Last night I had a dream, and in that dream there was a billboard that contained the following message:

"Do not let the moment take you out of the Now."

Now usually I do not remember such things but in this case it was clear enough that upon awaking from the dream I repeated it and so was able to still remember it in the morning. Then, in my usual morning meditation, I focused upon this phrase to see what understanding would come forth.

The result was a vision of Existence and experience in a sort of cross-section, where Existence was a mirror and experience the reflection that rests upon that mirror. Now for some time I have understood the relation between Existence and experience to be like that of a mirror and a reflection, but I had not before seen their relation in this exact way, i.e., in cross-section, and with this degree of clarity.

And so as I usually do, on the days I do not have to go into work, I spent the morning writing.

Below is a drawing of the relation between Existence and experience seen in cross-section.

Drawing 1 top
-------------------------------------------------------
Now - the Mirror - Existence-Consciousness -The Self-
The More Fundamental Individuality

----------------------> Flow of the Self
-------------------------------------------------------

The moment- the experience- the reflection apprehended by the Individual
________________________
wanted experience

-------------------------------------------------------
Now - the Mirror - Existence-Consciousness- The Individual

--------------------> allowing - aligned flow
-------------------------------------------------------
Drawing 1 bottom

Drawing 2 top
-------------------------------------------------------
Now - the Mirror - Existence-Consciousness -The Self-
The More Fundamental Individuality

----------------------> Flow of the Self
-------------------------------------------------------

The moment- the experience- the reflection apprehended by the Individual
________________________
unwanted experience

-------------------------------------------------------
Now - the Mirror - Existence-Consciousness- The Individual

< ------------------- resistance- oppositional flow
-------------------------------------------------------
Drawing 2 bottom

These two drawings depict all that is happening in the creation of anything we experience, because everything we experience is the product of our Individual flow in relation to the flow of our More Fundamental Individuality, and that relation is always either one of aligned or oppositional flow, depending on our chosen mode of being as allowing or resistant. Experience then is created as the boundary or reflection that arises where our Individual flow meets the flow of our More Fundamental Individuality or Inner Self.

Very few people understand how experience is created and its actual cause. Most see only experience and know nothing of the Underlying Actuality of their own Existence and of the relation of Existential flow that creates experience. Lao Tzu knew and he wrote about it, and about the flow. He called the Now the Tao, and he said that pushing against something only creates more of what you are pushing against. And he also said that to be like the Tao is to be allowing.

Seeing only experience one reacts to experience rather than proactively creating experience by consciously choosing to allow. And in reacting to experience one becomes bound because one is then choosing unconsciously rather than consciously their mode of being as allowing or resistant. One is always free to choose one mode of being or the other, allowing or resistance, but if one is reacting then to some degree they are letting that choice be made by not by themself, but by the previously created experience, in which case then the next created experience simply mirrors the last created experience and on and on. It is as if one decides what color to paint their house not based upon the color they want to paint it, but upon the color that was used to paint the last house.

That is how we live, painting our houses not according to how we ourselves want to paint them, but according to, i.e., as a reaction to, how the other houses have already been painted. That is, that is how we create experience, not according to what we want to create as experience, but according to how the last experience was created, as we react to that experience, unconsciously rather than consciously choosing our mode of being, and so unconsciously rather than consciously creating experience as wanted or unwanted as a reaction to the last experience created, as a reaction to the experience of the moment, in which reaction we are letting the moment take us out of the Now, letting the experience of the moment divert our attention from the way in which we are flowing our Being in the eternal and timeless Now that is not different or other than what we Are.

That is what is meant by saying do not let the moment take you out of the Now.

Do not let the experience that you are having in this moment take you out of alignment with your Self.

Experience is secondary to how we are choosing to flow our Being. Experience is always secondary to how we are choosing to flow our Being. Our Flow is causal, experience is its effect. However, when we see experience as primary, as causal, we then allow our Flow to become an effect of that misperceived cause, and in so doing our view of reality becomes turned upside down from its actual relation. And so we apprehend an unwanted experience and we react with resistant Flow, and in that resistant Flow we create more unwantedness, which we react to with resistant Flow, and on and on. It then seems that we feel bad, that we experience unwanted emotion, owing to what we misapprehend as cause, i.e., owing to external unwanted circumstance, and so we try to modify our emotional experience not by changing our Flow from resistant to allowing, not by changing the actual cause, rather, we try to modify our emotional experience by acting upon what to us appears as causal, which is external circumstance-experience. And the way we act upon unwanted external circumstance is almost always with an attitude of resistance, by trying to push it away or eliminate it, which unbeknownst to us, is itself the actual cause of experiential unwantedness, both emotional and external.

Unwanted emotion precedes unwanted thought, and unwanted thought precedes unwanted external circumstance, i.e., unwanted physical experience. Likewise, wanted emotion precedes wanted thought, and wanted thought precedes wanted external circumstance, i.e., wanted physical experience. And all of this is caused by oppositional or aligned Existential Flow. Experience is the effect, We are the cause. But we treat experience as the cause and so we react as effect to that misperceived cause. But no matter how much experience seems to be causal, it remains always an effect of the actual cause, which is how we are flowing in relation to Our Self.

What happens at the surface, in the moment, as the experience-reflection, depends on what is happening Now, depends on what is happening within the Mirror, and specifically depends on how Existence in the Now is flowing in relation to Itself, i.e., whether that flow is aligned or oppositional.

When you are in the Now, conscious of the Now, it is easy to maintain aligned flow. Actually, the only way to be in the Now is to already be flowing in alignment. When the focus is on experience alone, one loses sight of the Now, and then one simply reacts to the experience of the moment. But when the focus is on the Now, then the reflections that come and go are less likely to distract one from the underlying Reality of their own Existence.

