This chapter has a LOT. RAW's descriptions about non locality just blow my mind. The pieces about how there's an implicate, non rational order that we can learn about from the explicate has some resonances with Magick. I wish RAW were still around today to see if his thinking or writing about this had changed. He does a great job at describing that the implicate is seemingly non rational, yet somehow organizes the events that occur, and I'm curious if he had refined any of that thinking further.

Statements to live by (and possibly drive you insane): "Please remember that we deal always with probabilities, not certitudes..." (Page 178) "'Existence precedes essence,' remember?" (Page 179) "(1) We cannot make meaningful statements about some assumed 'real universe', or some 'deep reality' underlying 'this universe,' or some 'true reality', etc. apart from ourselves and our nervous systems and other instruments. Any statements we do make about such a 'deep' reality separate from us can never become subject to proof, or to disproof, and that makes them 'meaningless' (or 'noise'). (2) Any meaningful scientific or existential or phenomenological statement reports on how our nervous systems or other instruments have recorded some event or events in space-time." (Page 180) "Non-Aristotelian logic deals with existential/operational probabilities. Aristotelian logic deals with certainties, and in the lack of certainties throughout most of life, Aristotelian logic subliminally programs us to invent fictitious certainties." (Page 182) Unfortunately, if you accept and possibly even believe these statements, they make most conversation with most people entirely meaningless haha

