Learning How To Trust Differently
I think the strangest part of my experience so far has been having to learn how to “trust differently”…
In fact, I’m sure that’s the hardest part of everything I’ve been through to date.
You know, from very young ages we learn to trust our own experiences based on verification from others and/or through various forms of validation.
We expect to be deemed sane and rational by others realizing, recognizing and reacting to the same things we see and experience. We come to expect verification, not only for our thoughts and experiences, but then also for how we should feel about and process our thoughts and experiences.
“Am I crazy man?”
“You know what I mean?”
“You feel me, right?”
“You see where I’m coming from, don’t you?”
“Are you even listening to me?”
It seems like we’re always trying to bring someone with us into a point or state of experience and understanding.
Every argument you see between people is basically an ideological tug-of-war in which all parties involved are trying to drag others into their own points and states of experience and understanding.
Beyond this though, we learn to trust people and things based on material presence, and then, the amount of material work those people or things can do towards offering us reassurance.
Oddly enough, that’s exactly what science (the institution) and the scientific method are designed to do. Science measures how constant relationships (or points therein) between variables are, and how constantly cyclical (natural or created) transactions occur, so that ultimately we can have some assurance in the notion that how we perceive things is not limited to the individual experience. Measures bring things out of the realm of belief and into the realm of mechanism.
But what happens when none of these things are available to you though?
Like…
What happens when you can’t bring someone or something into a point or state of experience and understanding with you, by offering them the same types and channels of assurance you know and have come to rely on?
You know, it’s no secret that I am [or at least claim to be] ‘an avatar’.
I’ve already been to heaven and the whole shebang — yada, yada, it’s old news now…
Trying to explain it to people is weird as hell though, because I can’t bring people into the experience with me.
It’s not like I can take the avatar perspective off and pass it around so that everybody gets a turn with it. I actually wish it was that easy, lol! Then everybody would be like: “Oh shit fam! Yeah, I see what you’re talking about Donald King! You right cuz… Let me get my shit straight tho!“
And it’s not like I can teach people how to astral project to the other side of reality, and then up to and down and throughout multiple scales of celestial plane, or teach people how to turn concepts humans have achieved through convention into principles, and then turn those principles into physical structures in their minds that they can explore inside and out from multiple (almost infinite) angles and vantage points.
The thing is, who could trust someone’s word on that type of stuff though? Even better, how can a person who has those kinds of experiences even trust that they’re legit without having someone to verify the spaces and states they claim to have witnessed and have access to?
And these are real questions I have to contend with everyday…
How do I know I’m not bugging out?
How can I trust my experiences if I can’t take people into these states and experiences with me, so that they can explore and verify them for themselves?
Well, this brings me back to the point of the blogpost. Learning how to trust differently…
One of the first things I learned as an avatar was that I had to stop trusting words; in two ways really…
First I had to stop trusting the meanings of words, mostly because English is just really disorganized at a principle level, but secondly, I had to learn to stop trusting in things people tell me.
Beyond that, I also had to learn to stop trying to get others to trust my words too…
And I realize most folks probably picked that skill up way before me, but I literally had to learn to stop taking people’s word at face value, and then to stop trying to get people to take my word at face value too. My dumb ass used to take people at their word, because my intentions towards others have never been inherently exploitive. My thinking used to be: “If I don’t want to exploit or deceive others, then why would anyone ever want to exploit or deceive me?”
Which ironically, brings me to the next point. I stopped trusting people based on their intentions too. I always thought that because my intentions were pure — well, motivated by altruism and self-idealism, that everyone else’s intentions were equally as good-natured as mine.
Unfortunately, many if not most people think exploitively as a product of working through perceptive valuation. Most folks are just out here looking for a come-up. And because so many people out here are just trying to “get theirs” — that is, live and benefit at the expense of others, the assumption is that everyone must think and prioritize in this way too. In fact, a person is considered ‘socially dumb’ if they’re not directly or indirectly trying to exploit others, or at the very least, acutely aware and conscientious of the fact that others are seeking to exploit them.
Beyond that though, intention has this really bad way of sanitizing attitudes, actions and behaviors. Intention has this way of morally whitewashing how people really are, and the real impacts they make on the world around them.
So you can’t rely on people’s intentions, or for that fact, even your own intentions, because intentions are always better than resultant actions and outcomes. Intentions are idealistic. Idealism doesn’t have to, and rarely if ever does sync up with reality.
That means I can’t rely on assurances from people in the forms of words or intentions; or for that fact, even assurances I’d give to myself, which are based in words and intentions…
Another thing I’ve learned is that I can’t rely on formulas or methodological thinking.
You can’t use existing systems and ways of thinking, and local modal paths of intellectualism to explore, investigate or consider things that exist and function beyond them. Like, I couldn’t use maths humans have achieved to explore types of maths that exist far beyond the ones humans know and currently have access to.
For instance, you can’t explain universal math (the math of natural organization) using calculus, statistics or trigonometry. You can’t use science to hypothesize about influences and systems of interdependence that humans can’t even conceive of (that humans MUST conceive of for science to even attempt to measure or hypothesize about them) — let alone phenomena that’s simply too large, too complex and too nuanced to be analyzed through systems of measure and experimentation, and/or by the systems of measure and experimentation currently being employed…
So I can’t rely on assurances… I can’t rely on words. I can’t rely on formulas or instructions from others. I can’t rely on my intentions, other people’s intentions, or any of the former beliefs I once held. I can’t rely on other people’s perspectives or eye witness accounts to verify the things I’ve seen, and what and how I purport to be.
And this leaves me with the question: “What can I actually trust?”
Well as it turns out, I have quite a few things to trust in…
First and foremost, I can trust the consistency of my output and performance.