Most people are not aware of the Now, of the underlying Actuality. For them the reality rests solely in the reflection, in what they experience, not knowing that the more fundamental Reality is that which apprehends experience, and through relation to Itself creates experience.

Most people spend their lives simply reacting to the reflections that arise on the surface of what they are, which reflections arise owing to the relations with Themself in which they are involved, and which reactions create further relations that create further reflections which they then react to and on and on and on….. Unaware of the actual causation of the experience-reflections, they seem to be random or caused by forces outside of one's own self. And so a reflection arises that is unwanted and we reflexively push against it, and in that resistance flow in opposition to our Self and in so doing create more unwanted reflection-experiences. Likewise, a reflection arises that is wanted and so we reflexively allow it and in that allowing flow in alignment with our Self and in so doing create more wanted reflection-experiences.

When I remember what I am I do not react to experience and so do not let the moment take me out of the Now. When I forget what I am, I react to experience and in so doing let the moment take me out of the Now. My days are a mixture of both of these situations, in varying degrees.

We do not live in a material world. That we live in a material world is an illusion. The material world is an experiential world, and as such it is a reflection that rests upon the Mirror of What Actually Exists, and it is in the world of the Mirror that we actually live, whether we know it or not. That is, the material world is not itself an illusion, as it exists as a reality, i.e., as an experiential reality, as a reflection exists on the surface of a mirror. The illusion is that material reality is what actually exists, or is what is actually there where it appears to be, as it is also an illusion to think that a reflection is what is actually there where it appears to be, as what is actually there is whatever it is upon which the reflection rests.

And in the case of the reflection that is material reality, what is actually there upon which that reflection rests is Existence-Consciousness, i.e., that which through relation to Itself both creates and apprehends experiential reality. And so the materialists have it backwards, which is to say, they see the relation between material reality and Consciousness in a way that is the complete opposite of their actual relation. That is, materialists see material reality, or some version of material reality, e.g., quantum reality, as being the source or producer of Consciousness through some sort of material cause and effect. However, this is like saying that the reflection that rests within a mirror somehow produces the mirror within which it rests and upon which its very existence depends.

But because materialists do not recognize that there is a mirror, because they take material reality in one form or another for what's actually there, it must then seem to them that material reality is the cause and Consciousness the effect, when again, their relation is the exact opposite, i.e., Consciousness is the cause and material reality or experiential reality, is the effect. Consider that you were raised in a world where you were taught that reflections were the reality, were what's actually there, and then at some point you become cognizant of a mirror. What then are you to make of the mirror and of its place in reality? The position of actuality, of cause, is already occupied, and so the mirror must somehow be crammed into the position of effect. This is what has happened in the materialist view of reality, wherein one attempts to account for Consciousness within a framework where material reality is taken as causal, for what's actually there. That is, Consciousness is seen as effect not because it is effect, but because that is how it must be seen within a materialistic framework.

It is as if one spent their life thinking that a board was the causal reality, and then they came across a tree and then went about trying to figure out how the tree comes from the board. It is absurd, but it is how it must seem when one confuses cause for effect, and vice versa.

The problem for idealists has been explaining how the somethingness of material and experiential reality can come from the seeming nothingness of Consciousness. That is where the Relational Matrix Model of Reality and reality comes in. The missing link has been: how does Consciousness-Existence create experience, and so create what we, as Consciousness, apprehend as material reality? And the answer is very simple: by being in relation to Itself, and as a result or effect of that relation, creating something that the Consciousness involved in the relation apprehends as experience.

And this is not an explanation devoid of science. To the contrary, it is an explanation that rests upon the furthest reaches of science, as it rests upon the limitations of experience encountered as scientists have tried to quantify and examine the smallest bits of material reality, i.e., it rests upon the phenomena of wave-particle duality and quantum uncertainty. Scientists have not yet figured out the basis of these phenomena because they continue to look at them within a materialistic framework, i.e., within a framework where material reality is still seen as primary and therefore causal. There are many who have understood that these phenomena indicate that Consciousness must be part of the equation, but there are few if any who understand that in that equation it is Consciousness itself that is causal and material reality, experiential reality, that is purely the effect.

The primacy of material reality is the flat earth idea of our time. That is, it is an idea that seems logical, based upon appearances, but from a broader perspective is seen to be but an illusion of perspective. Scientists operate within that framework and hence operate within a framework that is the opposite of the actual situation, and so it is not surprising that they have been unable to comprehend the meaning of phenomena which, when understood, obliterate the framework from which they operate.

And so we actually live in a world of Existential cause and experiential effect. That is, the cause is/are the relations of Existence- Consciousness to Itself, and the effect is the experience apprehended by Existence-Consciousness. However, the relations of Existence-Consciousness to Itself do more than just produce experience. That is, the effect of the relations of Existence to Itself have as their effect more than just the production of an experience.

If the relations of Existence-Consciousness to Itself produced only experience, then there would only be two complementary experiences; i.e., wanted and unwanted emotion. If the relations of Existence-Consciousness to Itself produced only experience there would only be the two most fundamental complementary experiences; ; i.e., wanted and unwanted emotion, because there would only be two relations possible; first level relations of aligned or oppositional Existential flow, producing wanted or unwanted emotion, respectively.

But the relations of Existence-Consciousness to Itself do not just produce experience as an effect. Rather, the relations of Existence-Consciousness to Itself also produce as an effect a Relational Structure composed of Existence-Consciousness as it is being in relation to Itself creating what it is apprehending as experience. And so the Cause produces an Effect and an effect. That is, the Cause, i.e., Existence-Consciousness, through relation to Itself, produces as a result or effect two different effects, one of which is composed of Itself and the other of which is not composed of Itself. And so the Cause becomes Effect and then can once again serve as Cause, creating another Effect and effect, and on and on, ad infinitum, creating a progressive and fractal structure of Reality composed of Itself as it is being progressively and iteratively in relation to Itself, while at the same time creating a progressive series of experiential realities that have as their basis the progressive relations of Existence-Consciousness to Itself made possible by the Relational Structure that evolves through the progressive and iterative relation of Existence to Itself.

