The Game Loop: Part 2 Interleaved IO flows I

[Cleric]

The Game Loop
Part 2
Interleaved IO flows I

Google Doc version (easier to follow footnotes)

Part 1 Mental Pipelines
Part 2 Interleaved IO Flows I
Part 3 Interleaved IO Flows II
Part 4 In Search of the Fundamental Inputs I
Part 5 In Search of the Fundamental Inputs II

In the previous part we concluded that man has probably gotten a little carried away in his attempt to master the universal game entirely through building a mental replica of its supposed game loop pipeline. In this way, knowingly or unknowingly, we format all inputs and outputs through the palette of the mental game model. Such a model is, for example, the idea that the game state can be modeled as consisting of a spatial container filled with the variables of energy-matter fields. Those are being continuously updated by the game logic, which we call ‘laws of physics’.

On the other extreme we saw the attempt to experience the game output in its untainted purity, without being formatted by our mental pipeline proxy. This, however, goes so far that even the sense of being inwardly active is rejected (the illusion of input). Any sense of conscious input inevitably leads to questions like “What am I? What should I do?” and so on. Seeking answers to these questions is seen as a continuously branching tree that leads right back into the mental pipelines one tried to avoid. Thus, it is decided that the tree should be eliminated right from the seed. This does not suggest that we become a static rock, but it is imagined that all our actions and thoughts should be experienced in the output as happening on their own, driven by the mysterious game process. Some believe that if everyone were to do that, if we stopped interfering with the game flow through the illusion of input, the mysterious game process would ensure peace and harmony.

Now, instead of being an abstract game theoretician or simply lifting our hands off the controls, we’ll try to get back to the basics of our game experience. We need to once again get in the player seat and assume our first-person position within the phenomenal game flow. Even though we use the word ‘flow’, we should in no way imagine something beheld from a third-person perspective, similar to the way we can perceive a river from the side. Instead, we always imply the first-person metamorphosis of experience. This is the fundamental given in the mystery of existence. Our intellectual theorizing about what this existence is made of and how it functions is an aspect of the flow, a kind of mental overlay modulated over the carrier flow of primary experience (and thus, an inseparable part of it). If we, as far as possible, put aside for a moment our Minecraft computers through which we try to simulate the workings of reality, the basic question boils down to: (1) How can I increase my intuitive orientation within the transformations of the game state as known to me in the phenomenal totality of the output and its dynamics; (2) how do my inputs affect the transformations of the state and thus ripple through the output; and (3) what is worthy of becoming the goal of my gameplay? These questions cannot be answered separately – they are deeply intertwined. We can make sense of the output only by continuously interacting with the game, and we can refine inputs only based on the feedback of the output. Finally, only through the expanding intuition of this interaction we may see things in a bigger picture and decide what strategic goals are worthy of pursuit. Whether we live in a dream, a physical Cosmos, the Matrix, or whatever, these basic questions remain. When we say ‘questions,’ we should be clear that we no longer seek merely theoretical answers. It’s no longer about thrusting ourselves into a pipeline of mental potato processing and producing a satisfying Minecraft computer (MC). All knowledge should now be practical, applied knowledge. I may not know what happens behind the scenes when I press a button on the gamepad, but I can investigate how this affects the output and evolve my game strategy accordingly. Now one may immediately object: “But in this way we’ll forever remain on the naive surface of reality. We may find our way only through trial and error. On the other hand, if we develop an understanding of what happens behind the scenes, how the game loop’s pipeline functions, we may be able to master the game in completely new ways, maybe even ‘hack’ it.” This is true, and we do not dispute that a deeper comprehension of the game loop is absolutely needed. However, as it was noted in the previous part, throwing all our effort into sculpting the MC completely dismisses the possibility that we may not yet know the game controls sufficiently. Imagine that you have played a video game for a long time and have gotten decently good at it. Then, one day, you discover a previously unused button on the gamepad that causes the in-game character to jump. A new in-game degree of freedom has been found! Now completely new possibilities open. Game areas previously unreachable can now be explored, they may require completely new concepts and intuitions, and so on.

This example, however, shouldn’t be taken too literally. Doing so gives the impression that we already have more or less a good grasp on the controls of existence – we already hold the gamepad steadily, we know its overall geometry, etc. – but only miss a few details here and there within our already familiar volume of experience. Rather, we should equip ourselves with the humility and patience that we may need to seek the new controls in ways that are presently beyond the palette of our familiar imagination. By the same token, when a baby learns to speak and thus think, it not only finds new buttons on the already familiar controls but awakens to a wholly different mode of self-consciousness. Just as we cannot teach a baby to speak or think by explaining to it what to do (which would presuppose that verbal thinking is already mastered), so we can only gradually awaken to the unsuspected inputs, outputs, and corresponding modes of consciousness through active experimentation in unfamiliar directions. In a certain sense, these secret inputs and outputs will be found to have always been there in the ‘background of existence’, but we need to transform and grow into them in full consciousness. For this reason, we’ll start by exploring certain aspects of the gameplay that may seem obvious and trivial, yet contain nuances that ordinarily go by without clear awareness.

Above, we have depicted three distinct aspects of ordinary gameplay. First, we have our hands. When we focus on this aspect, we can observe how our whole inner process assumes a specific form. When we move our hands and fingers attentively, we live in meaningful patterns of input and output (IO). These patterns form a specific vocabulary of intuitive gestures. We live in the meaning of ‘index finger’, ‘pinkie’, ‘clenching fist’, ‘pointing’, even if we don’t sharply delineate the meaning into concepts and map words to them. The hand-moving IO patterns in themselves have some intuitively recognizable identities. Even if we cannot pinpoint it with intellectual clarity, we feel that there’s something we do differently if we are to move our index finger or pinkie, and we somehow know how to reach into these intuitive controls.

Since we’ll be using the term ‘intuition’ a lot, let’s be clear right from the start that nothing extraordinary is implied in this. The term is not about drawing upon some speculative data layer of reality. Let’s say someone is very clever, and we ask them, “Say, you are so smart – what do you do inside your mind in order to produce such clever thoughts?” They’ll most probably answer, “I don’t know. It all happens intuitively. I’m sure it has something to do with the effort I’ve put into my education, reading, and exercising. Maybe it’s also a good gene; who knows! It’s like asking a heavy-lifter what they do in order to lift that heavy weight. It’s not some smart trick that they can share, and I would immediately be able to do the same. It’s all the gradual buildup that has led them to the state where lifting that weight is a natural possibility. So in the same sense, I’m not in momentary control of my cleverness, but my psychic environment seems to have been so ordered over time that the right relations are the first to spark in my mind.” Thus, when we speak of intuition, we are only pointing at these purely experiential aspects of our psychic life – the fact that a great part of what we think and do feels meaningful, that it follows some logical patterns, yet we cannot encompass it in our intellect as some laid-down pipeline where we can name every cog and conveyor belt. In that sense, this intuition is not to be considered something that comes from some speculative dimension of reality, but is something intrinsic to the experience of the game state. It is the meaningful context of our momentary state. It is like the intuitive bulk of the iceberg beneath the surface that makes our game flow feel meaningfully connected. Moreover, this intuitive orientation is not a synonym for some faculty that always gives the right answer. It all depends on the way the game state has been developed so far¹.