I've been trying to come up with a response to this chapter. I've struggled to understand this chapter in the past, and while I appreciate RAW's explanation of Bell's theorem, I never quite feel like I understand what he's getting at. That being said, please tell me if you disagree, as I might still be misunderstanding. After having sat on it, RAW seems to be getting at the idea that particles in the Quantum Realm do not "contain" their function physically. In other words, a scientist cannot seem to physically find anything intrinsic or physical that points to a particle's purpose. Nonetheless, when we look at the Universe, since we can only perceive the Universe from the reality tunnel of humankind, the Universe appears to be generated for humankind. This can be used as evidence for the existence of a Creator, or can be evidence that our measuring instruments have a bias towards human understanding (having been made by humans). I suppose this chapter can be that simple, but I still feel like I'm missing something. One of RAW's most famous aphorisms is that he doesn't believe anything but has some suspicions. I think this chapter really embodies that. He seems to present some theories about how Bell's theorem affects our understanding of the Universe, but then seemingly refutes those same understandings. His goal for the chapter seems to be that both a "Creator" of reality and a "Created" reality (by humans and their Understanding) can be equally valid points of view since we cannot prove one or the other. Personally, I am happy to believe in a "Creator" since the amount of complexity in the Universe seems to be well beyond what I believe myself to be capable of processing (though I tend to hold the same opinion as that of Vodou, that if there "is" a Creator, the Creator "is" too far removed from the world to intervene). It can be easy for me to fixate on the idea that everything we can understand "is" still solipsistic to some degree. It can be easy to assume that our instruments have forced us to conceptualize reality in a particular way (that comes with its own limitations) and that we cannot actually "know" the Universe. I think this can be seen as a basis for Nihilism, and even further, an entryway for Choronzon. I also think that this can be taken as a "Bad Faith" approach to the Universe that closes an individual off from the Hermetic virtues of Thauma & Eusebeia. It can be easier for me to access Thauma and Eusebeia when I take the approach that a Creator "made" the Universe. This seems loosely related to Pronoia, or the suspicion that the Universe "is" secretly conspiring to help and support you (AKA the Good Faith approach to the Universe). Because there appears to be Order in the Universe, and that Order seems to be accessible by humankind, it could almost seem like the Universe was "made" for us to understand it. Since Bell's Theorem argues that there "is" no intrinsic instruction in any given thing, reality can be more multiple choice than we realize. The piece that sticks out to me (that I don't feel I'm understanding properly) is when he talks about particles that have contacted each other being correlated and therefore connected to each other. Part of my confusion is that it seems like a given, since a significant correlation inherently means that there "is" a connection (though it doesn't mean causation). He likens it to Shamanic Magick while also saying that it "is not" like Shamanic Magick, since Shamanic Magick implies some kind of causation. He makes the claim that this non-locality "is" weirder than Magick. I disagree. I'm not entirely sure what RAW wants to point to when he makes this claim. I disagree that Magick requires a causative principle. I also disagree with his claim that synchronicity "is" accepted by most Jungians and psychologists. Most of the Jungians I encounter like to hide from synchronicity (since it tends to be held as one Jung's crazier ideas that the hard sciences make fun of) and most psychologists will diagnose you with schizophrenia or apophenia (assuming they know the word apophenia) if you tell them about the synchronicities you experience. What I think RAW tries to point to in this chapter "is" Chaos Theory. Chaos Theory argues that in a system that has achieved a certain level of complexity, the basic rules that the system initially followed no longer guarantee the outcomes that the rules once promised. Instead, when the system achieves this level of complexity, seemingly insignificant actions might have much more impact than anything that the rules try to enforce. To use a basic example, let's say someone wants to start a music career. In the past, the "rules" of the music industry said that you start a band, write some songs, record a demo, play enough shows to get exposure, and then achieve a record contract that pays a professional salary. Since there are so many people trying to do this same thing at once (be a professional musician), these "rules" no longer create an obvious pathway towards that goal. Instead, something as simple as a Tik Tok post or telling the right person may lead a band to stardom, even if they suck and don't have the same level of investment that other bands do. A well timed, seemingly insignificant social media post held more weight in that scenario than following the traditional pipeline. Chaos Theory helps explain why no two people can follow the same exact orbit as they enact their True Will in the Universe. It does not matter if you believe your True Will to be identical to someone else’s. Your orbit will inherently follow a different path than those before since that path becomes more complex and refined with each pass. It also helps explain why synchronicity can be a "real" thing. Chaos Theory does not argue that everything "is" chaos, but rather that what appears to be chaotic on the surface masks a hidden Order to things, an Order that no longer follows traditional rules to achieve your goal. Hence why people who follow the rules too much seem to miss the point of anything haha. Instead, if you can follow the "golden thread" of synchronicity, you can connect seemingly disconnected events that culminate in a seemingly random accomplishment when measured against the traditional rules of the system. This "is" a foundational idea of Chaos Magick. To go back to RAW, I hesitate to find significance in his example of the person changing socks in one country and the other changing socks in another country at the same. Statistically speaking, changing socks "is" such a common action amongst the billions of people in the world that it seems statistically impossible for people not to change socks at the same time. This "is" where correlation does not mean causation. In all my psychology classes, they hammered that into my head. You can take any variables you want to test a connection between and attempt to statistically measure the significance of the correlation. Without plugging any data into statistics software, the socks example does not seem like a significant enough correlation to me that I would think it relevant (much less something we can generalize data from). I also don't believe that what RAW says about Magick requiring a causative principle. Certainly, a magician would love to believe the illusion that by doing said ritual we cause the Universe to change and enact our Will. However, in the same way that the Universe can appear to be created by God or seemingly random, the number of variables in any given Magickal working makes me skeptical to claim that a Magickal ritual does in fact cause change. Instead, assuming we are referring to the purely physical causative side of Magick (and, if it’s possible, ignoring the mental aspects that can’t be measured) I think Magickal ritual can help us identify those golden threads of synchronicity that allow us to string together seemingly disconnected events into substantial changes. Whether one believes my theory or the theory that Magick causes change, the outcome "is" the same (the relative success of the working). When Magick "is" more successful, I believe we have successfully leveraged one of those points in the Chaotic system whose impact weighs more than any given cause or rule. Given that magicians already believe that everything "is" hyper connected (beyond even our comprehension) and that the Universe can be likened to one giant body and/or mind (though he “is” not writing for that audience), it only makes sense that things couldn't be a domino effect. Instead, I prefer to look at it as a body achieving homeostasis. If one part of the overall body/mind changes, then the rest must change in order to find a new center of homeostasis (not unlike the Pantheists and the Panentheists). In a simpler system, this might appear as one wave that causes change across the Divine Mind like the domino effect. But considering changes occur all over the Divine Mind all the time, this appears overly simplistic. Instead, I think that multiple waves occur all the time and depending on whether these waves harmonize with each other or not, the waves can become turbulent and stormy, or they can become modulated and rhythmic. The level of Unity expressed by this Divine Mind seems to be a measurement of the relative turbulence Vs. rhythmic modulation at any given moment. When things appear more rhythmic and modulated, they appear more isomorphic and more easily predictable. The modulation creates a predictable structure that the human mind perceives as order. Needless to say, I think what RAW brings up “are” non-issues. Perhaps this “is” why I’m not one of the scientists out there debating these things. I “am” reminded that Academics come up with all kinds of strange ramifications and justifications for any given Academic doctrine and/or dogma. Academics become just as blind to reality as the average Bible thumper, it’s just that Academia becomes an Academic’s Bible to thump. Perhaps RAW would’ve agreed with my perspective. Perhaps he would’ve laughed at my perspective. He most definitely would’ve responded to everything I’ve said with a big fat, “Maybe!” Perhaps my reactions to this chapter are precisely what RAW wanted to trigger with his agnosticism hahaha I have no regrets if that "is" the case, since this forced me to write out a bunch of ideas in this essay of a response hahaha