Thus, because the relations of Existence-Consciousness produce both Effect and effect, it becomes possible for Existence-Consciousness to produce more than one pair of effects, more than one pair of experiences. And because the relations of Existence-Consciousness always produce both Effect and effect, what happens is that the ongoing, progressive and iterative relations of Existence-Consciousness to Itself in producing an effect, i.e., an experience, also produce as an Effect the basis of the next progression of experience, the basis of the next effect. And so what we apprehend as experiential reality is a progressive series of experiential complements, extending from the emotional, to the mental, and then to the physical or material. And underlying that progressive series of experiential complements is a progressive Relational Structure composed of Existence-Consciousness being in relation to Itself, which Relational Structure cannot Itself be an experience, because experience is of a different nature than Existence-Consciousness.

And so we do not live in a material world, and so we do not live in a world of material cause and effect. Material reality does not cause Consciousness as an effect. We live in a world of Existential cause and experiential effect, where Existence-Consciousness is the cause and experience the effect. Consciousness causes material reality to arise as an effect of its relations to Itself.

Therefore, the brain is not a material reality that produces Consciousness, rather, Consciousness through its relations to Itself produce the Relational Structure we apprehend as brain. It is not a question of how does the brain produce Consciousness, it is a question of how does Consciousness use the Relational Structure we apprehend as brain to create experience for Itself, to become involved in relations with Itself that create higher order physical experiences.

What we apprehend as brain is composed of Consciousness, as is everything, as is empty space. The ability to create experience, to apprehend experience, is intrinsic to every point in the Universe and beyond. However, the type of experience created is dependent upon the ability or way Existence can be in relation to Itself. And what the brain does is allow for relations that would otherwise not be possible, and so allows for the creation of experiences that would otherwise not be possible.

For Consciousness to create and apprehend experience it has to be in relation to Itself and for it to create and apprehend a particular experience it has to be in a particular relation. The relations that create emotional experiences are different than the relations that create mental experiences, and the relations that creates mental experiences are different than the relations that create physical experiences. Consciousness cannot just decide that it is going to have a physical experience and produce for Itself such an experience in the absence of the Relational Framework composed Itself that allows for the particular Existential relation that produces as an effect that particular type of experience.

And underlying what we apprehend as the material reality we call brain is the Relational Framework or Relational Structure composed of Existence-Consciousness that allows for the Existential relations that produce as their effect what Consciousness then apprehends as physical experience. And so again, the question is not how does the brain produce Consciousness, but how does Consciousness, structured as what we apprehend as the brain, produce a particular physical experience?

But even more interesting is the question regarding how Consciousness, through its exercise of free will, through its intrinsic ability to choose its direction of flow relative to Itself, uses Itself structured as brain to control Itself structured as body. And it may be that this exercise of choice manifests in what is apprehended as quantum spin states.

Underlying every atom, every quark, every gluon, every whatever, even space, is Consciousness structured in relation to Itself, Consciousness being in relation to Itself and as a result of those relations being configured into a Relational Structure that is composed of Consciousness and so composed of, at each and every point regardless of scale, that which has the intrinsic ability to choose its direction of flow relative to Itself.

I used to think that quantum randomness was a function of the same experiential limitation that creates the phenomena of wave-particle duality and uncertainty, until I realized that underlying every experience, no matter what we call it, and no matter how small or large, is Consciousness that is free to choose to flow this way or that. And whatever we apprehend as experience is the result of that choice, and so how can we predict what will happen when what happens is something that occurs as a result of a choice over which we ourselves have no control, because that choice rests within the thing itself, just as the choices we make arise ultimately from within our self.

All experience is the product of a relation in which the Individual that apprehends the relation must themselves be involved. The necessity of the Individual's involvement in some relation in order to create whatever they apprehend as experience imposes certain limitations upon what it is possible for an Individual to create as experience in any one moment according to the relations in which that Individual must already be involved in order to create what they are already, in that moment, apprehending as experience.

The limitations upon what an Individual can create as experience in any one moment is limited by the relations in which that Individual can become involved in a given moment, and the relations in which an Individual can become involved in a given moment are limited by the relations in which that Individual is, in that same moment, already involved. The relations in which an Individual is already involved limit the relations in which an Individual can become involved in that same moment in both a negative and positive way, in a way that is both negatively and positively restrictive.

The relations in which an Individual is already involved limit the relations in which an Individual can become involved in that same moment in a negative way because it is not possible for an Individual to be simultaneously involved in opposite or mutually exclusive relations. Thus, if an Individual is involved in a relation with an Underlying Actuality in a way that creates a particular experience, then it is not possible for that Individual, in that same moment, to be involved in a relation with that Underlying Actuality in a way that creates the opposite experience, since opposite experiences are always the product of opposite and so mutually exclusive relations. Thus, the negative experiential limitation limits experience by making it impossible for an Individual to simultaneously be involved in the mutually exclusive relations necessary to create opposite experiences, and therefore limits the Individual to creating and apprehending, in any moment, only one or the other of any experiential duality or complementarity, or some portion of both, such as wave and particle, or position and momentum. Thus, the phenomena of w-p duality and quantum uncertainty do not have a material cause, but have an Existential cause, and are purely functions of the way experience is created as the product of some relation of Consciousness-Existence to Itself.