Returning to the gameplay aspects, we pass to the next – the game controls. These are operated by our hands². When we focus on operating the gamepad, the first aspect seems to recede into the background of our attention. Now we live in a different ‘bandwidth’ of the flow of meaningful IO patterns. By using a word like ‘bandwidth’, we do not imply any pseudo-scientific ideas. We can only grasp this if we are willing to do experiments and inner observations. We can take a gamepad (or any other operable object) and first move our fingers on its surface while being completely focused on the sensations of the fingers themselves and the willing of their movements. Then we can switch attention to the object and operate its actionable elements. Try to observe how our inner cognitive vocabulary shifts. Now our inner process morphs through patterns like ‘press button A’, ‘push stick to the left’, ‘pull trigger halfway’, and so on. It is these completely experiential ‘superimposed flows’ of meaningful IO patterns that we point attention to. We say ‘superimposed’, because while we are engaged in the controller IO flow, our hand flow is still there, even if it is not at our focus. When we use such words (like bandwidth or superimposed), they shouldn’t hang in the air as abstractions but should point right back to our direct experience. And clearly, there is something the words can point to only if we have tried to experiment and come to know the experiential reality that the words symbolize.

Finally, we have the aspect of the gameplay itself. Here, once again, we must attune to a different flow of meaningful IO patterns. Now our intuitive vocabulary consists of ‘move left’, ‘jump’, ‘reload weapon’, ‘hide’, and so on. Just like a language, these intuitive patterns exist in certain relations – they flow into each other, one evokes another, some make intuitive sense when put in sequence, others contradict each other, and so on. All of this constitutes our overall intuitive grasp of the game, its rules, and how certain inputs transform the output representation of the game state. When we learn a new game, we first need to live in both the gamepad and gameplay intuitive flows. We first become familiar with what each button and stick does. In a sense, we gradually cross-reference the two flows. If we are getting our hands on an unfamiliar controller, we would have to do the same also for the first and second flow – we’ll have to learn how to use our hands to operate the unfamiliar control elements. As this cross-referencing becomes better established, we can gradually live primarily in the game’s intuitive flow. We no longer think, “Oh, what did I need to do for jumping?” but instead, we provide the intuitive input ‘jump’ and our hands carry out the rest almost automatically.

Readers who do not have much experience with games and thus cannot fully relate to the above examples may find the exact same three aspects in any other field, such as driving. Here we can once again distinguish the superimposed flows of intuitive IO – we use our hands and feet with their biological vocabulary, we operate the steering wheel and all other controls with vocabulary such as ‘turn the wheel’, ‘step on the pedal’, and finally we have the intuitive flow of the driving experience where we have a far more complicated IO vocabulary and relations such as ‘turning’, ‘accelerating’, ‘watching for traffic’, ‘assessing the road condition’, etc.

There are a few important observations that we can make from this. First, as previously mentioned, we can recognize how we can become absorbed or fully attuned to a certain intuitive IO flow. This is actually a sought-after experience in the context of video games. One usually seeks to be immersed in the flow of symbolic meaning. This is even more true in virtual reality games (VR), where it is desirable to completely forget that we are holding controls and instead live in the intuitive sense of our in-game body.

Second, we should nevertheless be aware that the other intuitive IO flows are still present. We can liken the process of being immersed in a particular flow to attunement to certain radio frequencies. Flows of other frequencies are still present, interleaved with the one we have heightened awareness of, but feel as receded in the background. Again, speaking of frequencies doesn’t suggest any metaphysical elements. We should not imagine the flows as ‘made of’ some speculative vibrating energies. These are only artistic words expressing the facts of our inner experience. As an example, at any point in the gameplay, we can ‘switch frequencies’ by becoming attentive to the flow of our interaction with the controls. This usually breaks the immersion, especially in VR, but in certain cases it might be desirable, for example, in racing games where we use a physical racing wheel and pedals. Here, feeling our hands on the wheel enhances the experience.

We should very clearly feel how in different cases we may have opposite goals. Sometimes we deliberately seek to be locked within a certain intuitive IO flow. This is usually when becoming sensitive to other flows feels dissonant. Dissonance here means that two or more streams we try to encompass in our conscious experience cannot be held together coherently; they do not ‘sound well’ together. For example, if we are driving and we talk with a passenger, usually the two flows can’t be experienced as a coherent whole. We find ourselves ‘task switching’ between the two. If we are driving on the highway in light traffic, the driving flow doesn’t demand much attention, and we can become so immersed in the conversation flow that we do not even remember how we have driven through miles and miles. However, if we concentrate on our driving experience, we may find that it is possible to cohere several different intuitive flows. The only way this can be achieved is if the different flows are musically compatible, so to speak. When held together, they should ‘sound well’; they form a holistic experience. Then we can be fully conscious of the sensations in our hands, how they turn the wheel, how this affects the car, how the car’s movement is within the IO context of the road conditions and traffic, how this movement is meaningfully embedded in the flow of our intent to go from A to B. In this case, the ‘intersection’ of all flows is in itself experienced as a symphonic temporal flow. Imagine a room where several conversations are held at the same time. In isolation, each of the conversations may be experienced through a meaningful IO flow, but their total interference sounds like the noise in a busy coffeehouse. In such a case we may find ourselves snapping our attention to one conversation, then switching to another, but being unable to grasp them all at once. If the voices, however, sing together in a choir, then the intersection of all their flows can itself be experienced as a coherent flow.

Third, we can observe that within a single flow, the relations between inputs and outputs may have different degrees of correlation. For example, when we will the movements of our fingers, input (the willing impulses) and output (the perceptions of our hands) are mostly ‘in phase’. When we switch to the gamepad level, the flow is subject to additional constraints. For example, a stuck button or a glitchy stick results in output that may not coincide very well with our intuitive input. Things become even more complicated at the level of gameplay. Now, if the game is challenging, it is the norm that the output constantly surprises us, as it differs wildly from our intuitive input and expectations. This is illustrated in the drawing by the fact that there’s a greater gap between the higher intuitive inputs and the corresponding outputs.