"One cannot help being struck by the fact that according to Freudian, Jungian and Gestalt methods of dream interpretation, these alternative selves, some of them bringing alternative universes with them, manifest every night in our sleep. Some physicists describe the other universes and other selves as "virtual", but does that not also describe our dreams? And does it not appear that virtual selves and virtual realities have infiltrated both psychology and physics because, as this book claims, all sufficiently advanced analysis must eventually abandon Aristotelian certitude and accept models - reality tunnels - based on probabilities?" (page 165). This is the basis of true Chaos Magick, as I understand it. It's no wonder RAW is held so highly amongst Chaotes haha All possibilities exist concurrently at all times with varying degrees of probabilities. Choice collapses all possibilities into the reality that manifests on the material plane. I notice that certain mood states are more expansive and open the realm of possibilities more than other mood states that collapse the range of possibilities. I find that holding as many possibilities as possible (usually only 5 to 7 possibilities if I'm lucky) and acting on the one that seems to be the best choice of action without collapsing or feeling overwhelmed by the range of possibilities can be really difficult. Even as someone who believes RAW's statement to be relatively true, my own Ego still loves to assert that my Ego "is" only one confined, rigid set of behaviors. It consistently fails to acknowledge it's full range of motion so that it can ignore and hide from responsibility. I also suspect that other people may experience a similar struggle and that I "am not" unique for experiencing this. Depending on your point of view, I could be extremely lucky or extremely disadvantaged for conceptualizing the self in such a way. Evolutionary Psychology and Cognitive Behavior Psychology tell me that holding more possibilities at once to influence decision making and then further refining and reflecting on those same decisions, is Meta Cognition and part of what has allowed us to become the beings we "are". Cognitive Behavior Psychology will also tell you that humans are not as good at Meta Cognizing as they think they "are", and that Meta Cognition "is" discouraged because we cannot be unbiased towards ourselves. Alas, I've found myself back in the realm of Solipsism (just like RAW has pointed out time and again in this book). It's amazing that we "are" only capable of experiencing our own reality tunnel, no more or no less, at any given time. Sometimes, it seems as if we can peer into other people's reality tunnels, but that raises another question. "Are" we truly peering into their reality tunnel or "are" we still just experiencing our own reality tunnel? I suppose that when we erroneously believe we "are" experiencing someone else's reality tunnel, our distortion of their reality tunnel "is" the act of projection. Theoretically, some reality tunnels align with mine, creating a Venn Diagram of sorts with a Vesica Piscis in the center of the overlapping reality tunnels (envisioned by the circles of the Venn Diagram). The Vesica Piscis contains the shared sliver of space-time where the two reality tunnels affirm each other's point of view. Chaos Magick also argues that "Nothing is true, everything is permissible," (or in E-Prime, "Nothing seems true, everything seems permissible). RAW asked earlier in the book how many people does it take to affirm something before it "is" true? Two? Three? Four people? If I have someone else who affirms my reality tunnel and we can identify what occupies that Vesica shaped shared space, does that make us true? 50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong, right?

@Hannah I have this experience often too. It reminds me about how a few years ago, there were all of these articles about how younger generations aren't doing very well at argumentative essay writing in academia because they often don't want to pick a side or argue an opinion. I remember reading these articles and thinking that was a silly complaint to make since there's also a big push within academia to see both sides and become well rounded. I am also reminded that the devil is in the details haha. I tend to remain quiet since I disarm my own speech before it has even surfaced, but I appreciate that you emphasized listening to the Will. I have found that situations where I feel that I have acted and spoken authentically can easily lose their clarity and certainty after the fact when the Will gets ignored. I will have to continue to think about that.

