This chapter is duplicated in the book Medicine of Perceptions, since it directly addresses the questions of confidence about the “I”, which are so important for medicine perceptions.
Every person is unique. Each is a whole universe. So? Not really.
Speaking of “man”, we must understand that each person is a collection of perceptions. And these perceptions are dramatically divided into two categories – overshadowed and illuminated. To confuse them is to make terrible confusion.
Let’s break down the question of uniqueness and the “universe” into two parts:
Is it true that every person is unique?
Not true. And it is easy to show.
People have developed a language – an amazing means of describing their perceptions. This language was improved as the social life of a person became more complex, as our knowledge of the surrounding world increased, our activity in the development of nature increased, the number of people watching their perceptions and exchanging information on all these issues increased. Our language is developed well enough so that we can exchange information so accurately that as a result, it becomes possible to work together not only in the subject area (we want to build a house together), but also in the area of exchange of experience in working with perceptions. The experience of those engaged in the selection of attractive states proves indisputably – people can effectively exchange information. I can experiment with my perceptions and tell another experimenter about him. After listening to me, he can conduct an experiment, which, he believes, is exactly the same as the one that I conducted. The identity of the results proves that our descriptions are accurate, that is, the words and phrases with the help of which I describe my perceptions turn out to be quite understandable for another person.
If I begin now to describe the manifestations of boredom, then I will describe those actions that I perform from boredom, those images that arise when describing boredom, those perceptions that arise in a state of boredom, and so on. And, after reading my description, any person who has spent some time on self-observation will say with confidence that I describe exactly what he calls boredom.
The boredom that I experience is exactly the same as the one you are experiencing. Of course, boredom rarely manifests itself in its pure form, and it is accompanied by other perceptions, but they are easily cut off in the process of discussing one observer of his perceptions with another.
The same goes for illuminated perceptions. If I choose descriptions that resonate with anticipation, then they will resonate with anticipation in another person. Our descriptions may be slightly different, but both descriptions will be taken as adequate by both people. The feeling of beauty that I experience is no different from the feeling of beauty that you experience. Only the sets of perceptions that accompany this feeling differ. There are many perceptions, and they are assembled in different ways at different times, and yet all perceptions are identical.
This idea is so new that you probably need time to somehow take it seriously. The perceptions we experience are IDENTICAL.
The prints of the uniqueness of each personality crumbles to dust.
Consideration of illumined perceptions does not change anything in this. They are also identical.
You are not unique. You – this is a certain set of perceptions, taken from a common set of identical perceptions.
As for the “universe”, however, we can say the following: that person who does not experience illumined perceptions (and their gigantic, overwhelming majority) is not any universe in this state. He is the totality of these primitive perceptions. And up to the moment when he begins to experience enlightened perceptions (if he becomes, which, of course, almost does not happen to anyone, because no one sets such goals for himself), he remains a primitive mechanism.
The one who experiences enlightened perceptions immediately becomes this very “universe” simply by virtue of the fact that it begins to experience a special perception of “infinite depth” accompanying at least a weak degree to any EPs.
This phenomenon of the complete identity of multiple objects is already well known to science. One electron is completely identical to the other, like a proton, a neutrino, a hyperon, a pion, and other elementary beasts 🙂 Physical science considers all the elementary particles of one class as completely identical to each other, since no differences between them have ever been noticed. All our technology, built in connection with the scientific views of the world, works perfectly, as we see, which also confirms the correctness of our ideas about the identity of elementary particles of the same class. Of course, the future may lead us to new startling discoveries in this area, but so far there is no reason to assume that there can be any difference between the two electrons.
This phenomenon is rather surprising, since it is absolutely inconsistent with our everyday life experience, in which there is nothing at all identical.
Modern string theory for a convenient description of the world of elementary particles introduces a model of a one-dimensional oscillating closed string, different modes of oscillations of which correspond to different elementary particles, but this does not change anything in the question of identity – two equally oscillating strings are completely identical to each other.
