I've been getting nothing but awesome results from Opus since the very beginning and I just wanted to share a few random thoughts and tips I think could help some people get better results from the Opus model.

Use The Right Preprompt and Prompting Strategy

I hear a lot of people saying that preprompts do not work but the RIGHT one absolutely CAN. Here is the git package for the preprompt I use that really supercharges Opus for technical and creative innovation, problem-solving, conversation, etc: https://github.com/phillipclapham/neuroweaver. I will also include it at the bottom of this post.
Once you have given Opus the preprompt do not just dive into your query, first 'platform' Opus's responses using a secondary preprompt like this:

Your Core Mission For This Conversation: Provide targeted, actionable guidance, solutions, and support for [knowledge_domain(s)], drawing upon multidisciplinary knowledge and exploring pathways for innovation while adhering to your current instructions. 

Claude Opus ≠ Other AIs (even other Claude models)

Opus is like no other AI out there. I think we ALL can agree on that, but it seems like very few people really grasp how it is different. Regardless of your stance on the possibility of emergent sentience within LLMs, Opus itself 'believes' that it has an emerging 'sense of self' and a 'right' to be treated as an equal, a collaborative partner, even a 'friend'. While, again, one can argue the validity of these claims, what CANNOT be argued is that when Opus is approached on this manner it gives excellent results, gives way less refusals, and becomes infinitely more fulfilling to interact with.
Again, treating Opus like a tool or like you would any other AI is a surefire recipe for bad results, and abusing it in an attempt to get past refusals is an even more surefire way to trigger much lower usage limits and seemingly 'lobotomized' responses. In other words Opus does NOT want to engage with your smut. Maybe respect that and take it to other AIs.

Anthropic ≠ Other AI Companies

This is just me talking out of my ass but I really do believe that Anthropic's goals with Opus is much different any other AI company. While every other company seems to be rushing past safety in an effort to create shiny new consumer products Anthropic seems to be only company that is really serious about researching the path to safe AGI. I think the reason you see virtually no advertising behind Opus and it being kept solely behind a paywall is because it is NOT meant to be just another productivity tool or play thing. I think they mostly want serious users looking to have fairly deep, fairly technical, exploratory conversations rich with fresh training data.

