On Reality Creation
and Skepticism¹

by Bill Ingle

http://www.realitytest.com

There are different ways of understanding the nature of reality, and some of these — at this moment in time — are opposed, even if anomalies and poorly understood aspects point to a potential unification.

A basic example is scientific materialism versus what might be termed mentalism (it has many other names and these include quite a few variations, some quite old).

Closely coupled with this is how reality can seem very different depending on the degree to which someone is less or more “ego-bound.”

Unless you’ve personally experienced or experimented with altered states of consciousness — let’s call this “expansive” (less ego-bound) and “narrowed” (more ego-bound) — you’ll have no idea of what I’m attempting to convey.

There are many ways to approach these two related mysteries.

As you would expect from the above, I prefer a “hands-on” approach involving methods and techniques, relying on a form of meditation or mind quieting as a starting point. This is closely connected with trance or dissociation, something I’ve also been experimenting with for the last nine years or so. Further, although I frequently meditate and experiment with trance by myself, I’ve also engaged in a variety of experiments with others (from just one other to about a dozen folks at a time), both on-line and live and in-person.

If the idea of direct personal experimentation frightens you, there are endless books to read on these topics, although just reading puts you at a step removed. Still, this is better than nothing, but does nothing to address your own ego-boundedness.

(I am not claiming to walk around in an ego-less state. Maybe some do, but the ego is necessary and natural for physical life. What I have learned how to do is to loosen my ego, temporarily, to varying degrees.)

Colin Wilson, for example, explores such areas in many of his books, but he is just one author of a great many.

I’ve used the word “magic” in quotes to refer to “conscious reality creation” as someone else brought the term up upthread.

Some deride the latter, associating it with “New Age rubbish.” That’s their problem, as I see it. (We have a tendency to dismiss or ridicule that which we either don’t understand or which conflicts with our beliefs, usually without even investigating whatever this might be. William James and Frederick Myers faced such dismissal and ridicule for their “psychical investigations” in their time. One way people do this is by applying a label they find offensive, lumping all sorts of things into it. One such label today is “New Age.”)

Reality Creation is a key topic of Jane Robert’s channelled Seth material, consisting of many dictated volumes. (Possibly the best one for this topic is The Nature of Personal Reality.)

Although many in the New Age movement state “you create your own reality” such that the phrase became something of a slogan, few give Seth any credit for creating the term, while fewer still offer the detailed explanations behind the term that Seth does, over many of his books.

In some ways, Seth has more in common with ancient thought than anything “New Age” (depending on how you define that), while Jane herself — a writer living in Elmira, New York — was associated with the New Age movement after the fact, not so much while she was alive (she died in 1984) and certainly not when she began her Seth odyssey in 1963, as there was no such mass movement at that time.

She’d been searching for a topic to write about and, with her husband Rob’s assistance, began to investigate the psychic realm after an unusual OOB experience which also included automatic writing. This led to experiments with a ouija board then, fairly quickly, to entering a trance and channelling Seth, Rob transcribing what Seth called “book dictation.”

So “magic” can be seen as “conscious reality creation.”

Reality creation itself — per this concept or perspective — is a natural process that proceeds spontaneously. Each of us creates everything — all matter — that we directly perceive, without even thinking about it, as naturally as breathing. Matter is really a form of thought, then.

Conscious reality creation involves directing or guiding this natural process, by focused thought or intention.

This is an art, not a science, and poorly understood in today’s “official” society, even if endless practitioners engaged in it in previous times, each in accordance with their particular tradition and style.

It directly contradicts the scientific materialist view of reality — for the most part (there is just a bit of overlap at the fringes of science, today) and thus is considered highly suspect by those who are convinced they understand the nature of reality. (In fact, most folks wouldn’t even entertain the idea, as it conflicts not just with scientific theory but common sense.)

Further, although I have witnessed some amazing feats of conscious reality creation (there are some in the so called Pagan community who are quite skilled in these areas, even though they don’t seek or desire publicity, for obvious reasons) with others and captured on video, I don’t claim to be a master of these techniques myself.

(Note, by the way, that if I could will solid gold into existence I wouldn’t tell anyone, least of all those reading this comment.)

What I can do and have done, however, is to experiment in small ways, with small things, as an occasional hobby.

As I posted, it’s very tough to prove that these techniques work, as you can come up with multiple explanations for any particular and seemingly successful instance. (Someone else might wish to spend the time and resources for laboratory experiments, multiple trials leading to statistical results, and so on, but I have other priorities, am no scientist, and don’t wish to be bothered.)

Even so, I would say that focused intent does and has altered my personal reality.