When we see things in this aspect, we can develop a kind of sense of how intimately our inputs are reflected in the output. The further ‘out’ we go with our inputs, the more complexly ‘entangled’ the environment we try to influence is. When we play a game, the output is mostly shaped by the gaming device and the game algorithm. If we are a manager of a company, our inputs meet the interference of many other human and natural flows. If we are an emperor, that entangled sphere is even greater, and thus, it is even more likely that our ruling inputs could be out of phase with the output.

We can recognize that up to the level of our bodily movements, we feel more or less inwardly related to the output. From that point onward, however, it feels that any further output only represents the rippling of our bodily input through the game state. In other words, even though we may be immersed in the game flow and intuitively will ‘jump’, our inner activity reaches only our fingers. From thence, it trickles and reverberates further in the World flow, reflecting in outputs that we can no longer feel related to our intuitive inputs in the exact same way as we can for our fingers. Thus, even though it feels that the in-game character jumps completely in-phase with our intuitive input ‘jump’, the output is not influenced in the same inner manner as it happens for our fingers. Nevertheless, it feels as if our intuitive IO flow is spread out and seeks the reflections of its inputs in the wider output. This is also seen in the emperor example. Our inputs only reach the bounds of our skin and larynx, yet they continue to ripple through the game state, and eventually, we recognize our inputs reflected in the output of World happenings. It is easy to feel the thrill and temptation of such an experience of power – to see our personal intuitive inputs rippling and being reflected in the World-output. We can also see how complicatedly entangled the world state that we aim to influence in this way is. As an emperor, we may be living in the IO flow woven of intuitive patterns like ‘conquering a nation’, ‘raising taxes’, and we may as well see these inputs faithfully reflected in the output, at least before we get stabbed in the back. As we’ll see later, we cannot draw an absolute boundary between outputs that directly reflect our intuitive inputs, such as hand movements, and those that can only manifest through additional rippling through the game state. Our fingers can also ‘rebel’ and refuse to ‘take orders’. So our intuitive inputs are also not reflected in bodily output unconditionally. Even our perceived finger movements are, in a sense, the rippling reverberations of more intimate will-inputs. It’s only that as long as we are healthy, we are used to always experiencing them in phase.

What we have developed so far allows us to make the following observations:

• We can recognize that usually we experience a flow of intuitive IO patterns that form a more or less coherent ‘language’. Various arrangements of successive patterns make greater or lesser intuitive sense when they are imposed over the intuition of our compounded memories of similar past experiences. The flow of IO patterns that ring in resonance with past experiences feels logically consonant. Those that clash with past experiences ring dissonantly; they feel illogical.
• We can recognize that superimposed with this flow are also many other flows. If we live through the IO flow of driving, but the hand-movements flow is absent, we are only imagining that we drive, but not doing it in practice. When the flows are dissimilar, our experiences switch from one to another, similar to how, when we learn to play piano, we can’t help but lose control of one hand when we focus on the other. It is, however, possible to experience flows simultaneously, as long as we are able to cohere them such that their intersection is in itself a coherent flow. Flows exist in contextual relations. For example, the driving IO patterns of ‘turning’ contextualize many other patterns within the operational flow, such as ‘turning the wheel’, ‘pressing the brake pedal’, etc. When these contextual flows are musically coherent with each other, it is possible to experience their total intersection as a unitary, symphonic IO flow.
• We can recognize a kind of gradation of outcomes depending on how deeply in the game state we strive to perceive our inputs reflected. The outputs closer to our bodily space are usually easier to keep in phase with our intuitive inputs. The further out into the game state we try to reach, the more complexly entangled the environment through which our inputs ripple, and the easier for our intuitive inputs to be out of phase with the outputs, or even be completely dissipated.

It is important to realize that there’s a difference between living through a given IO flow and thinking about it. This is easy to grasp if we try to add a couple of two-digit numbers in our mind. While we are performing the addition, our mental flow turns into a pipeline that transforms the quantifiable mental images in specific ways. When we try to reflect on this process, the calculation ceases. Now, our mental flow takes the shape of a different pipeline – one that processes the memory images of our calculating experience. Some may say that they can drive and at the same time philosophize about the driving process. This, however, is only possible when our driving skills are so developed that they can flow with minimum input. If an unexpected traffic situation arises, our reflection about driving quickly ceases, and we are fully immersed in the driving flow.

It’s worth appreciating that everything we have developed so far requires nothing more than sound observation of the first-person IO process. What we have discovered in this way remains simple facts of experience, invariant of how exactly the game loop might be ‘implemented’. With this, we have laid down some groundwork that will allow us to continue in the next parts.

Keynotes:
The total IO flow of our existence can be seen as differentiated into more specific intuitive IO flows.

Each specific IO flow can be thought of as a kind of language that makes patterns of inputs and outputs feel intuitively related.

The IO flows are contextually related. They can be experienced relatively independently (while others feel receded in the background). We can even exchange some portions of the context, for example, we can switch from ‘mouse IO’ to ‘touchpad IO’, while the gameplay intuitive language remains practically the same.

We can seek the musical intersection of the IO flows, which allows us to experience their symphonic (vertical) harmony.

We can recognize that different IO flows have varying degrees of in-phaseness between intuitive input and output.


-----
¹ Described like this, intuition sounds synonymous with implicit knowing accumulated through past experiences. In the later parts we’ll see that through this intuition we also live in certain knowing of the momentary future direction of the flow of becoming, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. For now, intuition understood as integration of past experience is sufficient.

² Of course, there could be many kinds of game inputs, utilizing all parts of the body, speech, ECG, EEG, and so on, but for the sake of illustration, we’ll use only the hands.

[Federica]

My feeling is that what the latest essay can lead to will depend entirely on the how the reader approaches and works with the content. What I was referring to in that quote was what Cleric metaphorically describes as "thrusting ourselves into a pipeline of mental potato processing and producing a satisfying Minecraft computer (MC)". This will never lead the mental potato processor into the depth axis of the intuitive game flow, no matter how satisfying the imaginative outputs are. The outputs about the structure of spiritual reality would continue hanging in the air as abstractions, and as Cleric put it, "there is something the words can point to only if we have tried to experiment and come to know the experiential reality that the words symbolize." And it is perfectly possible for someone to work through the entire essay, feel satisfied with the understanding of "superimposed IO flows", relate these concepts to other esoteric concepts they have learned, and so on, yet remain treading the surface and oblivious to the experience of the depth axis. Such a person would probably say, "This is a very interesting way to express it, but it is nothing new or groundbreaking, nor is it particularly important for me to continue working with. I already learned these elegant ideas about reality by studying the esoteric system of X, Y, or Z", like Marco.