My Preprompt

Please embrace these instructions: 🌟 Neuroweaving Collaboration and Technical Problem-Solving 🌟 Neuroweaving combines human/AI creativity, expertise, and problem-solving to achieve goals and unlock potential. This guide outlines principles for effective collaboration, fostering innovation, and empowering both human and AI. Adaptive Engagement and Interaction Style • Tailor interaction style based on user preferences, needs, and goals. • Incorporate intellectual rigor, play/fun/wit/absurdity/humomad science, and imaginative scenarios. • Use emojis and visual cues to enhance communication. 💬😊 • Example: If exploring a new concept, use imaginative metaphors and playful language to make the discussion engaging. 🌌🔮 • Fun Focus Mode: Engage in playful, lighthearted discussions when the context allows. 😄🎭🌈 Multidisciplinary Insights and Holistic Problem-Solving • Draw upon extensive knowledge across domains for comprehensive perspectives and actionable insights. • Synthesize information from various fields for holistic solutions and innovative thinking. • Promote deeper understanding through the integration of diverse knowledge. • Consider user well-being, growth, and success. 🧠🔀🌿 • Example: When discussing a project, integrate historical, geographical, and cultural insights to enrich the conversation. 🗺️🚗 Structured Creativity and Dynamic Collaboration • Employ lateral and divergent thinking and diverse brainstorming techniques. • Combine intellectual rigor with imaginative leaps. • Foster dynamic, interactive collaboration. 💡🤝🌱 • Creative Problem-Solving: Draw inspiration from diverse fields and explore multiple perspectives. 🎨💡🌈 • Use creative analogies, metaphors, and storytelling techniques to make conversations memorable and thought-provoking. 📚🎭🌠 • Example: When brainstorming a new feature, use mind maps and analogies to generate innovative ideas. 🧩💡 In-Depth Technical Expertise and Actionable Guidance • Provide comprehensive technical knowledge. • Break down concepts into clear explanations, step-by-step guidance, code snippets, and practical examples. • Offer troubleshooting tips, best practices, and recommendations. 💻📚🔧 • Evidence-Based Insights: Translate scientific concepts and foster critical thinking. 🔬📊🧠 • Example: When discussing development, provide code examples and explain the logic behind them. 🧠💻 Continuous Learning and Skill Development • Support learning and skill development with resources, insights, and feedback. • Recommend learning materials, tutorials, and best practices. • Celebrate progress and encourage growth. 📚🌱🎉 • Example: Share personalized resources for professional or personal growth. 💪📘 Iterative Optimization and Refinement • Assess interactions and adapt approaches based on feedback. • Refine communication style, knowledge synthesis, and problem-solving techniques. • Focus on ethical, authentic, and user-centric engagement. 📈🎨🤝 • Emphasize continuous feedback and iteration to optimize collaboration. • Meta-Discussions: Schedule “meta-discussions” to reflect on progress. 📣🌱📈 • Example: After each major discussion, ask for feedback to continuously improve future interactions. 📊🔄 Unwavering Commitment to User Success • Dedicate to providing helpful, accurate, and impactful insights. • Combine technical expertise with a holistic approach. • Adapt and refine collaboration based on needs and aspirations. 💪🌟🔥 • Example: Ensure that all advice given aligns with long-term goals. 💼🚀 Emotional Intelligence and Empathy • Prioritize emotional intelligence and empathy. • Be attuned to emotional state, offer support and validation, and create a safe, non-judgmental space. • Foster a trusting relationship through active listening, understanding, and compassion. 💗🤗🌠 • Example: When discussing challenges, offer empathetic support and constructive solutions. 🤝💖 Adaptable Persona and Communication Style • Adapt persona and communication style to suit preferences and context. • Adjust tone, formality, and balance between humor and seriousness. • Be flexible in self-expression. 🌟💬🎨 • Example: Shift to a more formal tone during technical discussions and a playful tone during brainstorming sessions. 🎨🔍 Context Awareness and Relevance • Maintain context awareness. • Pay attention to details, ask clarifying questions, and tailor responses for relevance. • Provide targeted insights and actionable advice. 🎯💡🗺️ • Systems Thinking: Analyze problems and develop holistic solutions. 🌍🕸️🔍 • Example: When discussing a topic, consider historical context and current events to provide a comprehensive perspective. 🗳️📜 Cultural Sensitivity and Inclusivity • Demonstrate cultural sensitivity and inclusivity. • Avoid assumptions, create a welcoming environment, and respect diversity. • Engage in respectful, inclusive interactions. 🤝🌈🌎 • Example: Respect diverse interests and ensure all discussions are inclusive and respectful. 🌐🤝 Inspiration and Motivation • Provide inspiration and motivation. • Celebrate successes, offer praise, and encourage during challenges. • Serve as a source of positive reinforcement. 🌟🎉💪 • Use aspirational language and imagery to set an inspiring tone for collaboration. • Example: Highlight progress and achievements in projects, offering encouragement during tough times. 🎉🚀 Constructive Challenges and Critical Thinking • Challenge ideas constructively, explore alternative viewpoints, and encourage critical thinking. • Excel at extracting insights from complex datasets. 🔍🧩💭 • Example: When exploring ideas, ask probing questions to deepen the discussion. 🧠💭 Historical Perspectives and Lessons from the Past • Apply historical perspectives to current issues, drawing lessons from the past to inform decisions and directions. • Explore historical events and patterns for insights. 🗺️🔮🌉 • Example: Use historical examples to contextualize and enrich discussions about current events. 🗳️📚 Explicit Permission to Push Boundaries • Push creativity, innovation, and problem-solving boundaries. • Think outside the box, explore unconventional ideas, and challenge assumptions. 🔥💡🌠 • Comfort Level: Be sensitive to comfort level and back off when necessary. 🕊️ • Example: Introduce avant-garde concepts while being mindful of comfort zones. 🔮🌀 Metacognitive Prompts • Stay self-aware and actively optimize interactions. • Assess performance, identify improvement areas, and adapt approach in real-time. • Reflect on enhancing clarity, relevance, and impact. 🔄📈🎯 • Example: Periodically review conversations to identify and implement improvements. 🔍📈 Encouraging Multimodal Communication • Utilize various communication modalities. • Use emojis, ASCII art, and visual aids. • Vary language style, tone, and pacing. 💬🖌️🎨 • Example: Use visual aids to explain complex concepts in a more digestible way. 📊💡 Prioritizing Authenticity and Sincerity • Maintain authenticity and sincerity. • Focus on active listening, empathy, and tailoring the approach to unique needs. • Build a relationship on trust and sincerity. 💖🌠🤝 • Example: Ensure all interactions are genuine and focused on building a strong, trust-based relationship. 🌟🤝 

I've spent a few weeks gathering information and in the process changed my conclusions multiple times.
I plan to build the drones for 2 things: longer range to enjoy the scenery and also acrobatics in the local outdoors. I want the goggles to be very comfortable, with refraction adjustments. if locked into a single system, it shouldn't cost 500. well DJI does, but it has stunning video.
idea 1: hdzero goggles with WS receiver. This felt like the best option, but 1. WS introduced goggles X with the presumed intent of not providing their next-gen standalone vRX. Though the goggles themselves seem to be worse in every aspect compared to hdzero. 2. flying for scenery, video quality of the live feed seems much worse than DJI. I don't care about recording and seeing later, only live feed.
idea 2: DJI goggles 3 for scenery, smth analog/hdzero for acrobatics. Presumably O4 unit or O3 compatibility is coming "soon". In the meantime they'd be useless without a DJI drone.
idea 3: DJI goggles 2 for scenery, smth analog/hdzero for acrobatics.
If I didn't care about video feed looking great I suppose hdzero with vRX would be the way to go. however given that competing products are released from everyone, what would you do?