This same negative experiential restriction operates at all levels of experience, not just at the quantum level, although so immersed are we in experience that we take its operation in the creation of everyday experience for granted and do not recognize its operation at those levels, the same way it is not recognized even at the quantum level for what it is, i.e., a limitation upon what it is possible for an Individual to create and apprehended in any one moment as experience. Scientists, ensconced as they are in a material framework, and so in a framework of material causation, continue to try and explain this negative restriction as the product of some sort of material mechanical effect, when it has as its basis the very way in which experience is created. This negative experiential limitation is responsible for most if not all interpersonal conflict, i.e., the inability of each person to see the others side, and it is responsible for why for everything you know there is something else you can't know. It is responsible for the creation of an experiential blind spot consisting of whatever experiences are the opposite of those you are already experiencing.

However, there is also a positive experiential limitation, a limitation that limits the creation of experience in a positive way according to the relations in which an Individual is already involved in order to create what they are already, in that moment, apprehending as experience. The relations in which an Individual is already involved limit the relations in which an Individual can become involved in that same moment in a positive way because any relation in which an Individual becomes involved must be mutually inclusive of the relations in which that Individual is already, in that moment, involved. That is, because the relations in which an Individual can become involved in any one moment cannot be mutually exclusive of relations in which they are already involved, the relations in which they can become involved must then be the opposite of mutually exclusive relations, and therefore must be mutually inclusive of relations in which they are already, in that same moment, involved.

Whereas the negative experiential limitation dictates what an Individual cannot know according to what they already know, the positive experiential limitation dictates what an Individual must know according to what they already know. Whereas the negative experiential limitation dictates the relations in which an Individual cannot be involved according to relations in which they are already involved, the positive experiential limitation dictates the way in which an Individual must be in relation according to relations in which they are already involved. And since all experience is created as the product of a particular relation in which the Individual that is apprehending the experience must themselves be involved, the negative experiential limitation, in dictating the relations in which an Individual cannot be involved according to relations in which they are already involved, dictates what it is not possible for an Individual to create and apprehend as experience according to the relations in which they are already, in that moment, involved in order to create what they are, in that moment, already apprehending as experience.

And since all experience is created as the product of a particular relation in which the Individual that is apprehending the experience must themselves be involved, the positive experiential limitation, in dictating the relations in which an Individual must be involved according to relations in which they are already involved, dictates how an Individual must create and apprehend experience according to the relations in which they are already, in that moment, involved in order to create what they are, in that moment, already apprehending as experience. It is this positive experiential limitation, which is the corollary of the negative experiential limitation, that is responsible for the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. That is, it is this positive experiential limitation that dictates how the other aspect of a quantum system will be apprehended as an experience according to the relation already established with one aspect of the quantum system, because the relation established with one aspect of a quantum system, which then creates an experience, limits in a positive way the relation the Individual can establish in that same moment with the other aspect of the quantum system, because those relations must be mutually inclusive of each other, as they cannot be mutually exclusive. This is the basis of what Einstein referred to as "spooky action at a distance." It is not the result of any mechanical cause, but is an Existential cause creating an experiential effect. That is, it is a result not of any material cause and effect, but is a result of the way experience is always created as the product of some relation of What's Actually There to Itself, and of the limitations that arise unavoidably from the necessity of the Individuals involvement in a relation in order to create what they apprehend as experience, and the way their involvement in other relations limits in both a negative and positive way, through the unavoidable preclusion of mutually exclusive relations, and the unavoidable inclusion of mutually inclusive relations, that Individuals in the moment or simultaneous involvement in other relations and so the experiences that any Individual can create and apprehend in any one moment.

There is nothing that says that if you becomes involved in a relation with one aspect of a quantum system and creates an experience as a result that you also have to be in relation to some other aspect of that quantum system and create experience as a result. But if you are involved in a relation with one aspect of a quantum system and then become involved with another aspect of that quantum system, then the positive experiential limitation dictates that the second relation must be mutually inclusive of the first, and so the second experience created will be one that is created as the product of relation that is mutually inclusive of the first relation.

As Individuals we are not limited to creating one experience at a time as we are not limited to being involved in one relation at a time. We are, in any moment, involved in countless relations and creating countless experiences. However, although we can be involved in more than one relation at a time, we cannot be involved in mutually exclusive relations at the same time, e.g., we cannot face North and South at the same time, because if we are in one relation then we are, by definition, not in the other mutually exclusive relation.

And so it is that while facing North we cannot see what lies South. But while facing North we can see many different things owing to our involvement in many mutually inclusive relations, i.e. relations that are inclusive of the more fundamental relation of facing North. But we can't see things that would require our involvement in the mutually exclusive relation, i.e., we can't see things that would require that we face South. Thus, if to experience something we would have to face South, we are precluding from becoming involved in that relation as long as we remain involved in the relation in which we are facing North. That is a negative limitation, and that is the experiential preclusion that makes it impossible for an Individual to simultaneously create and apprehend experiences that would require that Individual's simultaneous involvement in mutually exclusive relations.

And this negative limitation can be very subtle in its limiting effect, and yet without mercy in the absoluteness of the limitation it imposes. For instance, if while facing North you see something that is very beautiful and you don't want to stop seeing it, in order to remain involved in that particular relation that creates that particular experience, you not only have to remain involved in the relation that creates that particular experience, but you also have to remain involved in the more fundamental or proximal relation that makes that particular and mutually inclusive relation possible, which is the relation in which you are facing North.

But now let us say that while you continue to create the experience of the beautiful object you would like to see what lies to the South as well. But you can't. You can't see what lies to the South because you can't look South because that would require you to be in a relation that is mutually exclusive of the relation in which you must be involved in order to see the beautiful object, in order to continue to create and apprehend that experience, because creating the experience of the beautiful object, being in the relation in which you create the experience of the beautiful object, also requires you to be facing North, and so requires you to be in a relation that is mutually exclusive of the relation that is facing South.