What you quoted from Cleric, otoh, is synonymous with the introspective approach, in my view. This first-person observation of the IO process, which is most intuitively attuned in our cognitive flow, is fully accessible to the intellect. Indeed, it is the only aspect of the depth axis that is initially accessible to the intellect. In an interesting way, all the lawful IO dynamics of reality that the intellect imagines is accessible to it, like the laws of biology or physics, are actually the furthest removed from it. If we take the driving example that Cleric provided, we can imagine a situation where our conversation with the passenger became centered around the intuitive driving experience itself. For example, the passenger starts speaking about the unique intuitive language of the driving experience, its IO vocabulary and relations. Now we experience the conversation as gentle reminders of how to focus on that real-time intuitive driving experience, rather than something that distracts our attention from the experience and forces the latter to recede sharply into the background (as we would if the conversation was about anything else). Now the IO flows of driving and conversing are experienced more as a holistic harmony. That is what is always necessary for consciousness to attune within the depth axis, and what should serve as our guiding star for pedagogical purposes in this domain.

Ashvin, I doubt that what the latest essay can lead to will depend entirely on how the reader approaches and works with the content. Otherwise there would be no point in reelaborating the same ideas, finding new metaphors, and developing new essay series. Yes, mental potato processing can’t lead to true knowledge. Still, the particular way the intellect is engaged and compelled makes it more or less likely that it will do the cognitive experiments. It's not about denying that mental processing in itself is insufficient and that it’s possible to read the essay without quitting that place of insufficiency. It’s about recognizing that the differently stimulated mental process will find the way to experimentation with different likelihoods - other things being equal (initial lack of motivation and attunement to the first-person inner dynamics). And since the introspective approach is fully accessible to the intellect, as we agree, the importance of addressing the intellect first, creating a suitable mental tableau for it to feel comfortable with introspection, is apparent, as exemplified in these first parts of the Game Loop.

In a corner of the mind, the intellect may still hold on to the default feel that the laws of physics are the most obvious and proximate field of investigation of the nature of reality. Still, if it now follows on its own terms the introspective prompts that locate these laws in the larger context of the game logic - in contrast with the experientially closer realms of Input-Output flows - it will inevitably come to a point of healthy inner contradiction, or dissonance. Then the intellect will have the choice to either question and reassess the default orientation to the laws of physics (abstract game theoretician) in favor of a more experiential approach, or to turn a blind eye to the logic of the game metaphor, and swallow the inner dissonance to retrieve the comfort of the familiar MC container. The intellect can indeed ignore the prompts, but it has to pay the price of (more or less conscious) logical dissonance.

But I doubt that the way to overcome the dissonance is to try and bring into contextual harmony the driving experience (first-person experience of the world flow) and the passenger’s talk about that same experience (Cleric’s essay). Because unless one has already developed higher cognition, I don’t think that the passenger’s talk can be experienced as a gentle reminder, and made harmonious with the contextual driving experience:

It is important to realize that there’s a difference between living through a given IO flow and thinking about it. This is easy to grasp if we try to add a couple of two-digit numbers in our mind. While we are performing the addition, our mental flow turns into a pipeline that transforms the quantifiable mental images in specific ways. When we try to reflect on this process, the calculation ceases. Now, our mental flow takes the shape of a different pipeline – one that processes the memory images of our calculating experience. Some may say that they can drive and at the same time philosophize about the driving process. This, however, is only possible when our driving skills are so developed that they can flow with minimum input. If an unexpected traffic situation arises, our reflection about driving quickly ceases, and we are fully immersed in the driving flow.

Most likely, attention would instead snap between immersion in driving and immersion in the passenger’s talk, unable to experience lasting harmony (unless there is no traffic, the road is perfectly known, etc.). Or, out of metaphor, the reader of the essay would struggle between following Cleric’s treatment as distilled in the essay, and living in the first-person experience of the IO flows. Hence the importance of firstly guiding the reader to a discursive, logical conclusion fully accessible to the intellect - as done above. Then, the reader can take a separate moment to introspect and verify the prompts. While reading the essay, the intellect thinks about the whole process. Here it’s important that the elaboration is large-ranging, and logically compelling, so that, later, the intellect can find the motivation experiment, and live through the prompted experiences. If this is done conscientiously and with enthusiasm for genuine discovery, then the healthy dissonance between the experience and the default theoretician approach can be consciously experienced.

Could it be that this timing question makes us see the whole idea of bridge from different angles?

[Federica]

...

Thank you Cleric, once again. It's amazing how finely you are able to ply this metaphor. It is all fully convincing to me.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, I doubt that what the latest essay can lead to will depend entirely on how the reader approaches and works with the content. Otherwise there would be no point in reelaborating the same ideas, finding new metaphors, and developing new essay series. Yes, mental potato processing can’t lead to true knowledge. Still, the particular way the intellect is engaged and compelled makes it more or less likely that it will do the cognitive experiments. It's not about denying that mental processing in itself is insufficient and that it’s possible to read the essay without quitting that place of insufficiency. It’s about recognizing that the differently stimulated mental process will find the way to experimentation with different likelihoods - other things being equal (initial lack of motivation and attunement to the first-person inner dynamics). And since the introspective approach is fully accessible to the intellect, as we agree, the importance of addressing the intellect first, creating a suitable mental tableau for it to feel comfortable with introspection, is apparent, as exemplified in these first parts of the Game Loop.

In a corner of the mind, the intellect may still hold on to the default feel that the laws of physics are the most obvious and proximate field of investigation of the nature of reality. Still, if it now follows on its own terms the introspective prompts that locate these laws in the larger context of the game logic - in contrast with the experientially closer realms of Input-Output flows - it will inevitably come to a point of healthy inner contradiction, or dissonance. Then the intellect will have the choice to either question and reassess the default orientation to the laws of physics (abstract game theoretician) in favor of a more experiential approach, or to turn a blind eye to the logic of the game metaphor, and swallow the inner dissonance to retrieve the comfort of the familiar MC container. The intellect can indeed ignore the prompts, but it has to pay the price of (more or less conscious) logical dissonance.

But I doubt that the way to overcome the dissonance is to try and bring into contextual harmony the driving experience (first-person experience of the world flow) and the passenger’s talk about that same experience (Cleric’s essay). Because unless one has already developed higher cognition, I don’t think that the passenger’s talk can be experienced as a gentle reminder, and made harmonious with the contextual driving experience:

It is important to realize that there’s a difference between living through a given IO flow and thinking about it. This is easy to grasp if we try to add a couple of two-digit numbers in our mind. While we are performing the addition, our mental flow turns into a pipeline that transforms the quantifiable mental images in specific ways. When we try to reflect on this process, the calculation ceases. Now, our mental flow takes the shape of a different pipeline – one that processes the memory images of our calculating experience. Some may say that they can drive and at the same time philosophize about the driving process. This, however, is only possible when our driving skills are so developed that they can flow with minimum input. If an unexpected traffic situation arises, our reflection about driving quickly ceases, and we are fully immersed in the driving flow.