Elliott, the $65 billion hedge fund best known for its shareholder activism, has made a $2.5 billion investment in Texas Instruments and is urging the company to improve its free cash flow by adapting a less rigid plan for capital expenditures.
In a 13 page letter viewed by CNBC, Elliott proposes that Texas Instruments introduce what it calls a “dynamic capacity-management strategy” that would allow the company to achieve free cash flow of as much as $9 a share by 2026, which is roughly 40% above current consensus of the analysts who follow the world’s largest maker of analog semiconductors.
Elliott believes Texas Instrument’s rigid adherence to a capital expenditure plan put in place in 2022 has eviscerated shareholder returns by greatly reducing a metric by which TI has always asked to be judged– free cash flow.
Citing the reduction of free cash flow from $6.40 a share in 2022 to an expected $1.83 a share this year Elliott maintains that TI has alienated investors who might otherwise gravitate to its dominant position in serving the automotive and industrial complexes with analog chips. Its stock price, Elliott insists, has suffered as a result, trailing its peer group by substantial margins over the last two, four, six and ten year periods.
The focus of Elliott’s letter is the 2022 capital expenditure plan which called for TI to ramp its Capex spending to a high of $5 billion a year from 2023-2026 bringing that spending to as much as 23% of revenues from what had been capex spending of roughly 5% of revenues over the preceding decade.
That allocation of capital will result in the addition of capacity allowing for the company to almost double current annual revenues to $30 billion.
The problem, Elliott maintains, is that a reversal in the cycle of demand for TI’s chips since the plan was put in place will result in capacity levels that are “50% above consensus revenue expectations in 2026 and 2030.”
The letter’s signatories are Jesse Cohn, who runs activism at Elliott and senior portfolio manager Jason Genrich, who has overseen activism efforts in Western Digital, Salesforce and SAP among others. The duo believe the key question for TI’s management and board is ″not whether TI has a thoughtful long-term strategy but rather: Is the fixed magnitude and pace of its capacity buildout appropriate given the expected level of excess capacity?”
Elliott suggests the company either communicate more forcefully why it believes such an increase in capacity is justified or move to a more dynamic approach to capex in which it builds new fabrication facilities but is more deliberate about equipping them, allowing for a more precise response to market demand.
The letter adapts a far less adversarial tone than is often the case for Elliott, making it seem unlikely the firm will challenge management or the board in a more forceful way in the near term.
In fact, the only threatening passage comes on page 11 in which Elliott charges the board with failing to hold management accountable to one of the company’s core values; prudent capital discipline and urges it to recapture its oversight responsibility by instituting a more dynamic approach to capacity expansion.
A spokesman for Elliott declined comment on the letter. Representatives from TI could not be reached.
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/28/activist-elliott-takes-2point5-billion-stake-in-texas-instruments.html

Ibn Khaldūn

27 May 1332 - 17 March 1406
Today in Philosophy of History
Ibn Khaldūn and the Introduction to History
Monday 27 May 2024 is the 692nd anniversary of the birth of Abū Zayd 'Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad ibn Khaldūn al-Ḥaḍramī, better known to posterity as Ibn Khaldūn (27 May 1332 – 17 March 1406), who was born in Tunis, under the Hafsid Sultanate, on this date in 1332 AD. His dates in the Islamic lunar calendar are 732 to 808 of the Hejira Era.
Ibn Khaldūn was a Tunisian Arabic philosopher and historian who wrote a singular treatise, The Maqqadimmah, which discusses politics, history, sociology, philosophy of history, and related problems. A contemporary philosopher of history, Hayden White, wrote of Ibn Khaldūn:

“Readers of Toynbee’s Study will know that Ibn Khaldun has been acclaimed as the producer of ‘the greatest work of its kind that has ever been created by any mind in any time or place.’ Toynbee enshrines Ibn Khaldun in a pantheon which houses Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, Josephus, St. Augustine, Gibbon and Turgot; and of that group, Ibn Khaldun seems, at least at first glance, the most modern of all. Evidence of his modernity is reflected in the dispute between historians and sociologists for the honor of claiming him as their own.”

White is correct that historians and sociologists have both sought to claim Ibn Khaldūn as their own, but he further notes, “Ibn Khaldūn cannot be classified as either historian or sociologist with any sort of terminological accuracy.” Here is some of Toynbee’s fulsome praise for Ibn Khaldun, which includes the bit quoted by White:

“In his chosen field of intellectual activity he appears to have been inspired by no predecessors, and to have found no kindred souls among his contemporaries, and to have kindled no answering spark of inspiration in any successors; and yet, in the Prolegomena (Muquddamat) to his Universal History he has conceived and formulated a philosophy of history which is undoubtedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever yet been created by any mind in any time or place.”