But the subtle part of the limitation is as follows: you don't understand that being in the one relation requires you also be in the other more fundamental mutually inclusive relation. We take the more fundamental relation for granted, but the more fundamental relation is just as essential to the creation of the experience of the beautiful object as is the particular relation that creates that particular experience, because in the absence of the more fundamental relation there could be no more distal mutually inclusive particular relation creating the particular experience of the beautiful object.

In terms of the creation of visual experience we understand these relations and their limitations, but in terms of the creation of conceptual experience we do not understand these limitations because we do not understand all the more proximal levels of relation necessary to create a particular concept. That is, we can easily understand why we cannot see something that lies to the South while refusing to stop looking at something that lies to the North. But we do not understand that this same limitation applies to the creation of all experience, at every level, which includes mental-conceptual experience. Thus we do not understand why we cannot understand or comprehend a particular concept owing to the fact that we are in essence refusing to stop creating and apprehending some concept that requires our involvement in a mutually exclusive relation.

Everything you know, every thing you believe, everything you conceive, involves you being in a relation that is the equivalent of looking North or South, meaning that it involves your participation in a relation that makes impossible your simultaneous involvement in any mutually exclusive relation, that makes impossible your simultaneous involvement in any relation requires you to be in a relation that is mutually exclusive of any and all of the relations in which you must be involved in order to create what you are, in that moment, apprehending as the particular concept or belief or knowledge. That is the negative experiential limitation, that is the experiential preclusion, and that is what creates an experiential blind spot consisting of whatever experiences are the opposite of those you are presently creating and apprehending.

Likewise, everything you know, every thing you believe, everything you conceive, involves you being in a relation that is the equivalent of looking North or South, meaning that it involves your participation in a relation that limits you to being involved in relations that are mutually inclusive of any and all of the relations in which you must be involved in order to create what you are, in that moment, apprehending as the particular concept or belief or knowledge. That is the positive experiential limitation, that is experiential entanglement, and that is what limits our creation of experience to creating only those experiences that require our involvement in relations that are mutually inclusive of those in which we are already involved. Thus, when one aspect of a quantum system is seen or experienced as being in a certain spin state, the way the other will be experienced, i.e., what is experienced as the spin state of the other, is then determined by the positive experiential limitation that dictates that the way the other aspect is experienced must be a product of a relation that is mutually inclusive of the relation that created the experience-spin state of the one aspect.

Thus, the reason creating one experience instantaneously determines how the other is created is because the particular relation that creates the particular experience of one spin state limits the particular relation that creates the particular experience of the other spin state to being one that is mutually inclusive of the particular relation that created the particular experience of the one spin state. Put another way, the reason creating one experience instantaneously determines how the other is created is because the particular relation that creates the particular experience of one spin state determines, through positive experiential limitation, i.e., through experiential entanglement, the particular relation though which it is possible to create the experience of the others spin state, because those two relations that create those two different and yet related experiences must be mutually inclusive of each other. And they must be mutually inclusive of each other because they involve an Individuals simultaneous relation to what is a single quantum system, or a singular Underlying Actuality. Thus, being in a particular relation to the quantum system and creating a particular experience means any other simultaneous relations to that same quantum system by the same Individual that create any other experience must be relations that are mutually inclusive of the particular relation.

Let us consider this positive experiential limitation in the context of facing North. Facing North involves a relation to the quantum system we can call Earth. Being in that relation causes one to create the experience of seeing what lies North. While in that relation with the earth any other relations, i.e., anything else that is seen, must occur within the context of a relation that is mutually inclusive of that relation, i.e., must be a relation that has as its basis the relation of facing North. Thus, the mutually inclusive nature of the relations that must be used to create simultaneous experiences involving the same quantum system, or the same Underlying Actuality, cause an experiential entanglement between those experiences, in which there is a consistent relation observed between the apprehended experiences owing to the mutually inclusive and so entangled nature of the relations that an Individual must use to create those experiences.

The experiential limitations limit the individuals involvement in relations, but it is the relations in which the Individual is involved that create what the Individual apprehends as experience. Thus, the limitations in limiting relations limit the creation of experience, both negatively and positively, according to what relations are not possible and according to what relations are only possible.

Whereas the one limitation creates an experiential blind spot consisting of the experiences that are the opposite of those we are presently experiencing, the other fills in that blind spot with experiences that are mutually inclusive of those we are presently experiencing. Thus, when we conceive that the world is flat we don't know that in that moment we cannot possibly conceive of the world as being round, we don't know that the negative experiential limitation is operating, because the positive experiential limitation is also operating, allowing us to create the experience of the earth as being not round, which mutually inclusive experience fills in the blind spot, giving us the illusion that we are seeing both sides of the issue, when we can really only ever see one at a time.

That is, we don't realize that our inability to conceive of something has nothing to do with the actual nature of things, but has only to do with the relations in which we can and cannot become involved owing to relations in which we are already involved as we create what we are already apprehending as experience, limited both negatively and positively according to what we are already conceiving and believing to be reality.

And the creation of experimental results is ultimately nothing more than the Individual's creation of experience and so involves and invokes the same limitations inherent in the creation of any experience.

There is no bondage other than that which we create for ourselves. And the bondage we create is to trap ourselves into mode of creating unwanted rather than wanted experience through the mechanism of experiential entanglement, whereby we become locked into a resistant mode of being, locked into a relation of Self-resistance, owing to the way we habitually react to physical reality by trying to push away the unwanted and clinging to the wanted, i.e., through aversion and attachment. The bondage we create is to trap ourselves into a mode of being in which we are flowing against, rather that with, what is our Self.