Most likely, attention would instead snap between immersion in driving and immersion in the passenger’s talk, unable to experience lasting harmony (unless there is no traffic, the road is perfectly known, etc.). Or, out of metaphor, the reader of the essay would struggle between following Cleric’s treatment as distilled in the essay, and living in the first-person experience of the IO flows. Hence the importance of firstly guiding the reader to a discursive, logical conclusion fully accessible to the intellect - as done above. Then, the reader can take a separate moment to introspect and verify the prompts. While reading the essay, the intellect thinks about the whole process. Here it’s important that the elaboration is large-ranging, and logically compelling, so that, later, the intellect can find the motivation experiment, and live through the prompted experiences. If this is done conscientiously and with enthusiasm for genuine discovery, then the healthy dissonance between the experience and the default theoretician approach can be consciously experienced.

Could it be that this timing question makes us see the whole idea of bridge from different angles?

Yes, there is certainly a pedagogical technique in how the depth axis is presented and how the soul is invited into its experience. For example, it seems to me that Cleric is continually asking readers to resist the discursive logical reasoning that is the default way of approaching and understanding such philosophical treatments. He tries to make this common trap as transparent as possible with gentle cautions, while also presenting many gentle reminders of another first-person introspective experimentation that is accessible to the intellect, which is its forgotten native tongue. I would call that technique removing levels of indirection that normally stand between the soul's intuitive steering and its precipitating mental pictures. I don't think there is a preparatory stage that involves building up a logically sound mental tableau of all the concepts about IO flows, which, depending on its content (some metaphorical presentations are more logically compelling than others), will make the intellect more likely to decide in favor of active experimentation at a later time. Rather, I think the logical reasoning simultaneously prompts active experimentation when presented through this pedagogical technique.

In that sense, the timing issue is perhaps significant. It seems you are suggesting that it is important to first work on finding the most stimulating content for the intellect, which logically compels it to start taking the whole introspective endeavor seriously or risk living with logical dissonance (which we know many people are more than happy to do, since that dissonance vouchsafes their familiar habits of thinking and being). In that view, Cleric keeps generating these new metaphorical frameworks, for example, because he is hoping to find the most stimulating one that can no longer be resisted. Video feedback, phonograph, inner space stretching, etc., probably weren't quite stimulating enough, so now he is hoping the IO gaming framework will do the trick. Of course, it makes sense to hope that our presentations will become more refined, more engaging in some way, more clearly delineated, etc. Yet I think the primary pedagogical motive is simply that the inner dynamics are never grasped through one or two metaphorical frameworks, but by consistently experimenting with them through the most varied frameworks. We can't predict beforehand what kind of frameworks will grab attention and stimulate long-term interest, but we can depict the inner dynamics as faithfully and precisely as possible through such varied frameworks and trust that 'life and truth will find a way'.

What you quoted from Cleric, in my view, reinforces the goal of immediately bringing the driving and conversing flows into holistic harmony through the experimentation anchored in the essay's prompts. We can't harmonize these flows until we first clearly sense the differentiation between them and the oscillating hysteresis that we normally experience. By introspectively experimenting with the calculation example, we begin to sense that differentiation and that already spirals the hysteresis closer together. In that sense, he is pointing out that the essay is not intended to be "philosophizing about the driving [imaginative] process", but an entirely new way of anchoring the real-time driving process in metaphorical images, concepts, and reasoning which testify more directly to that process as it unfolds (there is an interesting circularity here, because the point he is making about shifting to the introspective approach can itself only be grasped through introspective experimentation). Surely the novice reading soul will initially struggle with shifting its inner stance to this entirely new way of approaching the content, but this struggle is only overcome by a trusting leap into the unknown, the desire to risk what is uncomfortable, time-consuming, anxiety-inducing, fear-inducing, etc., for the sake of the Truth. Whether that leap (which preserves the soul's freedom) will be made, of course, is not in our control.

[Kaje977]

--Essay--

Thank you very much, Cleric, for this very vivid second part. In fact, thanks to my previous experience with the Inner Space Stretching exercise, I can now feel a certain familiarity with what you have explained. I haven't gotten very far yet (unfortunately, the stagnation of my Soul due to certain strong negative habits requires very careful inner observation and, above all, purification, a strict catharsis) . I have tried aspects of the so-called IFS therapy (a self-directed therapy), which has shown me some aspects of the environment I grew up in and its influence on my certain affinity for "sadness and depression". By this I mean: Although I wish to be in a better state, I seem to love this state of depression, including listening to sad and depressing music or being in a state where I have no control and am completely at the mercy of everything. (Also called "Sadness Paradox", basically Catch-22 for emotional states). In a way, subconsciously, I expect this to happen: I humiliate myself, telling myself how weak, pathetic and lack of control I have. Until I reach the very bottom, where it's really so downhill from there that it makes 'click' in my mind and finally changing for the better. I subconsciously seek the worst of the worst of my habits and traits until it's enough, until I just am left with no other option other than to change myself and move on to become better. (I suppose it's not very helpful, but this is what my subconsciousness seems to do)

This is just one of many aspects, but it is (similar to my other negative habits) a crucial one. Additionally, I have realized that I must first go through a catharsis and purification before I can really delve deeper into the Thinking exercises. Because the deeper I go, the more terrible my dreams and images become. I suppose it is similar to Kamaloka, an attempt to burn away negative desires and habits, which provokes a certain backlash from all the hostile beings that have found a home within me. Because of these strange and rather terrifying and disturbing dreams, it negatively affects my work schedule and study time. I can't risk that; I don't want to lose all the progress I've made in my university studies and have to start all over again. It's one of those moments when I realized that the pursuit of such spiritual wisdom is at odds with everyday life, especially if it starts mixing into my Soul and emotional state. E.g. the last week before Christmas was the most terrible week I have ever experienced. A single action or gesture by a person that wasn't even significant (i.e., completely meaningless, like simple eye contact, etc.) plunged me into an emotional vortex of feeling depression, mistrust, betrayal, deep hatred, and jealousy. It was completely unfounded and it feels very odd looking back at it, I almost fell into schizophrenia. I can't go through all this while I have to study, and I had to make a decision about what takes priority in the short term. Or, if anything, there has to be a way to do this without having to go through the hassle that could cost me pursuing my Computer Science degree.

By the way, this essay series so far feels more stimulating to me intellectually, most likely because I play video games quite often and so feel a certain familiarity and at-home-feeling with it, especially (funny coincidence) Minecraft after a wave of nostalgia I had for the game almost two years ago. Since then I've been playing the game regularly again with others at a fixed time to this very day. Recently, I've been working with the Create mod, basically a mod for construction engineers allowing you to build certain machines (e.g. steam engine) and the like.