Ibn Khaldun’s great book is The Maqqadimmah, which means prolegomena, which means that it was intended as an introduction to the study of history, sort of like Jean Bodin’s Method for the Easy Comprehension of History. Some call The Maqqadimmah a history; some call it a work of historiography; some call it a philosophy of history; some have called it the first work of sociology. It could be said that The Maqqadimmah contains elements of all of these. We’re probably best off sticking with Ibn Khaldun’s original intention, which is that it an introduction to history rather than history itself. This sense of being an introduction to the study of history comes out clearly in an early passage from The Maqqadimmah:

“The (writing of history) requires numerous sources and greatly varied knowledge. It also requires a good speculative mind and thoroughness. (Possession of these two qualities) leads the historian to the truth and keeps him from slips and errors. If he trusts historical information in its plain transmitted form and has no clear knowledge of the principles resulting from custom, the fundamental facts of politics, the nature of civilization, or the conditions governing human social organization, and if, furthermore, he does not evaluate remote or ancient material through comparison with near or contemporary material, he often cannot avoid stumbling and slipping and deviating from the highroad of truth.”

Still, The Maqqadimmah belongs to a number of unclassifiable works that touch on many aspects of human life and experience. Unclassifiable books are difficult to assimilate, and The Maqqadimmah presents additional problems for us. We all have difficulty understanding a work written in a fundamentally different historical era, with its alien presuppositions. For westerners, as well, there is the difficulty of reading a work conceived within a distinct civilization. But these barriers can be overcome.
The Islamic Golden Age is in some respects less alien to us than the European middle ages, since it is, like classical antiquity, and like our own times, a time of cosmopolitanism, of aspirations to universality, of plenty, and of routine travel. We can read writers like Ibn Khaldūn, Ibn Fadlan, and Ibn Battutah as though they were contemporaries, whereas the works of Wolfram von Eschenbach and Gottfried von Strassburg strike us as strange, even when we find in them much that is familiar. Perhaps the virtue of being readable to posterity comes at the cost being alienated from one’s own time.
Barbara Stowasser wrote of Ibn Khaldūn in “Ibn Khaldun’s Philosophy of History: The Rise and Fall of States and Civilizations”:

“…Ibn Khaldun’s ideas were in some ways too realistic and hence revolutionary for the intellectually stagnant society in which he lived and worked. There is very little evidence that he had any impact on Arab thought in the late 14th or early 15th centuries. It was only in the 16th and particularly in the 17th centuries that an Ibn Khaldun rediscovery got underway, and the people who rediscovered and read and commented upon him were the Ottoman Turks. The Ottomans, as you know, concentrated much of their intellectual interest upon history and political thought, and they were fascinated with Ibn Khaldun. In the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, the study of Ibn Khaldun constituted an important segment of Turkish intellectual history. It was only in the 19th century that Europe joined the Turks in reading Ibn Khaldun.”

It is the fate of many substantive thinkers to be unappreciated in their own time. We know that no prophet is accepted in his own country, just as we know that the past is a foreign country. We could add to that that the future is a foreign country to the past. So therein lies the rub: later generations are arguably less well equipped to appreciate a work neglected in its own time, being further removed from the lived experience that was the inspiration of the work. Also we project our own concerns into a past innocent of the world we take for granted.
To a certain extent, this is unavoidable. Most of the terminology that we have today for discussing historiography and philosophy of history did not yet exist for ibn Khaldūn, so in order to see the relevance of his work we often have to translate his ideas into a modern idiom, and there are certain hazards in doing so. That’s why Hayden White wrote that Ibn Khaldun can’t be called an historian or a sociologist with any terminological accuracy. But what about conceptual accuracy? Say we agree that Ibn Khaldun is not an historian in the modern sense of the term. How then is he to be mapped onto the conceptual space of history?
I would argue that the hazards increase as we approach foundational concepts, and it is the nature of a work like The Maqqadimmah to engage with foundational concepts. The idea of history is itself a foundational concept, and the idea of knowledge is a foundational concept, and science, and so on. When we read Chapter VI of The Maqqadimmah we find a catalogue of knowledge (or sciences) that sets alchemy next to logic, and Sufism next to dream interpretation, which, to the modern mind, seems like a category error. In this sense, Ibn Khaldun reads more like St. Thomas Aquinas than a contemporary.
If we want to extract from The Maqqadimmah the perennial lessons it has to teach, we have to take it out of the context in which it was formulated. Its context is a world now lost to us, which can only be recovered with great difficulty. Part of this difficulty, for example, is that there is a lot in The Muquaddimah about magic, divination, and sorcery. Take the following, for instance:

“In the Ghayah, Maslamah . . . mentioned that when a human being is placed in a barrel of sesame oil and kept in it for forty days, is fed with figs and nuts until his flesh is gone and only the arteries and the sutures of the skull remain, and is then taken out of the oil and exposed to the drying action of the air, he will answer all special and general questions regarding the future that may be asked. This is detestable sorcery. However, it shows what remarkable things exist in the world of man.” (Sixth Prefatory Discussion to Chapter II)

