placebo works, actually: the subconscious hasn't accepted the idea but the conscious has, and it in effect causes the subconscious to go along for the ride, until the conscious forgets about it or loses interest and the original subconscious programming once again starts being executed.
Now if the subconscious mind wants to hold on to a belief it has that conflicts with the subliminal programming, but it can't because it doesn't have the strength, wouldn't it be a really clever thing to do to convince the conscious mind of the validity of the faulty conflicting belief over what the subliminal is trying to get you to believe? And if that belief is obviously coming from the subconscious, wouldn't it be easily dismissed as a deceptive resistance tactic by the subconscious? So the clever subconscious has to deceive the conscious mind into believing that this is somehow especially valid, by making it seem like it came from someone or something outside of you. Then it won't look like the subconscious is just trying to fight the program!
Let's look at what you wrote again.
Quote:I had a shattering experience where I felt gripped by a tremendous sense of disapproval for the sheer egotism of demanding things without earning them from the universe. Tears streamed out of my eyes and I was constantly yawning (something that used to happen when tapping). this happened a couple of days ago. Suffice it to say it was humbling.
First, this program isn't demanding anything. It's opening you up to, and making it possible for wealth to come to you, both through your own choices and actions, and through the naturally unlimited abundance that exists outside of our limiting beliefs.
Second, who says you have to earn everything? Did you earn that air you are breathing? If not, better stop breathing, because if it needs to be earned, then you're either stealing or being incredibly arrogant according to that logic.
Now we come down to the root of the matter. The root of the matter is, some part of you at a very deep level believes that everything must be "earned" and that anything else is arrogant and probably "bad". So that logically means that you should look back to every time you were ever given a gift and feel bad because it was "unearned" and therefore "arrogant" and "bad", right? And winning the lottery, that would be incredibly arrogant and absolutely terrible by this logic. Both of which we all know are logically ridiculous. Some things you will have to put in the effort to achieve (or "earn them") and some things you won't. Artificially limiting yourself because opportunities abound that you could have for yourself that don't meet your definition of "earned" is silly. It is also just that: artificially limiting yourself through choosing to focus through faulty, limiting beliefs.
This is a case of a deeply held core belief coming into direct conflict with some part of the script of UMS, and the subconscious trying whatever it can to maintain that belief.
See my list of types of resistance and how to spot them for a description of Type 4, Type 5 and possibly Type 11.
https://subliminal-talk.com/Thread-Types-Of-Resistance-And-How-To-Spot-Them
Quote:Shannon...I entered the lottery which I don't normally do. The numbers which came up were all one digit down from the numbers I chose, for example I chose 38 and 39 and 37 and 38 came up. this was for all numbers bar two which I actually got. This seems like a pretty unlikely coincidence.
It's not a coincidence. It's what happens when you re trying to achieve a goal of winning the lottery, and you pick your tickets before the probability lines have been forced to become specific enough to have chosen the exact right numbers. I have had this happen to me multiple times while I was doing experiments with prediction in my early days of that research. I would come up with all five numbers exactly one too low, or get 3/6 and have the fourth one +1 and the 6th one -1 to the winning number. What happens is that all possible combinations represent possible realities, and as you approach the actual drawing, many of these become impossible because of the fact that the required actions for them to result do not happen. Even right before the drawing (when they close the ticket sales and after) there are (according to my experiments) approximately 10,000 combinations left that can reasonably result from a 6/49 lotto game where it would have 12.9 million total possible outcomes. It narrows down as you get closer and closer to the actual drawing, and as the drawing happens. Thus, the further away from the drawing "in time" you attempt to make a prediction as to what numbers will play, even using a valid and accurate prediction system, the less likely you are to be accurate. The subconscious can see all these probabilities, and it may pick what it believes to be right, only to have some variable shift later that invalidates it. In some cases, this will result in some really obviously beyond chance "near misses" that everyone will claim were "just coincidence" because statistics tells us that all possible outcomes are equally likely in a random event.
Just because (as a result of the incredible complexity of those requirements) we cannot see the requirements for the first number being drawn to be a 1, for example, doesn't mean that those requirements cannot be brought to 0% chance of happening before the drawing by having the requirements for some other number to be chosen first become the path that is taken to the drawing. This gets into some extremely complex things, and to those who don't know all of what I'm talking about it will appear to fly in the face of statistics and "obviously be wrong". But there's a lot more complexity to what's actually going on in a drawing than statistics shows us, and if you are aware of that complexity, things look very different than the simple "there are 12.9 million possible combinations we can create from a 6/49 ball lotto game and each one has an equal probability of playing because it's a random process, end of story." that statistics would have us believe.