Relations and the experiences that are created as a result of those relations are progressive. Being in a relation of resistance at the level of the creation of physical experience locks us into, or binds us to, a relation of resistance at the level of the creation of emotional experience. That is, at least to some degree, the bondage to which spiritualists refer.

We exercise our free will to place ourselves in relations, and we can do so at any of the three levels of experiential creation. However, because experience is progressive, i..e, built on progressive relations, placing ourselves in a relation at one of the more distal levels also locks us into the relations taking place at the more proximal levels that are the basis of that more distal relation. Thus, using free will to be in a relation at the physical level, and using free will to maintain that relation, and so maintain our apprehension the experience that relation creates, leaves us unable to use our free will to change the way we are involved in the more proximal relations, because we are bound to our involvement in those more proximal relations by using those more proximal relations as the basis for creating a more distal relation and a more distal experience, which more distal relation can only exist as long as the more proximal relation that is its basis is also maintained.. That is bondage, in that we are literally bound to our involvement in more proximal relations, and to the experiences those relations create, owing to how we are choosing to be involved in more distal relations that create more distal experiences.

Thus, we are always free to change our mode of being from one of resistance to allowing, or vice versa, and so to change the emotional experience we are creating, but we are not free to change our mode of being if we are already in that moment exercising free will to create or maintain a relation that has a particular mode of being as its basis. Thus, we are always free to change our mode of being, but we are only free to change our mode of being if we are not, in that moment, using that mode of being as the basis for creating some more distal experience, i.e., some mental or physical experience, in which case we then are bound in that moment to the mode of being that is being used as the basis for our involvement in the relation that is creating the present moment mental or physical experience.

Thus, to change our mode of being we have to cease, just for a moment, to be involved in the more distal relations that bind us to that mode of being, which means we have to stop focusing upon and creating the experiences that require our involvement in those more distal relations that bind us to that mode of being. You cannot exercise free will to change the way you are creating emotion, to change the way you feel, to change your involvement in the most fundamental and so most proximal Existential relation, while at the same time using your free will to involve yourself in a more distal relation that requires or has as its prerequisite your ongoing involvement in that fundamental relation.

And if you are looking at something unwanted, creating an unwanted physical experience, then as long as you continue to do so you are bound to also remain involved in the more fundamental relation of Existential opposition that is the basis of that unwanted physical experience.

How does one not feel bad when faced with unwantedness? You can't not feel bad when faced with unwantedness. Because the only way you can be experiencing unwantedness, at any level, is owing to your involvement in a relation of Existential opposition, which by its nature creates unwanted emotion. You can't feel good while actively creating an experience that has implicit in its creation feeling bad, i.e., the creation of emotional unwantedness.

So if you can't feel good when faced with unwantedness, and what one wants is to feel good, then what is the answer? Stop facing the unwantedness, stop looking at and focusing upon the unwantedness. Stop actively being involved in a relation that binds you to a more fundamental relation that creates negative or unwanted emotion. Of course this is easier said than done, but only because we have become so habituated to focusing upon the unwanted, so habituated to reflexively pushing against the unwanted, which pushing against requires that we remain focused upon it.

So the first thing you must do to stop focusing on the unwanted is to stop pushing against it. Because as long as you are pushing against it you have to remain focused upon it, and as just pointed out, that focus binds you to the very unwantedness that you are trying to get rid of. Make peace with where you are, for only then can you begin to create differently, for only then can you free yourself to make a different choice regarding your involvement in the fundamental relation of Existential alignment or opposition.

To understand all of this it is helpful a to understand the anatomy of Reality, and the way experience is built progressively through progressive relations of Existence to Itself from the emotional, to the mental, and then to the physical. Understanding the anatomy of Reality one can see how the more proximal relations that create emotional experience are the basis of the relations that create mental and then physical experience, making it then possible to understand how our involvement in the more distal relations that create mental and physical experience can bind us to the more proximal relation that creates emotional experience, and so creates the spiritual bondage that is our inability to align with our Self, the spiritual bondage that is our inability, even though we possess the ability, to involve our self in a relation of Existential alignment with our More Fundamental Individuality, because we are, unknowingly, using our free will in a way that gives us no choice but to remain in a relation of Existential opposition.

And so if we are in a cage it is one of our own making, and one that we ourselves maintain. And the glue that holds that cage together is our own resistance, our exercise of free will in a way that places us in a relation of Existential self-opposition. And the only way to escape that cage is to cease to maintain it, to cease to build it, and the way to do that is by exercising free will differently, i.e., in a way that places us in a relation of Existential alignment. Thus, while the glue that holds the cage of self-bondage together is our resistance, the solvent that dissolves that glue is our allowing.

You can't resist while you are allowing, you can't be simultaneously in a mode of both allowing and resistance, as it has to be one or the other, owing to the principle of experiential preclusion that makes it impossible for an Individual to be simultaneously involved in what are mutually exclusive relations. In order to be in a mode of allowing you have to stop being in a mode of resistance. In order to look South you have to stop looking North. But once you stop resisting you don't have to then be allowing, because once you stop resisting you are already allowing, as once you are not facing North you must then be facing South instead, since you have to be in one relation or the other and if you are not choosing to be in one then that is the same as choosing to be in the other, opposite and mutually exclusive relation.

So, from a mode of resistance do not try to allow, because it will seem impossible to allow that which is so unwanted. In fact, allowing is not about allowing the unwanted, it is about allowing yourself to flow in alignment with your Self, which aligned flow creates the wanted rather than the unwanted. And you can only flow in alignment with your Self if you are not flowing in opposition to yourself, and if you are not flowing in opposition to yourself then you are flowing in alignment with yourself, and you are then in a mode of allowing. Not because you then want the unwanted, but only because you are not pushing against the unwanted, which places you in a mode of allowing, and from which mode the potential wantedness that was always there comes forth as an experience you are creating according to your relation of Existential alignment.