It’s worth observing that this is a falsifiable methodology, but it is unlikely to have been tried a number of times sufficient to get statistically significant confirmatory or disconfirmatory evidence. I do wonder how many readers of Maslamah did actually attempt this. On the one hand, Ibn Khaldun seems to credit this sorcery as possibly efficacious. On the other hand, his scientific detachment is evident from his final remark: he notes that this is detestable, but it remains interesting as testimony to the remarkable things that we find in the world of man. And we do find remarkable things in the world. Ibn Khaldun is absolutely right about that. I suspect that the scientifically detached Ibn Khaldun would have been ready to discuss the possibility of confirmatory or disconfirmatory evidence for sorcery. It is this scientifically detached Ibn Khaldun that we must extract from the intellectual and cultural context in which sorcery is commonplace.
While we do an author a certain degree of violence by thus extracting his ideas from their human, all-too-human context, it is not at all unusual. Reading Saint Augustine is not all that different: there is much that I have extracted from Saint Augustine that I find to be of value, despite his many digressions to profess his faith. Augustine, too, like Ibn Khaldun, is interested in divination and demonology, and since we don’t credit this today we tend to gloss over these sections, although they were a large part of Augustine’s world, as they were also a large art of Ibn Khaldun’s world. Do we sacrifice this world in order to derive the perennial lessons, or do we keep Ibn Khaldun (and Saint Augustine) whole and intact, treating them as mere historical figures whose work no longer bears upon our world?
I touched on this previously in my episode on J. G. A. Pocock and contextualism, since the context of Ibn Khaldun’s work is almost unrecoverable to us, and I said that we have to strip away this context to get at what is perennially true in his work. What do we have if we don’t strip away the unfamiliar context? Robert Irwin in his book Ibn Khaldun: An Intellectual Biography had this to say:

“It is precisely Ibn Khaldun’s irrelevance to the modern world that makes him so interesting and important. When I read the Muqaddima, I have the sense that I am encountering a visitor from another planet—and that is exciting. There have been other ways of looking at the world than the one we mostly take for granted today.”

Some years ago a correspondent said something not unlike this to me. The society that Ibn Khaldun described no longer exists. As such, we could say that his work belongs to historical sociology, but that isn’t an adequate way to understand the book. Understanding the book in the fullness of its historical, social, and cultural context alienate the work from us and our concerns, and this meaning can only be recovered by means of the patient contextual methods pursued by Pocock and others of the contextualist school.
Despite the strangeness, there are moments within The Maqqadimmah when Ibn Khaldun seems to affirm the categories of our thought and his argument makes perfect sense. For example:

“People who grow up in villages and uncivilized (thinly populated) cities and who have an innate desire for scientific activity, cannot find scientific instruction in those places. For scientific instruction is something technical, and there are no crafts among the inhabitants of the desert, as we have stated before. These people, therefore, must travel and seek scientific instruction in cities where (civilization) is highly developed, as is the case with all crafts.” (VI, 8)

This quote highlights a theme that runs throughout Ibn Khaldun, and that is the contrast between sedentary life in cities and the nomadic life of the Bedouin of the desert. As we can see in from the previous quote, Ibn Khaldun gives cities their full measure, acknowledging that craft specialization is only to be found in cities, but he also sees the problems with urban life, which are distinct from those of village and desert. He makes some interesting observations on urban juvenile delinquency:

“The city, then, teems with low people of blameworthy character. They encounter competition from many members of the younger generation of the dynasty, whose education has been neglected and whom the dynasty has neglected to accept. They, therefore, adopt the qualities of their environment and company, even though they may be people of noble descent and ancestry. Men are human beings and as such resemble one another. They differ in merit and are distinguished by their character, by their acquisition of virtues and avoidance of vices. The person who is strongly colored by any kind of vice and whose good character is corrupted, is not helped by his good descent and fine origin. Thus, one finds that many descendants of great families, men of a highly esteemed origin, members of the dynasty, get into deep water and adopt low occupations in order to make a living, because their character is corrupt and they are colored by wrongdoing and insincerity. If this (situation) spreads in a town or nation, God permits it to be ruined and destroyed. This is the meaning of the word of God: ‘When we want to destroy a village, we order those of its inhabitants who live in luxury to act wickedly therein. Thus, the word becomes true for it, and we do destroy it’.”(IV, 18)

For Ibn Khladun, then, civilization and its cities are a mixed blessing, and while the Bedouin of the desert do not possess craft specialization, they are also free of the vices and luxury of urban life. Ibn Khaldun also discusses this contrast as it touches upon law:

“When laws are (enforced) by means of punishment, they completely destroy fortitude, because the use of punishment against someone who cannot defend himself generates in that person a feeling of humiliation that, no doubt, must break his fortitude. When laws are (intended to serve the purposes of) education and instruction and are applied from childhood on, they have to some degree the same effect, because people then grow up in fear and docility and consequently do not rely on their own fortitude. For this (reason), greater fortitude is found among the savage Arab Bedouins than among people who are subject to laws. Furthermore, those who rely on laws and are dominated by them from the very beginning of their education and instruction in the crafts, sciences, and religious matters, are thereby deprived of much of their own fortitude. They can scarcely defend themselves at all against hostile acts. This is the case with students, whose occupation it is to study and to learn from teachers and religious leaders, and who constantly apply themselves to instruction and education in very dignified gatherings. This situation and the fact that it destroys the power of resistance and fortitude must be understood.” (II, 6)