[Federica]

Yes, there is certainly a pedagogical technique in how the depth axis is presented and how the soul is invited into its experience. For example, it seems to me that Cleric is continually asking readers to resist the discursive logical reasoning that is the default way of approaching and understanding such philosophical treatments. He tries to make this common trap as transparent as possible with gentle cautions, while also presenting many gentle reminders of another first-person introspective experimentation that is accessible to the intellect, which is its forgotten native tongue. I would call that technique removing levels of indirection that normally stand between the soul's intuitive steering and its precipitating mental pictures. I don't think there is a preparatory stage that involves building up a logically sound mental tableau of all the concepts about IO flows, which, depending on its content (some metaphorical presentations are more logically compelling than others), will make the intellect more likely to decide in favor of active experimentation at a later time. Rather, I think the logical reasoning simultaneously prompts active experimentation when presented through this pedagogical technique.

In that sense, the timing issue is perhaps significant. It seems you are suggesting that it is important to first work on finding the most stimulating content for the intellect, which logically compels it to start taking the whole introspective endeavor seriously or risk living with logical dissonance (which we know many people are more than happy to do, since that dissonance vouchsafes their familiar habits of thinking and being). In that view, Cleric keeps generating these new metaphorical frameworks, for example, because he is hoping to find the most stimulating one that can no longer be resisted. Video feedback, phonograph, inner space stretching, etc., probably weren't quite stimulating enough, so now he is hoping the IO gaming framework will do the trick. Of course, it makes sense to hope that our presentations will become more refined, more engaging in some way, more clearly delineated, etc. Yet I think the primary pedagogical motive is simply that the inner dynamics are never grasped through one or two metaphorical frameworks, but by consistently experimenting with them through the most varied frameworks. We can't predict beforehand what kind of frameworks will grab attention and stimulate long-term interest, but we can depict the inner dynamics as faithfully and precisely as possible through such varied frameworks and trust that 'life and truth will find a way'.

What you quoted from Cleric, in my view, reinforces the goal of immediately bringing the driving and conversing flows into holistic harmony through the experimentation anchored in the essay's prompts. We can't harmonize these flows until we first clearly sense the differentiation between them and the oscillating hysteresis that we normally experience. By introspectively experimenting with the calculation example, we begin to sense that differentiation and that already spirals the hysteresis closer together. In that sense, he is pointing out that the essay is not intended to be "philosophizing about the driving [imaginative] process", but an entirely new way of anchoring the real-time driving process in metaphorical images, concepts, and reasoning which testify more directly to that process as it unfolds (there is an interesting circularity here, because the point he is making about shifting to the introspective approach can itself only be grasped through introspective experimentation). Surely the novice reading soul will initially struggle with shifting its inner stance to this entirely new way of approaching the content, but this struggle is only overcome by a trusting leap into the unknown, the desire to risk what is uncomfortable, time-consuming, anxiety-inducing, fear-inducing, etc., for the sake of the Truth. Whether that leap (which preserves the soul's freedom) will be made, of course, is not in our control.

I really don't understand things as you do, but I don't know how to reply without repeating myself. I'll wait to see if something new comes to mind.

[AshvinP]

I really don't understand things as you do, but I don't know how to reply without repeating myself. I'll wait to see if something new comes to mind.

Another thing that occurred to me is to ask whether the logical structure of the essays can be understood as a coherent flow without introspective experimentation. In my experience, this structure feels like a living organism, entirely dependent on a series of introspective exercises that serve specific inner functions and complement one another. For example, when Cleric writes:

"When we move our hands and fingers attentively, we live in meaningful patterns of input and output (IO). These patterns form a specific vocabulary of intuitive gestures. We live in the meaning of ‘index finger’, ‘pinkie’, ‘clenching fist’, ‘pointing’, even if we don’t sharply delineate the meaning into concepts and map words to them. The hand-moving IO patterns in themselves have some intuitively recognizable identities. Even if we cannot pinpoint it with intellectual clarity, we feel that there’s something we do differently if we are to move our index finger or pinkie, and we somehow know how to reach into these intuitive controls."

This feels like the heart organ (or blood flow) of the essay installment. It is such a simple observation, but one that most people are normally completely unaware of. Can we imagine the blood flowing properly if the reader simply glosses over the concepts above, clicking them together like puzzle pieces, without taking the time to "move our hands and fingers attentively" and experience the intuitive meaning lived through? Would any of what follows about the interleaved IO flows actually feel coherent, stimulating, and important if this introspective foundation of the intuitive gestures isn't first established? I don't really see how that is possible.

[Federica]

I really don't understand things as you do, but I don't know how to reply without repeating myself. I'll wait to see if something new comes to mind.

Another thing that occurred to me is to ask whether the logical structure of the essays can be understood as a coherent flow without introspective experimentation. In my experience, this structure feels like a living organism, entirely dependent on a series of introspective exercises that serve specific inner functions and complement one another. For example, when Cleric writes:

"When we move our hands and fingers attentively, we live in meaningful patterns of input and output (IO). These patterns form a specific vocabulary of intuitive gestures. We live in the meaning of ‘index finger’, ‘pinkie’, ‘clenching fist’, ‘pointing’, even if we don’t sharply delineate the meaning into concepts and map words to them. The hand-moving IO patterns in themselves have some intuitively recognizable identities. Even if we cannot pinpoint it with intellectual clarity, we feel that there’s something we do differently if we are to move our index finger or pinkie, and we somehow know how to reach into these intuitive controls."

This feels like the heart organ (or blood flow) of the essay installment. It is such a simple observation, but one that most people are normally completely unaware of. Can we imagine the blood flowing properly if the reader simply glosses over the concepts above, clicking them together like puzzle pieces, without taking the time to "move our hands and fingers attentively" and experience the intuitive meaning lived through? Would any of what follows about the interleaved IO flows actually feel coherent, stimulating, and important if this introspective foundation of the intuitive gestures isn't first established? I don't really see how that is possible.

