Previous Work Attachments vs. New Corrected Work

My past work, and people who liked it, are in Evolve Consciousness Version 1 (ECv1), and may not like the work I do now, Evolve Consciousness Version 2 (ECv2), which is a correction of my understandings, that if people are not following they may not understand the work, and simply reject this new direction. Evolve Consciousness is a different version than before, improved, more grounded in reality, without all the fantasy attachments I was projecting and externalizing before. All the previous work still stands as valid, but needs to be understood differently than the specific way I expressed symbolism at the time.

For example, in “Spectrum of Living“, to not look at the “Spirit” part as some actual thing out there, but inside us instead, and we bring those idealized potential from “spirit”-consciousness that we imagine, into ourselves in reality. The middle point is us in reality, creating and generating from the internal subjective reality out into the external objective reality.

ECv1: building off of the heavy influence from Mark Passio’s work and other beliefs as reality
ECv2: building off of reality that is truth and not holding onto beliefs others have invoked into me

I recently understood that I was failing to dig deep enough to the foundations of many convictions I had, that I accepted because of the intricate web of interconnectivity and interdependence that many associated beliefs created. This all created one big free-floating belief construct that had the image and appearance of being grounded in reality, but was so big that I could not see there was no connection to the ground… The tapestry and picture it weaved and the explanations given were all referencing and corresponding to support each other beautifully, at least thats how it appears when you are under the impact of all that info and how nicely it fits together and the overall story it tells. One mystery tradition after the other all talking about the same things, right? OK. Awesome, is it true? How do you know its true? All of the analogies and correspondences made between reality and ideas to validate them as being true?

Consciousness can induce states of well being, psychological as well, when we accept certain beliefs as reality. This is a known effect. Everyone who receives feel-good stories and narratives about their purpose, meaning, origins,life and death, will more than likely choose to accept that symbolism. The “resonating” feeling people get is the resonance of the belief into their consciousness making them feel-good. If a belief is too realistic and brings them smack down to reality, well that won’t “resonate”, even if it is 100% true. I was resonating with the overall worldview that was generated for me through symbol word magic, the science of imagery, inducing, invoking and influencing me with the images generated in consciousness, and it felt good all together, uncritically being infatuated with these images in consciousness.

Many people are focused on and chase after appearances of images in mind/consciousness/imagination, chasing the imagined realness of the image in their mind is. You can chase some images, sure, but make sure they lead to something tangible in life, rather than simply imagined beliefs. I focus on practical and functional aspects of the substance of our way of life, of our reality that matters, here on the ground, in the matter that matters. If you want to continue to project beliefs as reality, and imagine things we create into existence as if they don’t exist, then I may mock you and be sarcastic with your fallacious beliefs. Dislike me all you want and change the channel, block me, ignore me, that’s your choice.

If you can’t handle ECv2, or don’t like how I speak, then go somewhere else for info you do want? What do you want from me? I don’t have to conform to your expectations. I will not conform to how you want me to be all placating to people’s false beliefs, conform to your model of compassion, kindness, “love” and “care”. Do you think this is the first time I have heard these claims about me? I wrote the “Truth is Love” article for this specific purpose, to get people to understand that I care about truth most, that is the real “love”, not making friends with people by treating them like precious little babies who can’t be smacked with their own BS and shown for what it is, BS. I also did work on what compassion really is in “Bearing Good and Evil“. I may mirror your beliefs back at you in ridiculous ways, with sarcasm and mockery, but usually I try to show you how wrong you are with explanations first. If you can’t recognize how you are in error, then I can show you by reflecting your nonsense back at you through other corresponding concepts to show you how wrong your explanation is.

There’s always some people saying “keep up the great work”, and then some people who don’t like it and try to invalidate the work itself in fallacious ways, and also some who try to invalidate it by targeting me, and how I deliver the message (since I started my work in 2014). Different people come and go to my work, and some who used to like my work in ECv1 and how I spoke against BS beliefs, are now against how I speak against BS beliefs because they don’t agree with my work anymore, so they don’t agree with how I do things anymore either,like calling out BS with vitriolic and belligerent truth that smacks down BS.

Please go follow the work of someone else if my work does not interest you, and especially if all you are interested in is how I say things (emotional mind control). Telling me I’m uncompassionate, unkind, etc., is like telling me I’m judgmental. I don’t care about such a remark. Stop listening to me then, stop commenting to me then. I don’t match up to your version of being a “friend”? I don’t do what I do to make “friends”, move along please, or actually say something meaningful when you speak, to actually correct the alleged falsities that I propagate. If you think you can correct my work, please go ahead. Thank you.


  • Hulk

    I love the inforgraphics and the information presented.
    Is there a post that explains the delineation between your current understanding of Natural Law etc and your previous understanding? Also which aspect of Mark Passio’s work you no longer agree with?

    • Thanks 🙂

      I never did any consolidated criticism of the new demonstrable understanding vs. old belief-based conceptions. I did a lot of work to explain the underlying way of how to understand how to think, and the feedback between consciousness/psyche and existence, and some posts explaining how moral law works as a demonstrable expression from ourselves, how we use the word to reflect meaning about our behavior in reality, not as some “magical” force somewhere.

      As I analyzed the Passio version of Natural Law which is overall great, I began to see issues with the term and how he attributes a “magical” belief aspect to it. Such as how someone who does harm will face the consequences in another life if not this one. I’ve explained how real causal “karma” works, as opposed the that belief in some cosmic “order” that keeps a ledger of our actions/behaviors. We are the ones that apply consequences to the wrongs of others or not, or in some cases we feel them in the aggregate through the causal effect we have on our environment/existence. Passio has great info overall, a must to go through as I see it. I’ve also looked into the double slit experiment in depth a while ago, and he proposes beliefs about it related to his belief in consciousness existing prior to the material world. Consciousness comes from the body and requires a body to emerge from into existence, that is what is demonstrable as a truth as opposed to being a belief. I learned to distinguish belief from truth by looking at what the words are used and how they were created to reflect our attempts to communicate about certain things.

Have something to say? Please let me know.