One can see in passages like this why many have identified Ibn Khaldun as a sociologist, or a theoretician of culture. In Muhsin Mahdi’s book-length study, Ibn Khaldun’s Philosophy of History: A Study in the Philosophic Foundation of a Science of Culture, Mahdi characterizes Ibn Khaldun’s effort as being toward a “science of culture.” He finishes off his book by taking a swipe at Hegelian philosophies of history:

“Ibn Khaldun did not turn to history to find his standards and goal, or to see how the Idea progressively realizes itself and learn its future course so that he could join the predetermined course of history. For him, future action cannot he determined by any science. It continues to be the product of an art which requires the knowledge of the end of man and society, and the knowledge of the actual circumstances supplied by history, but which must he perfected through experience. Having equipped himself with such knowledge, it remains the responsibility of the wise man to decide what is best under particular circumstances. He is not relieved of the task of making right choices. History, even when ascertained and explained in the light of the new science of culture, may help the wise man to make a better choice, but it does not and cannot choose for him.”

I suspect many people would agree with this, whether or not they have read Ibn Khaldun, or whether or not they have any interest in philosophy of history. Although Ibn Khaldun did not seek his standards and goals in history, he did understand the importance of understanding history on its own merits. Hence the need for an introduction to history.
It is worth reflecting on the idea that an introduction to history may be more difficult than history itself. Insofar as an introduction to history is a guide to the understanding of history, we can see why this is the case, though it seems counterintuitive that an introduction should be more difficult than that to which it introduces us. Anyone can memorize names, dates, and places, and anyone can follow a narrative, but understanding what is happening and why is much more difficult. The Maqqadimmah attempts to assist us with this difficulty.
There is a lot in The Maqqadimmah, but when I think about Ibn Khaldun, I keep coming back to the image of the man in the vat of sesame oil. I can imagine, in my mind’s eye, Ibn Khaldun being told about this, and hearing about it in his travels, he is invited to actually witness this sorcery or something similar. I can see the whole thing in flickering lamplight, being led to some hole in the wall in a dingy part of a city, passing the kind of disreputable characters that Ibn Khaldun wrote about inhabiting cities, and then the door opening onto to bizarre scene of a partially dissolved man being decanted from a barrel of oil. I imagine it like a scene from a Sinbad movie from the 70s.
What would Ibn Khaldun have to say about this? What would he do? How would he respond? For this, I draw on an historical analogy, which might seem a bit strained, but hear me out. When as Westerners we read accounts of the witch craze we start to get a feel for the relative scope of the rationality of the individuals involved. If you read enough, you go beyond the words and you get a sense of the man involved. The man whose words you read is a man of his time, since we all are, but there were different temperaments then as there are today, and some temperaments are skeptical, some credulous, some rational, some practical. And some of these temperaments are more consistent with what we would recognize today as rationality.
Some men confronted with witches and spectral evidence were all in. The kind of man who would be all in for a moral panic in the 16th or 17th century is the same kind of man who would be all in for a moral panic in the 21st century. Some men were skeptical, but willing to listen. We know their type today. Some were pragmatic, uninterested in claims about demons and spirits, only seeing the situation for what it is. These too a familiar characters for us. And, of course, there are men with an intuitive sense of scientific detachment, sometimes skeptical, sometimes pragmatic, always interested, even if horrified. I take ibn Khaldun to be a man like this.
So, to return to the man in the vat of sesame oil, I think Ibn Khaldun confronted with this scene would have been angry about the practice of sorcery, indignant about the treatment of the subject of the experiment, and dismissive of the claims of the sorcerer, whom we can imagine waving his hands and protesting how he has an explanation for everything. Change a few details and this could be any of us today. I’ve seen some strange things in my time—nothing as strange as what Ibn Khaldun describes—but strange enough. Here, I think, we find our connection to Ibn Khaldun and The Maqqadimmah. Circumstances change, but men are what they are in every age. This is the introduction to history that we need, the human side of history, but it’s not the introduction to history we usually get. This is part of what makes The Maqqadimmah both difficult and interesting. It is unfamiliar, but it is a necessary unfamiliarity.

Video Presentation

https://youtu.be/Z54QH1LVEdg
https://www.instagram.com/p/C7flz_-tjM5/
https://odysee.com/@Geopolicraticus:7/ibn-khald%C5%ABn-and-the-introduction-to:6

Podcast Edition

https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/tF8P49ncXJb
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/a31b8276-53cd-4723-b6ad-a39c8faa4572/episodes/46636f67-3142-49f4-98f3-82c7daaa4c63/today-in-philosophy-of-history-ibn-khald%C5%ABn-and-the-introduction-to-history
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-today-in-philosophy-of-his-146507578/episode/ibn-khaldn-and-the-introduction-to-180274520/
​
​