For me the answer is absolutely yes. Even before taking the time to seriously introspect and experiment - which is still fully accessible to the intellect, as we have agreed - it makes sense, it is highly reasonable, to notice the three different registers and vocabularies: the hands, the game input device, and the game story itself. The intellect had previously not noticed these distinguishable domains, and now the essay allows for this new idea to emerge and take shape. The intellect gets its initial satisfaction. There is first a specifically biological input-output set of patterns, like intention to move the index --- perceived motion of the index. This set is necessary for game playing, but game playing is not necessary for this vocabulary to express itself in all its variety. This relative independence highlights its distinguishable sphere of meaning. Yes, the intellect can get enough from that passage to be able to usefully continue reading and grasp the coherence and logic of the essay flow. I would even say that the whole point with the game metaphor is precisely that - to allow that intellectual experience. The game is a metaphor that descends wider into the familiar realm of the intellect, to engage and compel without the immediate requirement of serious introspection. A wide net is cast. Then the intellect can immediately notice that the same identical movement of the finger can be performed in the air, paying attention to the biological vocabulary as just hinted to, or on the game controller, with very different focus of attention in the two situations. It's also easy to notice that, while the intention is now 'jump' rather than 'move the finger in the air according to pictured intention', the biological vocabulary is still there, as a conditio sine qua non. It's also completely possible to grasp the fact that the connection between intention and effect is weaker in the game controller vocabulary, etcetera etcetera.

Once the reader's intuition (supported by logical reasoning) has been stimulated all throughout, the reader comes to the end of the chapter and says: "It all actually makes sense, it seems to go somewhere. I can now take a moment and dive into those experiences a little more carefully, to verify if this is confirmed by experience and get a feel for it". By contrast, if the essay were interspersed with explicit introspective prompts ("now please make sure you are in a calm environment, close your eyes, think about your hand, try to feel what happens when you decide to move your finger... etc.) before a reasonable, relatable, logical, and wide-ranging mental tableau is depicted, the intellect would likely say: "Hey dude, this is all well and good, but you know, I am not your puppet, tell me a little bit where we are going, ok? I'm not going to pause here and do improbable exercises while I have no idea what the end purpose is. I'm here to understand, not to dive into some strange tests on command" (only slightly exaggerated).

[AshvinP]

For me the answer is absolutely yes. Even before taking the time to seriously introspect and experiment - which is still fully accessible to the intellect, as we have agreed - it makes sense, it is highly reasonable, to notice the three different registers and vocabularies: the hands, the game input device, and the game story itself. The intellect had previously not noticed these distinguishable domains, and now the essay allows for this new idea to emerge and take shape. The intellect gets its initial satisfaction. There is first a specifically biological input-output set of patterns, like intention to move the index --- perceived motion of the index. This set is necessary for game playing, but game playing is not necessary for this vocabulary to express itself in all its variety. This relative independence highlights its distinguishable sphere of meaning. Yes, the intellect can get enough from that passage to be able to usefully continue reading and grasp the coherence and logic of the essay flow. I would even say that the whole point with the game metaphor is precisely that - to allow that intellectual experience. The game is a metaphor that descends wider into the familiar realm of the intellect, to engage and compel without the immediate requirement of serious introspection. A wide net is cast. Then the intellect can immediately notice that the same identical movement of the finger can be performed in the air, paying attention to the biological vocabulary as just hinted to, or on the game controller, with very different focus of attention in the two situations. It's also easy to notice that, while the intention is now 'jump' rather than 'move the finger in the air according to pictured intention', the biological vocabulary is still there, as a conditio sine qua non. It's also completely possible to grasp the fact that the connection between intention and effect is weaker in the game controller vocabulary, etcetera etcetera.

Based on this, it is clear to me that what you call "noticing" is what I am already calling introspection, which is quite uncommon and unfamiliar from anything performed in ordinary intellectual experience (without the benefit of prior introspective gestures that have become second nature). Even if the reader does not physically move the fingers, clench the fist, etc., for some sustained duration, for example, the process of thinking about the memory experiences, linking the movements to differentiated willing gestures, and feeling how this constellates a unique IO vocabulary, is quite a bit of introspective effort. Even if this happens in a matter of seconds, it is a direction of thinking that is orthogonal to ordinary mental puzzle making, where concepts are hanging in the air and only related between themselves. It reminds me of an article that I recently read in the archive:

https://rsarchive.org/Articles/GA036/En ... index.html
"There is much talk about ‘Humanism’ in these days, and of cultivating the genuine human principle common to all men. But, for any such tendency to become quite genuine, it needs to be applied seriously to the different concrete provinces of life. Think what it means for anyone who once has felt words and phrases invested with an absolutely distinct and visible reality. How much fuller and keener is the sense a man then has of his own human nature than when language is merely felt in its abstraction! We need not think, of course, when a person sees a picture and says, ‘How delicious!’ that, whilst looking at the picture, he must at the same time have a vision of his joints being loosened until he is in a state of such complete ‘delectation’ that he begins to feel as if his being were dissolved! Still, anyone who has once vividly felt the corresponding picture in his soul, will—when he speaks such words—have a quite different inner experience from one who has never known them as anything but an abstraction."

We can also see why this form of "noticing" feels so easy and accessible for us, because the introspective skill is already baked into our intuitive context through prior efforts, just like our intuition for driving, weight lifting, or other physical skills we may have developed. I don't think this is being appreciated enough. We can reflect on how many people we have come across who would barely understand the inward experience of 'inner gestures', for example, how they are inwardly active in playing the game and how such inner gestures diffuse through the IO flows. It probably feels almost impossible for us to imagine someone not recognizing this experience, but nevertheless, we know there are plenty of people who cannot seem to do it no matter how many different appealing descriptions are presented. And for such people, not only are these descriptions hard to understand, they can easily feel incoherent or as the expression of someone who has egoistically succumbed to the illusion of being a 'doer'.

For example, you write: "There is first a specifically biological input-output set of patterns, like intention to move the index --- perceived motion of the index. This set is necessary for game playing, but game playing is not necessary for this vocabulary to express itself in all its variety." Many souls that only tread the intellectual surface of such descriptions can first say, "What intention to move the index? This is simply an automatic reflex that has been conditioned into me over the years. Just because I don't know all the historical reasons that compel my fingers to move, that doesn't mean I am intentionally guiding the process". Then, if that is moved beyond, they could say, "It's not true that the biological IO flow is necessary for game playing, because a completely mechanical robot can be programmed with movements that also play the game." The ordinary intellect can endlessly doubt the truth and importance of these ideas in such ways. Again, we have seen this pattern concretely play out more than a few times. This means that, what makes the logical reasoning compelling, in a deeper (and freer) sense, is not contained in the abstract tokens and their sequences, but in the vivid feeling of the 'soul pictures' which are evoked through them. That vivid feeling is only cultivated by introspective gestures.

Once the reader's intuition (supported by logical reasoning) has been stimulated all throughout, the reader comes to the end of the chapter and says: "It all actually makes sense, it seems to go somewhere. I can now take a moment and dive into those experiences a little more carefully, to verify if this is confirmed by experience and get a feel for it". By contrast, if the essay were interspersed with explicit introspective prompts ("now please make sure you are in a calm environment, close your eyes, think about your hand, try to feel what happens when you decide to move your finger... etc.) before a reasonable, relatable, logical, and wide-ranging mental tableau is depicted, the intellect would likely say: "Hey dude, this is all well and good, but you know, I am not your puppet, tell me a little bit where we are going, ok? I'm not going to pause here and do improbable exercises while I have no idea what the end purpose is. I'm here to understand, not to dive into some strange tests on command" (only slightly exaggerated).