The thing is, what I discovered shows that if you take the event itself, and then follow it back to the moments before each ball was chosen, you will see the causative forces: one ball pushes another out of the way, and then that ball is in place to be chosen. This can be done backwards as far as you like, as long as you have the capacity to observe and understand the impact and results of enough affecting variables, and you have enough computational power. With those two things, you can confidently track and predict anything - even something that statistics will tell you is completely random. If it can be done in reverse, then it can be done forward with the right level of awareness and processing power. The logical conclusion is that:
1. There is no such thing as randomness.
2. Randomness is really just the name we give events we cannot figure out how to predict because we lack the tools, processing power, awareness and capacity to know what is necessary to predict those things and make those predictions.
3. It requires truly extraordinary levels of awareness and computational power to achieve these things, levels we may never be able to achieve as humans.
4. The universe, being an expression of the mathematical systems and equations (and systems based on sciences that we have yet to even discover in some cases) that describe it perfectly, is the only system that is currently capable of flawlessly predicting those events.
5. In every case where a possible choice influences the outcome, all possible outcomes must exist "somewhere", and the one that is experienced is experienced by that individual as a result of the choices they themselves made that led up to it, and as externally influenced by the choices of those around them as well.
The only thing that can perfectly predict the outcome is the system expressing that outcome, since that system is nothing more than the results of the calculations necessary to describe that system perfectly. The second closest thing we can get is the subconscious mind, which has vastly more capacity for calculation, awareness and observation than the conscious mind.
So in attempting to execute the script, your subconscious guided you to a ticket that had the numbers on it that, at the time you purchased the ticket, would have won the jackpot. After that, choices made by you and others adjusted the resulting outcomes and probabilities such that the numbers you remember winning were the actual winners. The "coincidence" results because those numbers were so close, and they were so close because the probabilities were very close to exactly the same that led up to them. The divergence of probability was very low as a result, and thus you could see the similarities without any help.
RE: F-it let's do it. UMS - Darwinn - 08-08-2019
Thanks Shannon, really helpful and instructive post as ever. I'd like to work this out abit if you could indulge me.
Your breath might be free, but does it not come with responsibility to use it correctly? we can live our lives causing harm to our selves and others or just in folly - everything we do is with consequence, and money can (potentially) exacerbate this consequence. Something can come, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't come with some health warnings and I think my experience, as best as I can describe, was about the best way to mitigate the negative consequences or rather something around why money isn't as value as I have made out.
I agree I have a belief about needing to earn things, and a belief about balance which is very deeply rooted. fundamentally I feel like there is a balance to everything and every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I also have a belief in Karma, which is fundamentally the same thing, though there is a nuance to that in that some actions and desires can be without karma or karma removing and they come from acting from a certain state.
In terms of the demanding aspect, I think that was more to do with the way I was executing rather than the sub itself. I am being demanding and had an unconscious desperation and I feel like this is getting in the way of opening up to receiving - imagine if you wanted to give me absolutely everything I wanted and cared about my needs genuinely and in response to that I demanded that you give me specific things now, and kept on demanding - you would probably recoil. my interpretation of that feeling was to let go and let it happen.
What you have said on the lottery is a lot of food for thought. so thanks. and thanks for the rest of your response. it feels like we're really in the end game now.
RE: F-it let's do it. UMS - HearDontListen - 08-08-2019
The one thing that strikes me odd about the lotto thing and numbers being close (say you pick 37 and 38/36 comes up) is the balls are in all different places in the tank.
So if you picked 37, its not like 38/36 were right next to it like on the lotto card. In the tank 38/36 might have been very far away from 37. So you could argue you weren't really "close" in that way. This is if they still use the tank with all the jumbled balls in it.
Also, do you think all people who win the lottery had something to do with it? I've seen all different types of people win: good, bad, poor, rich, drug addicts, homeless, working men, business men, etc. Probably non use subs and have all different subconscious and conscious mindsets.. Do you think they all had something to do with it? It was never completely random?
RE: F-it let's do it. UMS - Shannon - 08-08-2019
(08-08-2019, 04:32 AM)Darwin Wrote: Thanks Shannon, really helpful and instructive post as ever. I'd like to work this out abit if you could indulge me.
Your breath might be free, but does it not come with responsibility to use it correctly? we can live our lives causing harm to our selves and others or just in folly - everything we do is with consequence, and money can (potentially) exacerbate this consequence. Something can come, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't come with some health warnings and I think my experience, as best as I can describe, was about the best way to mitigate the negative consequences or rather something around why money isn't as value as I have made out.
Who is the one who can say we do or do not have a responsibility to live our lives a certain way? I can tell you what I believe to be true, but nobody can give solid proof of that sort of thing. That quickly devolves into religious debate.
But yes, every action has a reaction and a consequence. Money gives you the freedom to act and act more grandly than you may have been free to act before. As to money coming with health warnings, what you're telling me is, you believe that money can't be had without having a negative along with it. There are no negative consequences to "money". There are consequences to what you do with it, and what you do in response to others knowing you have it.