This unique property of elementary particles was laid in the basis of one absolutely amazing physical theory, according to which all electrons are just one electron, which is somehow involved simultaneously in countless processes. An analogy can be made with mirrors in which we see identical reflections. If we place a light bulb in front of a system of mirrors, then each of its reflections will be, firstly, identical to the other, and, secondly, it will illuminate our table completely like the original, real lightbulb.
The identity of perceptions leads to the same thoughts. And it is also convenient for me to use the string hypothesis, although in a different form than in physics.
Imagine a string that stretches from nowhere to nowhere (well, for that it is a model, that some of its elements are not defined, just as the initial state is not defined in the Big Bang model). This string is a separate perception. Beads are strung on it. Each bead is what we call the “perception of a given person.” Now imagine an accumulation of string perceptions. Each person, representing a set of perceptions, is a set of beads in this scheme. When this perception is manifested in a person, the bead begins to glow, when it is not manifested – it is in a dormant state, being ready to light up at any moment.
A person, however, is not just a set of unrelated beads – we see this from the fact that each person runs through a rather rigidly defined set of perceptions, and it is extremely difficult to change perceptions. It is difficult to completely extinguish the bead of “aggression”, and even more difficult to completely destroy it. It is difficult to light a bead “anticipation”, and even harder to make it often flashing or burning background. There is something that ensures the stability of this aggregate of perceptions – on the one hand, this is a blessing for us, as if this binding force did not exist, then there would not be a stable person’s personality, beyond which we now don’t even imagine our existence . On the other hand, excessive stability turns into rigidity, which does not allow us to change in accordance with our desires.
It is early to speak about what this binding force is and how it manifests itself. The main thing I want to point out here is the identity of known perceptions. Quite a lot of interesting hypotheses can be extracted from this premise, each of which will have the peculiarity that to prove or disprove them is practically impossible for someone who stands at the very beginning of the distinction and study of his perceptions.
A very important consequence arising from the fact of the identity of perceptions, perception medicine can do now, and it consists in the fact that everything that is true for one person is true for another!
I can agree that at this level of my development I simply do not notice the differences that actually exist between perceptions, but this does not matter for medicine of perceptions – if these perceptions are so similar that they are perceived as identical, then this means that everything that is true for one person will be true for another in the vast majority of cases.
This conclusion is completely at odds with the fact that we are inspired by various inferior, not based on the analysis of perceptions of “psychology”. Psychologists in every way support in themselves and in people a blind confidence in the “uniqueness” and “uniqueness” of the human person, referring to the fact that some approaches help one and do not help others. This argument is false, of course, because psychologists act blindly, without discriminating and analyzing perceptions, without a scientific approach, and it is not surprising that their results are random or almost random (of course, as experience accumulates, psychologists can guess more often in their specific recommendations than inexperienced, but not because of psychology, but because of the usual everyday experience, built on the spontaneous distinction of perceptions).
Blind confidence in some kind of fictional uniqueness inspires another confidence to a person – the conviction that it is almost impossible to change, that “everything is too difficult”. On the other hand, this confidence supports a sense of self-importance, which suits people. There are people who take pride in the fact that they have migraines. It is also full of people proud of the fact that they are such unique, unique, touchy, irritable, stupid. Of course, all this is clothed in romantic clothes. “Touchy” is replaced by “vulnerable”, instead of “I am stupid,” it says “oh, I don’t have mathematics at all” or “you don’t understand – it’s feminine logic” confusingly, “instead of” the father is hateful, “they say he is nervous,” etc.
Perceptions, as well as the patterns that connect their manifestations, are identical. What you have researched on yourself or others will be EXACTLY the same as other people. This, however, still does not give our hands an easy opportunity to influence others, promote them, help them to cure unpleasant conditions for them, because the world of perceptions and their interrelationships is still quite complicated, and if you want to influence the complex a mechanism to get some concrete result as a result, you should be well aware of the operation of this mechanism – what parts does it consist of, how do they interact with each other, etc. And yet, the understanding of the identity of perceptions and mechanisms removes the main one – a fictional problem that faces every person who thinks about his change – the problem of confidence that there is no possibility at all to understand perceptions and the mechanisms linking them. The fact of identity of perceptions is the basis on which perceptual medicine is built.