@jjones I once took a medical anthropology course and we explored a lot about how sick people have been received by different cultures, spoiler alert, not well! Oftentimes they are naturally isolated and perceived as being in judgement for some kind of sin. I think part of this reaction is adaptive to prevent spreading infection... yes, totally Nepheshic. Today we know much more about particular kinds of illnesses, which is transmissible and so on... yet still people with chronic illnesses with no chance of spread are still isolated and stigmatized.

@jjones thank you so much for making this post! We went camping and I dropped the ball. Your response makes sense (I didn't read the chapter). I think different parts of ourself are naturally drawn out by different environments and relationships, and this is very healthy. I think it brings to mind the flexibility of our persona as a mask, we can try on different masks to suit our environment, but ultimately we are not one mask entirely.

@zeph that is fair but.. viewing one's circumstance as "fortunate" as in the case of a debilitating chronic disease does not make the disease magically disappear. And because the disease doesn't disappear, doesn't mean that person hasn't changed their mindset enough to return to health. People under oppression of body, mind, and society, can choose to grow stronger as a result of their experience, but just because they are experiencing misfortune (in the objective case of literal oppression) does not mean they are responsible for it in their mind. I personally have a gripe about this interpretation that a lot of religions have that misfortune=punishment.

@Hannah This seems even more pertinent given how much we've watched society swing from one side of the polarity to the other over the past decades. Perhaps this statement highlights the significance of learning from the past so that we do not recreate the reality tunnels that put humanity backwards rather than forwards. It certainly feels as if we have taken two steps forward and one step back with how the world stage keeps unfolding.

@jjones Yes, definitely!

@Hannah For sure! Research in developmental psychology indicates that children typically develop the ability to understand outside perspectives around the age of 10. Prior to this age, children tend to concentrate primarily on themselves as they are in the process of becoming familiar with their own bodies and developing self-awareness. Around age 10, children generally begin to grasp concepts of independence, moral reasoning, and social integration. I think about how there are so many opportunities to disrupt development before the age of 10. It is no wonder so few people seem prepared to enter the world, given that so much psycho-spiritual "dirt" can accumulate before we are even aware that we are in the thick of it all!

@Hannah & @Because0 It's not unlike LLMs. I'm no expert on AI, but it strings together combinations of words that seem statistically likely to produce the intended meaning. Meanwhile, AI does not have a sensory apparatus to interact with material existence. So when AI says water... what is it talking about? I mean, sure, we can infer that it is talking about that substance that chemists designate as H2O, but it cannot actually experience what we mean by that word, "water." I'm sure y'all have experienced the word salad of AI slop, so this might seem somewhat obvious haha but it's perhaps a more extreme tangent to what RAW is getting at. It's crazy to think about how much of the world operates (without even considering AI) on people who talk about things they have never experienced. I mean, I encounter so many people who talk with certainty about knowing things they admit to have never met face to face, yet they make all kinds of decisions as if they were trained in such encounters. It's a bit of a miracle anything gets done at all

@jjones same!!