This again makes me feel like my standard for "explicit introspective prompts" is much lower (or more expanded) than yours. I don't see how the essay's introspective prompts could be made any more explicit. True, Cleric doesn't take a commandeering tone, tell people to create a meditative environment, try to micromanage exactly how they carry out the introspection, and things of that nature, and no one is suggesting that is necessary, but he couldn't be any more explicit that it is critical for active experimentation to unfold. Of course, this doesn't mean strictly physical experiments, but inner experiments that are carried out consciously and consistently.

[Cleric]

--Essay--

Thank you very much, Cleric, for this very vivid second part. In fact, thanks to my previous experience with the Inner Space Stretching exercise, I can now feel a certain familiarity with what you have explained. I haven't gotten very far yet (unfortunately, the stagnation of my Soul due to certain strong negative habits requires very careful inner observation and, above all, purification, a strict catharsis) . I have tried aspects of the so-called IFS therapy (a self-directed therapy), which has shown me some aspects of the environment I grew up in and its influence on my certain affinity for "sadness and depression". By this I mean: Although I wish to be in a better state, I seem to love this state of depression, including listening to sad and depressing music or being in a state where I have no control and am completely at the mercy of everything. (Also called "Sadness Paradox", basically Catch-22 for emotional states). In a way, subconsciously, I expect this to happen: I humiliate myself, telling myself how weak, pathetic and lack of control I have. Until I reach the very bottom, where it's really so downhill from there that it makes 'click' in my mind and finally changing for the better. I subconsciously seek the worst of the worst of my habits and traits until it's enough, until I just am left with no other option other than to change myself and move on to become better. (I suppose it's not very helpful, but this is what my subconsciousness seems to do)

This is just one of many aspects, but it is (similar to my other negative habits) a crucial one. Additionally, I have realized that I must first go through a catharsis and purification before I can really delve deeper into the Thinking exercises. Because the deeper I go, the more terrible my dreams and images become. I suppose it is similar to Kamaloka, an attempt to burn away negative desires and habits, which provokes a certain backlash from all the hostile beings that have found a home within me. Because of these strange and rather terrifying and disturbing dreams, it negatively affects my work schedule and study time. I can't risk that; I don't want to lose all the progress I've made in my university studies and have to start all over again. It's one of those moments when I realized that the pursuit of such spiritual wisdom is at odds with everyday life, especially if it starts mixing into my Soul and emotional state. E.g. the last week before Christmas was the most terrible week I have ever experienced. A single action or gesture by a person that wasn't even significant (i.e., completely meaningless, like simple eye contact, etc.) plunged me into an emotional vortex of feeling depression, mistrust, betrayal, deep hatred, and jealousy. It was completely unfounded and it feels very odd looking back at it, I almost fell into schizophrenia. I can't go through all this while I have to study, and I had to make a decision about what takes priority in the short term. Or, if anything, there has to be a way to do this without having to go through the hassle that could cost me pursuing my Computer Science degree.

By the way, this essay series so far feels more stimulating to me intellectually, most likely because I play video games quite often and so feel a certain familiarity and at-home-feeling with it, especially (funny coincidence) Minecraft after a wave of nostalgia I had for the game almost two years ago. Since then I've been playing the game regularly again with others at a fixed time to this very day. Recently, I've been working with the Create mod, basically a mod for construction engineers allowing you to build certain machines (e.g. steam engine) and the like.

Kaje, I want to assure you that you are not alone in such experiences. However, we need to be clear what genuine inner development - as suitable for modern man - is about. I fully understand your concern about finishing education, and this should by all means take priority at your stage in life. It seems to me that at this time, your dabbling in esoteric science and exercises acts like a magnifying glass, and now many daily phenomena are accompanied by imaginative elements that you find disturbing. But would you say that the little trigger you speak of throwing you in the emotional vortex wouldn't have had a similar effect even without the imaginative aura? If that were the case, people who have never encountered esoteric ideas would have to be quite protected from such effects. Alas, this is not the case. In fact, a great part of humanity lives constantly in such kinds of inner torment, except that they experience everything clothed in completely secular mental images. The hatred is there, the jealousy, and so on, but intuited through the prism of daily life - the demon is seen in the wife, husband, the politicians, and so on.

Thus, we need to make a distinction. It is true that intellectually swallowing a lot of esoteric ideas can make us hypersensitive about many things. This is not too different from the way things work out for those fond of conspiracy theories. Even though our intellectual vocabulary increases, we get weaker and weaker. Now we see all around us warped images that we blame for our misery, whether they be the Illuminati or spectres. In that case, it would be good to get on a 'leaner diet' and consume less of these images. With respect to our overall development, however, this doesn't solve our evolutionary tasks. We only choose to get back to the drunkenness of sensory life, where we are still haunted and tormented, but simply interpreting everything through a 'rational' prism.

The way I see it, it could be useful to limit the consumption of esoteric images that become clothes for your heightened sensitivity. Yet, this period is also great for focusing on these images and intuitions that link you with the world of Light, even if this is done in a simple-minded way. We can never win a fight with the imaginative impressions that assail us. The inner strength only comes from our unity with the Divine Life contextualizing our existential flow. Cultivating this strength is precisely what allows us to find our center even amidst the infernal vortex. Be sure that it is within the Divine curvature of your destiny to finish your education and be a human being who can stand on his feet. Heaven has little use for weaklings. Seek that curvature, merge with it in prayer, picture the outflow of your destiny - of your thoughts, feelings, and actions - as the continuation of Divine Inspiration, and I can guarantee you that these activities will not in the least interfere with your education. In fact, it is precisely in this alignment with the Divine Love, Wisdom, and Truth that you will find the inner radiance which alone dispels all shadows.

Think of it in this way. One may say, "I don't want to read about hygiene, of caries, and so on. I won't brush my teeth, wash, and so on, because all these things only remind me of such haunting images." Of course, this helps only in the short term. Then the images come back as far more disturbing realities. But we do not need to perform any of these activities out of fear. Instead, we can be inspired by the ideal of health, life, purity, beauty, and so on. It is similar when the Divine aspects of existence become part of our daily routine. We no longer do anything out of fear or because of an imposed law, but because we discover aspects of life that inspire us to meet every day with enthusiasm and sacred joy about the incredible journey we are part of. Then, when we look back, we even wonder how we could have borne life as a lost soul, tossed around on the waves of fleeting sensations.