Like, claiming to be an avatar is one thing — literally millions of people have done it before me. Allowing the claim and ability to be rigorously tested though is a completely different thing; and I welcome all challenges…
The avatar perspective is not a status belief, but instead, a function of the universal organism’s body. I allow it to be tested, and myself to be tested by virtue of it, constantly. To date, there have been no failures in its ability to perform.
Which means, I don’t actually have to trust the avatar perspective itself. I can just look at the body of work that’s been produced through me to date, and then all the ways I’ve both tested and allowed the avatar perspective to be tested, and see how consistently it’s performed. Its performance is something that’s measurable, independent of my (would be) beliefs and experiences about and with it. How consistent I am (as proxy to it) in what I say and in my abilities to perform can be measured in the actual shared reality. The only thing that’s even remotely changed in the ten-plus years since the avatar perspective became active in me, is the level of proficiency and mastery I’ve attained with respect to articulation and conveyance. Well, I’ve also gotten more precise with using the avatar perspective as an instrument ( — learning curve and all).
But in terms of trust, the second thing I’ve learned to trust in is intuition. And I know that’s kinda weird, because humans are broadly unfamiliar with what intuition is, and how it works mechanically (a subject I cover in the Organizing Intelligence series).
I’ve also learned to really develop my eye and heart for honest observation. That’s a huge one really… Like, once you stop viewing things through a lens of idealism, you lose shit that was critical to success and survival before — things like “hope”, “faith”, etc…
But I think most importantly, I’ve learned to trust my own bravery…
You know… there’s always gonna be that voice in the back of your mind telling you to doubt yourself.
I don’t run from that voice anymore. I face it down. I tell it: “Yes, I DO doubt myself! But you know what? I’m not afraid to be wrong and adapt!” You learn to trust in your ability to handle bad news and to adapt to reality and new circumstances.
So yeah… When you become “this thing” I allegedly am, you have to learn how to trust in a completely different way than you’re used to. There is no validation from others, because who can see the things you see? There are no measures for most of the things you understand, because human measures can only extend but so far beyond perceptibility. When you start talking about the other side of reality and multiple scales of plane, and converting concepts into principles, and then principles into physical structures that you can examine inside and out from multiple vantage points, who can measure that, and how?
Who knows…
I’ll tell you what people CAN measure though… How consistent I am and have remained. How accurate the things I say are with respect to conventional and institutional knowledge. The organization of concepts I present, and how, without yielding to convention, they can surpass scientific and academic axioms and premises, leading into different lanes of contemplation, are all things that can be measured.
All of my work is consistent — no holes.
Even holes individuals perceive for lack of understanding on their end or perhaps lack of explanation on mine, can be fully explained if given an opportunity.
So far, no conceptual contradictions in my work.
I don’t trust in or rely on knowledge or authority. I trust in performance and capability.
What it all boils down to really is that I learned to stop trusting in facets of idealisms, and instead, to start trusting function, performance, capability and actual output.
I stopped trusting the ideal reality, and began trusting in the actual reality.
See… in the ideal reality, anything can be anything — anything is possible. In the ideal reality, people who only do good can be labeled evil for simply holding unpopular views, whereas those who only cause pain, suffering and imbalance can be made heroes in the stories that are told and sold to audiences.
In the actual reality, those who live exploitively — that is, live and benefit at the expense of others are simply parasitic; and all parasitic entities are ultimately wired to lie, cheat, steal, EXPLOIT and create imbalances that destroy them and the worlds and reality around them.
In the actual reality, parasites are “bad” and/or ‘sources of distress’.
In the ideal reality, truth can be whatever you want it to be. In the natural reality however, truth is ‘what exists independent of and in spite of perception and/or idealism.’
To the point though, I had to learn how to trust the universe, reality and the avatar perspective in a mature way.
Just think of it like learning how to be with and trust a lover who you can’t control, and who won’t allow you to exercise authority over, or own them.
Think of it like this…
It’s like being with a woman who kisses and caresses you everyday, but who never tells you how much she loves you.
Its like being with a woman who initiates love-making with you constantly, but who never brags to others about you, or tells you how sexy you are…
It’s like being with a woman who always gets food for you and buys clothes and gifts for you, but who never tells you she’s thinking about you, and doesn’t text you 40 times a day.
It’s like being with a woman who never corrects you, never micromanages or second-guesses you, but who doesn’t verbally tell you that she has faith in your decision making ability, and your ability to get shit done.
It’s like being with a woman who loves and kisses you just as much when you’re dirty and stinky as she does when you’re prim and proper, but who never says she loves, appreciates and accepts you without condition…
When things are evident, you don’t need idealistic confirmations of them. You don’t need facets of idealism to reinforce the truth in experience.
I had to learn how to trust the actual reality, WITHOUT idealistic confirmation of it.
And just like in the scenario with the lover-woman, the quality of output and performance is all that’s required for substantiation.
If however, you were to ignore all the evidence, and instead, complain about her (or in my case, the avatar perspective) not doing more to satisfy your ideals of love and affection (confirmation of ideal), then you’d likely miss the entire relationship — or at the very least, all the good points.
Simply put, why would you need her to tell you she loves you when observation would confirm it more than words or intentions? Why would you need her to affirm that you’re sexy to her if she makes love to you often?
Why would I need to get idealistic confirmation of the avatar perspective, when by way of output and performance, it’s been verified by reality time and time again? Why would I need to capture it within, and subject it to conventional modes and measures in order for me to trust its accuracy, when I haven’t seen it fail yet?
Why would you need to subject the perfect lover to the institution of marriage if every single part of your experience together verified their commitment to you and love for you? Why try to force convention into magic?