In a previous forum post, I mentioned Alfred Korzybski and Semantic Reactions. Expanding on my earlier post seems to be the most fitting response to this chapter on my part. Alfred Korzybski founded the field of General Semantics. He is notable for a book, Science and Sanity published in 1933. Korzybski sought to expand our understanding of semantics beyond our internal mechanisms of meaning making and interpretation. He focused primarily on how we react to language and symbol in our environment, including our moment-to-moment interactions with other humans in conversation. One of Korzybski's key concepts was Semantic Reaction. Semantic Reactions are whole-organism responses to a symbol. Rather than the denotative definition, this is the feeling one develops in response to a symbol. Whereas connotative meanings tend to be cultural and sociological, Semantic Reactions are the individual's physiological responses to a symbol based on the individual's psychology. A great example of this is the word, "Socialism." Oxford Languages defines Socialism as, "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." That definition sounds pretty cool (assuming we're living in an ideal society), right? As many already know, when you use the word, "Socialism," around different people, there is a wide diversity of responses. Some people may say that Socialism is positive and that they aspire to live in a society where Socialism makes up the structure of that civilization. Others may say that Socialism is a dirty word and react as if they smelled something foul. A third group may not have any internal experience of the word, finding it to be nothing more than a string of letters. The range of feelings associated with the word are Semantic Reactions. Korzybski believed this occurs because information processing is not a neutral mechanism. Instead, our nervous system responds to symbols based on prior conditioning, memory, fear, desire, prejudice, anxieties, etc. This may not seem like a new idea now but considering how many people ignore the importance of word choice in our daily lives, it's not hard to believe how revolutionary this idea seemed in 1933. Korzybski argued that Semantic Reactions form when we confuse the symbol for the reality it is describing. In fact, Korzybski is the one who coined the phrase, "The map is not the territory," which RAW uses as a primary thesis of Quantum Psychology. When we use language, we create an abstraction out of some "referent," the actual object we are trying to refer to. Sometimes, people speak as if the reality of the referent is smaller than the abstraction or word used to refer to the referent. To go back to my earlier example, when some people use the word, "Socialism," they do not seem to be responding to the definition of the word. Instead, they respond to what they've been told about the word. Most people in the United States have not experienced a socialist government. Yet, those who respond to the word with disgust tend to be certain that Socialism is a bad word not even worthy of contemplation (much less education on its meaning), and those who respond with pleasure tend to be certain about that a socialist government's merits and values overshadow the fact that we do not live in an ideal society where people are 100% good. I would argue that the term, "Buzzword," refers to this idea of Semantic Reactions when the reactions are positive, pleasurable, and/or addictive. People use Buzzwords, or specialized terms, to assert authority and/or impress those around them. These words often become trendy and experience an increase in usage not because of what they mean, but rather because of the Semantic Reactions they elicit in others. People mimic others, spreading Buzzwords like Social Contagion, until their nervous system is attenuated to that Semantic Reaction. When attenuation occurs, the Semantic Reaction loses its novelty or thrill, much the same way a drug addict develops a tolerance. Then the Buzzword fades away as people no longer use that term. Semantic Reactions can be even more subtle. For example, when I catch someone in a "lie," my natural reaction is to label that person a liar. Liar is a negative category in my mind, and makes me feel very distrustful, sometimes even angry at the person labelled "liar." But suppose this person spoke in Good Faith, unaware that I labelled them a liar? Perhaps their information is simply skewed or ill-informed and they are unaware. Depending on how they presented their information to me, I might be in the wrong for projecting the label, "liar," onto them. The person may have spoken in a way that made me feel as if they were a liar. Since "Liar" is a bad word, my anger and distrust are a reaction to the meaning I've projected onto the word "Liar." If this is the case, then my reaction is maladaptive and unfounded. Being able to perform maintenance on our Semantic Reactions was one of Korzybski's calls to action. In future chapters of Quantum Psychology, RAW presents a formulation of the English language that, when internalized, provides a means of recognizing our Semantic Reactions. However, certain Buddhist exercises also seek to accomplish this as well. When one becomes aware of Semantic Reactions, communication becomes more miraculous. At a certain stage of my own path, I became acutely aware that people were not actually listening to the words I was saying. Instead, people were listening to the Semantic Reactions they formed from their own associations with words. I discovered that often, others and I were not actually communicating with each other. Instead, we were essentially responding to whatever words we liked and didn't like completely independent of the actual messages we were trying to communicate. This led me down a rabbit hole that made me wonder how much of my speech and others was truly understood, and how much of it was simply forced into the conditioned responses to the words myself and others were using. This will, of course, drive someone insane because we can never know the depth of such a phenomenon. I suspect that people with more knowledge and care about their words are perhaps more likely to understand me than those who believe words are unimportant. Considering there are people in positions of power that are unaware of these ideas, it's a bit of miracle that communication and social cohesion exist at the scale that they do. In response to the specific chapter we read, RAW seems to be emphasizing institutions like the FCC are policing what is considered acceptable language by forcing other people to agree with their Semantic Reactions. Given the nature of American culture, it is likely that these Semantic Reactions are particularly puritanical. The 7 Forbidden Words are a particularly useful example in showing how groups can enforce Semantic Reactions. With a large group to enforce Semantic Reactions, it is not hard to see why RAW believes many in our modern society operate and cogitate similarly to those from Medieval England. Semantic Reactions are perhaps one of the best explanations for what the occultist can mean when referring to “spirits,” as they are one of many unseen forces that affect individuals as well as groups.