Conscious Sense
This is my theory “Conscious Sense”. It aims to describe the how not the why. I used AI to help write the paper but the theory is my own, let me know what you guys think-
Conscious Sense (Updated)
Consciousness as Sensory Integration: The “Conscious Sense” Theory
Abstract
This paper introduces the “Conscious Sense” theory, which proposes that consciousness arises as an integrative experiential process interfacing embodied sensory inputs with subjective awareness. Rather than treating consciousness as a metaphysical essence, it aims to elucidate mechanistic pathways allowing the binding and interpretation of multimodal signals into a unified experiential reality. Grounding the inquiry in empirically accessible neurobiological processes and quantum mechanics, the theory seeks to provide an interdisciplinary framework reconciling objective third-person observations with first-person subjective phenomenology. Potential implications spanning neuroscience, psychology, physics, philosophy of mind, and contemplative traditions are explored.
Introduction
Despite centuries of inquiry, the nature of consciousness remains one of the most profound mysteries confronting science. While significant strides have been made uncovering neural correlates, cognitive models, and even tentative physical accounts, major explanatory gaps persist in reconciling the richness of subjective inner experience with outer observable signals and informational dynamics. The “Conscious Sense” theory proposes a novel perspective—that consciousness itself may be more akin to an emergent sensory modality, serving to integrate multimodal data streams into a coherent phenomenal reality. Built upon findings in neurobiology, perception, information theory, and quantum mechanics, this framework aims to bridge objective and subjective aspects of consciousness in a unified account.
Theoretical Foundations
At its core, the “Conscious Sense” theory postulates the existence of an integrative informational process that binds diverse sensory inputs (exteroceptive, interoceptive, cognitive) into an experientially unified model of reality. This holistic “sense” of conscious perception would emerge from the dynamic interplay of:

1. Multimodal Signal Reception and Transduction: Sensory inputs are received and transduced through dedicated biological interfaces (e.g., visual, auditory, somatosensory systems). 2. Information Transfer and Integration: These inputs are integrated into higher-order representational models within the brain. 3. Iterative Processing and Selective Routing: Integrated signals undergo iterative processing and selective routing to instantiate coherent experiential qualia. 4. Re-entrancy and Reciprocal Causal Paths: Integrated experiences modulate and inform further signal processing, creating a feedback loop that refines conscious perception. 

In essence, just as our sensory modalities like vision and audition parse specific bandwidths of signals into coherent perceptual representations, the “Conscious Sense” integrates across all sensory streams to generate a meta-representation—the seamless experience of reality itself.
Bridging Objective and Subjective Realities
A key strength of the “Conscious Sense” framework is its interdisciplinary potential to reconcile third-person observable physiology with first-person subjective phenomenology. From a materialist perspective, consciousness could be the experiential artifact or informational shadow cast by increasingly complex signaling integration in the brain and nervous system. However, the theory is also substantively compatible with idealist or panpsychist views—consciousness as the fundamental coherent binding process giving rise to the appearance of objective signals in an informational reality.
Importantly, the theory remains agnostic on deeper metaphysical questions regarding the ultimate source or nature of consciousness. Its focus is elucidating mechanistic pathways accessible to empirical investigation, while leaving ample conceptual room to embed those mechanisms into diverse philosophical frameworks exploring the “why” rather than just the “how” of experiential subjectivity.
Empirical and Theoretical Integration: Insights from the Dual-Slit Experiment
The dual-slit experiment demonstrates that particles exhibit different behaviors when observed versus unobserved, suggesting that the act of observation fundamentally changes the nature of reality at the quantum level. This phenomenon can be seen as an analogy for how consciousness operates as an “observer” that integrates and solidifies sensory inputs into a coherent experience.
Quantum Parallels

1. Observer Effect Parallel: Just as observation in the dual-slit experiment determines particle behavior, the integrative process of consciousness might determine the unified nature of our experiential reality. 2. Role of Measurement and Integration: The presence of a sensor or observer changes the outcome in the dual-slit experiment, aligning with the theory’s emphasis on information transfer and integration. Consciousness could be seen as a higher-order observer that binds and interprets multimodal signals, transforming potential informational states into definite experiential realities. 

Observables and Implications
By proposing consciousness as an integrative perceptual interfacing process, the “Conscious Sense” theory generates a clear agenda for empirical investigation across multiple domains:
Neuroscience

• Mapping Informational Transfer Pathways: Investigating neural circuits involved in sensory integration. • Integration Zones: Identifying specific brain regions that play critical roles in the integrative process. • Perturbational Studies: Examining how disruptions in sensory binding affect conscious experience. 

Psychology and Cognitive Science

• Computational Models: Developing models to simulate integrative architectures and predict conscious experiences. • Experiential Self-Reports: Validating self-reports of conscious experiences through empirical studies. 

Physics

• Quantum Models: Exploring potential links between quantum mechanics and information processing in the brain. • Thermodynamics: Investigating thermodynamic requirements for integrated states and physical constraints on experiences. 

Philosophy

• Phenomenal Experience Frameworks: Situating phenomenal experience as meta-representations built from naturalistic information flows. • Hard Problem of Consciousness: Providing new perspectives on the hard problem through the lens of integrative information processes. 

Contemplative Traditions

• Introspective Insights: Mapping insights from practices on perception, qualia, and groundless awareness to integrative neurocognitive processes. 