In the end what is spiritual bondage other than the inability of our Individuality to converge with that of our More Fundamental Individuality owing to our inability to create experiences that are mutually inclusive of those that are being created by our More Fundamental Individuality. For as long as we create experiences that have resistance as their basis, we are creating experiences that have as their basis a relation that is mutually exclusive of the relation which our More Fundamental Individuality is using to create experience, which creates a divergence of these two Individualities, which divergence we feel as the sense of Self-separation that goes along with the apprehension of unwanted experience. But when we create experience through relations of aligned Existential flow, then we are creating experience using relations that are mutually inclusive of the relations being used by our More Fundamental Individuality to create experience, in which case there is no need for divergence, and in the absence of the need for divergence, there is a convergence of these two Individualities, which convergence we feel as the sense of Self-connection that comes with wanted experience.

Thus, spiritual bondage is about far more than just the inability to create wanted experience, as it is also about the inability, always self-imposed, to align and converge with one's More Fundamental Individuality, with the other aspect or pole of one's own Individuality, which other pole is just as much what you are as is the Individuality you presently know yourself to be.

The only way for Existence to simultaneously apprehend experiences that are the products of mutually exclusive relations is through two Individualities, because a single Individual cannot simultaneously be involved in mutually exclusive relations. But what if there is a single Individuality, and that single Individuality has projected Itself into another level of Self-relation, where at that level it operates an autonomous extension of that More Fundamental Individuality? It is truly then an Individual, because it is an Indivisible Duality of Existence consisting of an Individual operating at a more fundamental level of Existential self-relation as well as at a more distal or less fundamental level of Existential self-relation. And so it is still a single Individual, but it is an Individual which is operating autonomously at two different levels of Existential self-relation, meaning that at each level of Existential self relation the Individual at that level is able to choose autonomously its direction of flow, i.e., is able to exercise free will freely, without restriction, and so without regard to how any other Individual is exercising free will, be it another Individual operating at the same level of self relation or the More Fundamental Individuality operating at a different level of self-relaion.

That is the nature of the relation between what we call our Individuality and what I call our More Fundamental Individuality. A single Individual operating, i.e., exercising free will, autonomously at different levels of Existential self-relation. What we call our Individuality is operating at what seems to be the most distal level of Existential self-relation, which is the one where those relations create physical experience, while our More Fundamental Individuality operates, i.e., exercises free will, at the more proximal levels, at the levels where emotional and mental experience are created.

To the extent that these two Individualities are involved in what are mutually inclusive relations, there is no divergence of the single Individuality, and where there is no divergence of Individuality there is a convergence of Individuality. However, to the extent that these two Individualities are involved in what are mutually exclusive relations there is a necessary divergence of Individuality, what seems to us to be a separation of Individuality, although there can really be no separating that which is ultimately singular and indivisible. To the extent that these two Individualities are involved in what are mutually exclusive relations there is a necessary divergence of Individuality because that is the only way Consciousness-Existence can simultaneously be involved in mutually exclusive relations, i.e., through the auspices of different and so divergent, but not necessarily divisible, Individualities, which each then create and apprehend an opposite experience.

The More Fundamental Individuality consistently chooses alignment and so consistently chooses to create and apprehend the most wanted experience possible. We, as Individuals, ensconced as we are in physical reality with the attendant confusion it often brings, sometimes choose alignment and sometimes choose resistance or opposition. When we choose alignment we feel good and our Individuality converges with that of our More Fundamental Individuality. When we choose opposition we feel bad and our Individuality must then diverge from that of our More Fundamental Individuality, as we are then each creating opposite and so mutually exclusive experiences requiring the Existence of two different Individualities rather than one identical Individuality.

Thus, spiritual bondage involves not just the inability to create wanted experience, but involves perhaps more importantly the self-imposed and sustained divergence of our Individuality from that of our More Fundamental Individuality, the seeming walling off of and separation of our self from that aspect of our self that is the basis of whatever concept we have of God.

And so if bondage is the problem then liberation must be the answer. But liberation from what, since we ourselves are the builder of the cage in which we reside? Liberation in this context is the ability to freely choose the nature of one's involvement in the fundamental relation in a given moment because they are not bound through attachment or aversion in that moment to a prior choice of relation.

And here I would like to say something about the concept of liberation as it is often spoken of in Eastern religious traditions. Liberation is seen as a state reached where it is no longer possible for the Individual to fall into spiritual bondage. However, for an Individual operating within the level of Existential self-relation where physical reality is created, and probably for any level of Individuality, there is no such state, because the very nature of the Individual and free will is such that in order to be able to create the wanted, in order for there to be convergence, there must always exist the possibility of creating the unwanted, there must always exist the possibility of divergence. It may be that the choice becomes clearer and so becomes easier, so that it is less likely that one will choose resistance rather than allowing, as it is easy to choose between getting hit on the head with a hammer or getting an ice cream cone, but the possibility of spiritual bondage must always remain viable because where spiritual bondage is not possible choice is not possible, and where choice is not possible there is no free will, and where there is no free will there is no Existence, which itself is not possible as there is nowhere that Existence is not.

Jesus of Nazareth was clearly a liberated and enlightened Individual for much of his adult life, and yet he wound up being nailed to a cross, a situation which I must assume was for him an unwanted experience and one which involved some divergence of his Individuality from his More Fundamental Individuality, which he referred to as his Father.