@Hannah Fascinating! I had not heard of that term before. In response to your last question, there are languages that are built without Aristotelian logic. Without giving away too many spoilers, RAW presents a form of the English language that prevents Aristotelian logic in future chapters of the book. However, I am currently also listening to a seminar on Non Violent Communication where Marshall Rosenberg (the creator of the Non Violent Communication modality) mentions encountering a tribal people who do not use language to classify people, instead focusing on needs. He says that rather than calling people selfish, their custom would be to ask what needs aren't being met that are causing this person to act in a way we call selfish. This is similar to Non Aristotelian thinking in that it doesn't identify people as static categories. More abstractly, I think the Qabalah is a language that doesn't rely on Aristotelian thinking. People who try to make it rely on Aristotelian thinking (those folks who say each symbol only has one correct meaning at the expense of everything else that symbol means) don't seem to be 'doing' Qabalah correctly. For example, the Hebrew letters and words have multiple meanings and cannot be classified in a binary. In my opinion, at its essence, Non-Aristotelian thinking is a Non Rational process that seeks to perceive the gradation between opposites. This inherently requires one to unify a few opposites before they can see what is meant (i.e. that A and B also have C in between the two terms, etc.) and this means being allowed to sit with Uncertainty until the Cognitive Dissonance collapses and reveals their connection. However, once one grasps the process of unifying opposites, I would hope that it would get easier and easier to sit with the opposites. The ideas RAW presents in this book are not necessarily original. RAW has stated that he got most of the ideas from Alfred Korzybski, a linguist that eventually was deemed a pseudo-scientist. Korzybski believed that most people, when they believe they are communicating with each other, are actually reacting to Semantic Reactions. I don't intend to be crass, but you know how certain people get really, really upset when you use the word socialism or talk about social welfare? Well, the knee jerk response to the word, "Socialism," is precisely what Korzybski was referring to. The people who react that way are not actually offended by the word, "Socialism," and don't actually seem to know what that word really means. Instead, they are reacting to a meaning that has been associated with that word, triggering a maladaptive response. Korzybski said that the best thing we can do to overcome this is to only speak, "facts," which he has a technical definition for. The way we do that is very similar to what RAW presents in future chapters. RAW is the most accessible manual of Korzybski's linguistics that I have found. So I hope this gets you excited for the chapter of the book when we learn about "E-Prime"!