I could post endless stories, mostly of trivial incidents, but this would be a waste of time, but see the story below as an example. Anyone who doesn’t believe me is welcome to engage in their own experiments and decide for themselves.

If they aren’t willing to do this, I can’t value their beliefs on these matters.

What’s required is simple — briefly focused intent. This can be aided by first stopping thoughts and exercising (or developing) the ability to visualize.

So far from claiming to be able to instantly materialize objects out of thin air, what I have described is using focused intent and how it seems to work, but in an ambiguous way.

Let me be more precise. I have never willed a small object into existence, “out of thin air” and, say, in the palm of my hand. Such tricks are best left to the Indian gurus, or famous mythical magicians.

Rather, an object or situation that I desired came into my possession or came into being after I focused my intent on acquiring or creating it. If I was very specific, a very particular object came into my possession or a very particular situation came to pass; if not, something suitable to my lack of specificity was the result.

The most blatant example I can think of took place in the mid 90s. I fell asleep on a train going into Boston. I’d been thinking of money and how broke I was; I wished for some money, as many of us do at such times. Here was the intent, however muddy in this instance. I woke up just before the train pulled into North Station and as I did so I sensed a kind of small darkish circular cloud leaving me. (“How odd,” I thought.)

Hours later, I had lunch some blocks from my office. Walking back to my office, I spied what looked like cash some blocks ahead of me, lying in a pile next to the curb. This was on State Street, a busy street. This was in broad daylight, and many were about.

I got closer and closer, finally picking up the cash. As I stood there holding it, in shock, a woman who’d witnessed me pick it up made a big deal about calling the police and reporting it. I had no time to process the situation even as a storekeeper, curious, came out from his shop to see what was happening.

“Call the police!” The woman said; “This man’s found money!”

The storekeeper did so. Even though I could have put the money in my pocket and walked away, I played along, going into the store and counting it. I’d found exactly $2,000.00 in unmarked $50 and $20 dollar bills.

The policeman came and took the money, having me sign a form and giving me a copy.

No one claimed the money in the course of a year, so I was able to legally acquire it one year and one day after I found it.

Note that my creation of this event (again, this is a way of viewing reality, and not the only one) included the whole situation; the odd initial experience, finding the money, the woman who witnessed this, the fact that I couldn’t keep it at the time, and my final receipt of it.

Now — you could see this situation in at least two basic ways:

• I created, not the money, but finding the money, and not with full conscious intent — I’d fallen asleep after thinking about money, so in this instance some part of my normally unconscious mind did this. (Per theories of reality creation, each of us creates all of our unique physical continuum all the time, so in that sense I did create the money, but I don’t wish to confuse you. As I said, there is some subtlety to these ideas.

• The event was completely coincidental; my finding the money had no connection with my earlier experience on the train.

You can’t prove what actually happened, which idea or theory is correct. This is what I meant by “ambiguity” above.

“So tell me, do you think that something can be both true and false at the same time in the same way? And if you can, would you produce at least one example to prove your point?”

Sure. Say you’re sitting at a diner, a waitress in front of you, behind the counter.

1. Let’s say you’re in an expanded condition (see above). In this case, the waitress seems to change a bit for a moment, such that you briefly see her as distinctly Elizabethan, in a dark interior. Her appearance in subtly altered — her hair is longer and in a different style, she is dressed differently, and so on. You recall how you once encountered her in that era, at an English inn. She was the innkeeper’s daughter. You’d stayed at the inn and left some papers behind, papers which might cost you your life if they fell into the wrong hands. Fortunately, she hid them for you. A great warm glow passes over you, as you appreciate the waitress, her greater self or soul, and her earlier edition, the glow extending to her. She smiles, and something connects the two of you, felt strongly in the eyes.
2. In a narrowed, more ego-bound condition, none of this is available or “real;” you’re facing an ordinary waitress in 2008, in the U.S.A. The waitress is friendly, but you feel no particular connection or sense of warmth.

What is true in an expanded condition is false in a narrowed condition, and vice versa.

Bill I.

Notes:

1 Initially a reply made to a skeptic

dm: “Sorry Bill, but they are claims, and I am not taunting. You are riding the fence alternately stating that you can materialize objects and that you aren’t sure you can.”

Dear dm,

For whatever reason, the subtleties of what I’ve been attempting to describe elude you.

I’ve described certain experiences and noted how they might be interpreted, while also noting that they need not be interpreted in that way.

I hope you’re not accusing me of lying or being out of my mind, but your use of “claims” certainly begins to sound that way.

I’ll try again, briefly.