Quote:I agree I have a belief about needing to earn things, and a belief about balance which is very deeply rooted. fundamentally I feel like there is a balance to everything and every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I also have a belief in Karma, which is fundamentally the same thing, though there is a nuance to that in that some actions and desires can be without karma or karma removing and they come from acting from a certain state.
We can't get into karma on this part of the board because it is a religious concept, but I will say that accepting freely available and freely given abundance is not going to be negative in that regard. The program is designed specifically to prevent any wealth from being achieved by harming yourself or others; I actually took that concept into account. What results is not going to cause you harm. I think you have a misunderstanding concerning how that system works, which is acting as a limiting belief.
Quote:In terms of the demanding aspect, I think that was more to do with the way I was executing rather than the sub itself. I am being demanding and had an unconscious desperation and I feel like this is getting in the way of opening up to receiving - imagine if you wanted to give me absolutely everything I wanted and cared about my needs genuinely and in response to that I demanded that you give me specific things now, and kept on demanding - you would probably recoil. my interpretation of that feeling was to let go and let it happen.
That makes more sense now.
Quote:What you have said on the lottery is a lot of food for thought. so thanks. and thanks for the rest of your response. it feels like we're really in the end game now.
Hopefully that is a good thing.
RE: F-it let's do it. UMS - Shannon - 08-08-2019
(08-08-2019, 07:48 AM)HearDontListen Wrote: The one thing that strikes me odd about the lotto thing and numbers being close (say you pick 37 and 38/36 comes up) is the balls are in all different places in the tank.
So if you picked 37, its not like 38/36 were right next to it like on the lotto card. In the tank 38/36 might have been very far away from 37. So you could argue you weren't really "close" in that way. This is if they still use the tank with all the jumbled balls in it.
You are correct; however, when the experiments I did were performed, over and over again I got the result that the forecast number would either be spot on or slightly off (+/-). This held true regardless of how the numbers were generated for the lottery. The only way I could think to explain it was that multiple probability lines that were almost identical resulted in those close number combinations. Since the numbers were usually +1, 0 or -1 to what was drawn when I used a valid predictive system and used it properly, I was clearly defying chance, but still not able to exactly pin down what numbers were coming up. Why would that be, when the same predictive system, in several cases, was able to pin down situations and circumstances exactly in other applications? The only thing I could think of was that each possible combination represented a possibility line, and that as we approached the drawing (and went through the drawing), millions or billions of variables ranging from extremely minor to major were resulting in the specifics that resulted in that combination being chosen, and that made sense when you try to play the whole thing in reverse. In reverse, you can slow things down and see (with balls) the direct causative events more clearly. The issue is with the number of variables needing to be considered, and recognizing what variables actually have an influence, what that influence is, and keeping pace with the speed of action. Run that drawing in reverse in slow motion (or even in slow motion forwards) and you can see with certainty what is doing what, as long as you can recognize it as a variable of influence. So it isn't random, and it is too much data, speed and complexity for us to accurately model or predict with currently available tools.
Quote:Also, do you think all people who win the lottery had something to do with it? I've seen all different types of people win: good, bad, poor, rich, drug addicts, homeless, working men, business men, etc. Probably non use subs and have all different subconscious and conscious mindsets.. Do you think they all had something to do with it? It was never completely random?
I think that the complexity of the entire system that is influencing it is grand beyond what most people would ever begin to suspect. In their own way, everyone is a variable influencing those balls. Every person on the planet. It is like the idea described by chaos theory that a butterfly flapping its wings can potentially lead to a hurricane somewhere else on the planet. So yes. They were influential variables.
RE: F-it let's do it. UMS - EvolvingPhoenix - 08-08-2019
That is some seriously interesting shit, Shannon. The fact that you've disproven the existence of chance is a huge game changer. It's too bad people don't know about this shit. Just think of how differently people would approach life if they knew chance was an illusion!
RE: F-it let's do it. UMS - Shannon - 08-08-2019
(08-08-2019, 09:05 AM)EvolvingPhoenix Wrote: That is some seriously interesting shit, Shannon. The fact that you've disproven the existence of chance is a huge game changer. It's too bad people don't know about this shit. Just think of how differently people would approach life if they knew chance was an illusion!
You're jumping to conclusions. I haven't necessarily disproven anything; this is my best working theory. And, I reserve the right to be proven wrong. But as far as I can see, what we think of as "randomness" is really a case of "we can't fully explain it due to the limitations we are burdened with at this time in terms of cognition, processing power, known variables to consider and computational capacity". For example, with weather forecasting, the accuracy of the models increases as you get higher and higher resolution data. So for example, if you consider the temperature on a minute by minute basis in 10,000,000,000 locations with a county, you're going to have much better accuracy than if you only consider 10 locations within that county every hour.
RE: F-it let's do it. UMS - EvolvingPhoenix - 08-08-2019
Okay, good point. Thanks for clearing that up.