@zeph Hahaha I was hoping to dodge that question. I have been trying to type out specifically what I mean all morning and have been unable to adequately communicate it. I don't know that this is an entirely new idea, but I like the way this chapter combats some of the blockages in understanding the True Will. If the True Will is a distant object that we are aspiring to align with and grow closer to, Aristotelian, or binary logic appears as one of the earliest obstacles obscuring the nature of the True Will. I notice, between myself and others I have spoken to online or in person, the discussion of the True Will can easily become a question of individual certainty. The True Will inherently contains a large amount of uncertainty at the outset of the path, and the emphasis placed on the True Will (as well as the projected advantages of operating from True Will) might inspire an individual to make discovery a high stakes event. It is natural for an individual to want answers. Many, myself included, have attributed messianic and apocalyptic proportion to the discovery of the True Will. The perfectly innocent question, "What is my True Will?" suddenly becomes a demon of uncertainty that must be killed so that one can magically right their life and escape suffering forever in a lightning flash. However, this demon of uncertainty (and egoic grasping towards the True Will) is predicated upon this yes/no logic. In my own experience, every possible answer I came up with to answer that question, "What is my True Will?" has not been good enough. There has always been some shred of uncertainty preventing my ego from attaining that 100% certain answer to whatever my mind posits to be my specific True Will. My ego gets very displeased with uncertainty and would rather not take action if it doesn't have everything already worked out. Rather than discover True Will in the things I already do, my ego mistakenly believes that I must be doing something else, something outside of me, otherwise I wouldn't be experiencing this uncertainty or the discomfort that comes with it. Nonetheless, I have been told, and I have experienced that my True Will keeps on regardless of my awareness of it. But if only I could say, "Yes, this IS my True Will!" then my ego could rest and my life would just magically work itself out, right? My ego would love to believe that it is that simple, a change from one state of not knowing into the state of knowing like the flip of a switch. It foolishly believes that if I just flip that switch, I will never have to suffer again. Never mind that this is a subtle tactic the ego uses to give away autonomy. I know I am not the first or the last to experience this fantasy. Any time spent on the path should demonstrate that this fantasy doesn't hold up against reality. The True Will, in my experience, appears non-local. It expresses itself in infinitely varied circumstances. Sometimes these circumstances appear completely out of left field and do not initially align with what my ego believes to be "me." Of course, the demon of uncertainty feeds on those expressions of True Will because they fly in the face of what my ego considers orderly, predictable, and easily simplified into binaries. So how does one integrate all of that without going insane? Well, if we dispense with the idea that we can be 100% certain about our True Will in any given moment (since there is always a factor we cannot account for), we must also get rid of the idea that we are entirely 0% certain of our True Will at any given moment. Already, this rearrangement of our limitations has major implications. One can easily fall into the nihilism that RAW describes if we fixate on the loss of certainty. However, if someone decides to go in the opposite direction, then there is always some level of certainty we have in every situation. Since our goal is to act with more certainty (assuming that everyone else's ego also likes certainty), we might have a lot more data to work with in any given situation than what might be apparent. If it is our responsibility to act with certainty, then we have the opportunity to be responsible in every circumstance in our lives. What does this imply further about the True Will? If the True Will "is" not the thing we do with utmost certainty, we cannot use certainty as a marker of True Will. Instead, since the True Will expresses itself in varying circumstances and varying degrees of awareness, the True Will must also follow probabilistic logic. The True Will, then, becomes a specific set of probabilities (limited by our biological vehicle and material reality) that are likely to occur based on the expression of the Life Force in any given moment. Regardless of the situation I find myself in, every set of choices I come up with can be measured as more or less likely in alignment with True Will. Rather than place high stakes on one specific choice that is 100% certainly my True Will, I now have a range of motion I can choose from with relative confidence that it will align. This blows the lid off the initial yes/no logic analysis I proposed at the beginning of this post. Suddenly, "What is my True Will?" no longer holds weight because the True Will no longer appears as an object that falls in the "True" or "Certain" category. True Will becomes infinitely more adaptable, fluid, attainable yet illusive, and even more non-rational. It is no longer one simple title, or action, or thought, etc., but rather a set of optimized potentials with varying degrees of likelihood to manifest LVX. The specific identity of the True Will no longer matters because it's infinite potential inspires more freedom. True Will holds a space between yes or no, and every situation an individual finds themselves in becomes a series of probabilities, "How likely is this choice I've settled on in alignment with my True Will?" It also dispenses of the messianic urge and apocalyptic stakes that come with the fear of acting outside of 100% alignment with the True Will. What I believe this chapter of Quantum Psychology to imply about the individual "is" that awareness progresses from binary logic (I am doing my True Will, or I'm not doing my True Will) into probabilistic logic (I am making choices that are likely in alignment with my True Will). Furthermore, some of the highest levels of probability appear to function as if I acted with 100% certainty, showing themselves to be just as effective as 100% certainty (though less destabilizing when it turns out to inaccurate). This in turn lowers the stakes and dispels superstitious thinking. Viewing the True Will as a force of potentials that are not real until brought into Assiah implies a Bell Curve of choices in every situation increasing potential freedom of movement and action not present in a "This IS True Will" dichotomy. When we dispel the need for 100% certainty, True Will no longer needs to be a specific form, and instead becomes a game of increasing confidence levels in choices to strengthen likelihoods and other probabilities. Someone can identify a different level or register of cohesion in their actions, a non-rational cohesion, that doesn't easily fit into a box. Disparate occurrences become chains of events that appear unified to the individual acting from True Will and largely chaotic to the other who has no knowledge of that individual's path. In my opinion, once a certain amount of knowledge accumulates, probabilistic logic seems to be the only practical way of navigating an otherwise overwhelming existence. If we remain in binary logic, we risk insanity as we get lost in the infinite nuance that complicates our existence. The better we can assess those probabilities, the better we can make choices that align with our overall goal and path through the world.