So do not seek some state of being in which you will be forever happy and never having to make a choice, because there is no such state, as such a state is a rainbow that is forever out of reach, because it is an illusion. Instead, seek a state where you understand what your choices are, and then choose wisely. And if on occasion you don't choose wisely it's not a big deal, because every moment comes with a present, which may be why it's called the present, because in each moment we are presented with the opportunity to choose anew, and to choose differently, if we so choose, how we will be in relation to our More Fundamental Individuality, which choice determines whether we will, in that moment, converge or diverge from that Individuality, and also determines whether the experiences we are creating and apprehending in that moment possess the quality of wantedness or unwantedness, respectively.

My philosophy is very simple. The universe is actually and ultimately composed of the same thing that apprehends the universe. That is, that which apprehends the universe is that of which the universe is actually composed. What Exists at every point in the universe, and in all likelihood beyond, is the same thing that Exists directly where each Individual Exists, which is the Consciousness that apprehends experience.

Why do we not see this? Why do we think that what exists elsewhere is different than what exists where we are? There are many reasons. One is that we do not see what exists where we are as being Consciousness, rather we see a material body. And when we look around we don't see Consciousness, we see material reality, and so that is what seems or appears to be there. Yet what could we see without Consciousness, what could we see in the absence of that which Exists directly where we are?

And if one understands that Consciousness is what Exists directly where they are, why then should that not be what Exists elsewhere as well? We look at a rock and say that what is there cannot be Consciousness, cannot be apprehending experience, because it does not have a central nervous system. But that assumes that the apprehension of all experience by Consciousness requires what we apprehend as a central nervous system. It may very well be that the creation and apprehension of the majority of physical experience requires a central nervous system, requires this apparatus which is Itself composed of Consciousness for forming relations with surrounding Existence, but that does not mean that in the absence of such an apparatus there is no apprehension of experience of any sort.

When we see a rock or any material reality we are looking at it from the outside looking in, and so are only apprehending its surface features. We know nothing of the content. And if we break the rock apart and examine its smaller pieces, to see what minerals it is composed of, we are still looking at it from the outside looking in, and we still know nothing of its actual content, still know nothing regarding that of which it is actually composed. And if we break it apart further and look at it at the molecular level, and then at the atomic level, and then at the subatomic level, we are still looking at it from the outside looking in, and still know nothing of its content, still know nothing regarding its actual composition, i.e., of what it is ultimately composed. In all of these endeavors we are just making an etching of what is actually there and not getting at what is actually there.

But a funny thing happens when we start to make the etchings at a very small level, in that the way the etchings appear becomes inseparable from the way they are being created. In fact, the way the etchings, i.e., physical experiences or realities, appear are always inseparable from the way they are created, its just that at the quantum level this inseparability becomes evident and unavoidable.

To understand what a rock or any material reality, or even space itself, is actually composed of, one does not need an atom smasher or supercollider, rather, one needs only logic and reason, unbiased and unmoved by what appears to be. To understand what any material reality is actually composed of one need only look at it from the inside looking out. From the inside looking out one sees the material reality as composed of Consciousness, whereas from the outside looking in one sees the material reality as composed of some more fundamental material reality, whatever that is.

Consider your own body. From the outside looking in it appears to be nothing more than matter, whatever that is. But from the inside looking out there is Consciousness apprehending emotional, mental, and material reality.

From the outside looking in everything appears to be different. But from the inside looking out everything appears the same, as it is all seen to be composed of the same Existential Substance that is Consciousness. Likewise, clay can be molded into an infinity of shapes, which if only seen from the outside would appear to be an infinite number of different things. But when it is known that all those things are actually molded from the same material, as it were, then the differences becomes secondary to the identity of underlying composition.

The world you see around you is molded from Consciousness, and is composed of Consciousness that has molded and continues to mold Itself through iterative and progressive relation to Itself, like twisting a rubber band repeatedly upon itself, into an overall Relational Structure of Reality from which and within which other Relational Structures extend and arise. And all of those Relational Structures are composed of Consciousness, and when one Relational Structure comes to be in relation to another Relational Structure, a boundary arises and so is created where they meet, and it is that created boundary that is apprehended as a mental or physical experience by the Consciousness of which the Relational Structures are composed.

Thus, experience rather than Consciousness seems to be what is there because experience is the etching that is created and apprehended when What Is Actually There, i.e., Consciousness, comes to be in relation to Itself. Thus, the universe is composed of an invisible Substance, because that of which the universe if composed cannot Itself be an experience. As the universe is composed of an invisible Substance there are two ways to go about examining what's there, from the outside looking in or from the inside looking out. Looking at what's there from the outside looking in always creates an etching. But the etchings, no matter how detailed, will always just be etchings, and will never be what is there directly, because what is there directly is that which is both making the etching and apprehending the etching, and is also that which is Itself being etched. Thus, the etching itself is always something different or other than, of a different nature than, what is actually there.

We will never get at what is directly and actually there by breaking matter down into smaller and smaller parts, into parts composed of fewer relations, because all that does is create another etching of what's actually there. We may learn how what is there is being in relation to Itself, and we may learn the different ways what is actually there can be configured in relation to Itself, but that is different than getting at what is there directly, different than understanding what actually underlies what we are observing.

The other way to go about examining what's there is from the inside looking out. The difference between looking at the universe from the outside looking in or from the inside looking out is like the difference between looking at a tree from above or below, respectively. From above most of the tree is obscured by the leaves, whereas from below one can see the relations between the different parts of the tree, as the leaves do not obscure the view of the whole. From the inside looking out the created etchings, i.e., mental and physical experiences, do not obscure the underlying Actuality, because the etchings are seen in their proper context, as etchings, as creations, and not as what is actually there, since, to see the world from the inside looking out requires one to adopt the perspective of Consciousness as what is actually there.

And all that is required to adopt the perspective of Consciousness as what is actually there is to understand that what Exists most directly where you are, which is that which apprehends experience, is what Exists directly everywhere else as well, regardless of what seems or appears to be there.