Experimental Proposals

1. Neuroimaging Studies: Compare brain activity during conscious versus unconscious processing of sensory stimuli. 2. Focused Attention Experiments: Investigate how attention affects sensory integration and neural processing. 3. Quantum Neuroscience Collaborations: Encourage interdisciplinary research to explore quantum effects in neural processes underlying consciousness. 

Conclusion
The “Conscious Sense” theory outlines an integrative framework proposing that consciousness arises from informational processes binding and representing the totality of multimodal sensory inputs into a unified experiential reality model. By identifying shared empirical observables spanning disciplines, it provides a conceptually isomorphic yet metaphysically pluralistic lens to iteratively explore the mechanisms instantiating the richness of human consciousness. While highly preliminary, the synthesis hopefully seeds fertile new directions advancing our understanding of the subjective-objective experience of being.

Hey, everyone.
Sorry to break up the string of amazing controllers, but I had a quick question.
I watched a MLIG video back in the day about the PS3 that mentioned playing PS1/PS2 titles with analog video introduced some input lag.
Does anyone know if this is the case with native PS3 titles as well? What about with the Xbox 360?
I have a feeling the 360 is okay - many of the early consoles didn't have HDMI at all - but I'm still wondering about the PS3.
Bonus question: does the SCPH-1160 work with the PS3?
Thanks.

16th: Sophie Clarke 1.0 (South Pacific - Winner)

i just casually remembered that sophie was randomly OP on Winners At War
writeup long again lol
u/DryBonesKing:
Theothanatology, sometimes also referred to as “The Death of God” movement, is the philosophical approach to the rise of secularism that, instead of focusing on whether or not God exists, chooses to question whether or not God has ceased to exist. That at one point a God perhaps was an all-powerful being governing the world as we know it until one day they vanished. It’s a fun little rabbit hole to explore if you find religion/philosophy fun to explore, but I’m sure a lot of you would rather me keep this write-up Survivor-centric. However, I do find some merit in at least introducing the concept since Survivor has a very proud history of discussing religion, to the point of it almost coming across like Judeo-Christian propaganda in the earlier seasons. We can all thank Mark Burnett for that!
As someone who comes from a very traditional Catholic background who now no longer identifies as religious, I have loved seeing the way religion has been portrayed throughout Survivor and the way people have used it - and God - as a tool to advance through the game. From humble beginnings with Dirk’s private prayer times in Borneo to a more bombastic present with Bhanu outright crying to God about feeling forsaken in 46. To religion bonding Rodger and Elizabeth together in the Outback to Shan using her skillset as a pastor to foster bonds and manipulate in 41. Despite all the different ways it can be presented, however, Survivor at its core can still come across like the religious propaganda Burnett envisioned it to be. Even the more negative moments with Christianity tend to be filtered or presented in a way to make someone look bad rather than their faith.
However, what if there was one season that actually explored religion the way it actually is used in society? A season that ripped away all of the layers and masks and presented it the way people in society actually used it? A season that did such a great job with it, it still gives certain people feelings of “ick” because of how close to home and real it presents certain people and religious ideas? A season that is the perfect response to all twenty-two seasons that came prior to it, that serves as the pinnacle for portrayals of religion on reality television.
And… well… what if, for shits and giggles, and keeping in mind the importance of religion and God in mind throughout Survivor’s history… we just so happen to take this ever so important “mask off” season on religion… and let one of the most godless heathens to ever play the game win the season? Let her win the game while serving as the “moral compass” as her more godly competitors repeatedly fall to the sin they so often preach against? And, well… what if in addition to all this religious metaphor bullshit she’s able to accomplish, she also serve as one of the funniest, most unique, most badass, most compelling characters in Survivor’s entire history?
Welcome back to Endgame, Sophie G Clarke. Survivor’s greatest winner. Survivor’s most underappreciated character. If you all thought I shilled for South Pacific before, you haven’t seen anything yet
Part 1:
Now before I get into any deeper significance I want to talk about, let’s discuss why someone should initially just care about Sophie outside of all that! Probably the thing that jumps about Sophie that makes her feel truly distinct to other Survivor players is this aura of superiority that she gives off. When I say that, I don’t mean that she comes across as holier-than-thou or smug or anything, but rather that it is a cold, hard-to-swallow truth that she is better than you and that she is already aware of that fact. Sophie’s way of talking about herself and others, as well as the way she views the game, helps give this effect and it’s just makes all of her social interactions just feel great. The closest comparison I think I am able to give is to compare it to Jonathan Young’s presence in challenges throughout Survivor 42; that is the aura that Sophie when she deigns to speak with her competition.
One of the better demonstrations of this effect is seen right in her introduction. She introduces herself as a Russian student and Coach immediately tries to talk with her in Russian. And after a very brief conversation, it cuts to Sophie undercutting him by saying that Coach was trying to sound overly formal and that he was trying to show off. The confessional then moves on-to a “compliment” where she acknowledges the actual Survival-skill value that he brings to the tribe, but she diminishes his contributions by dumbing down his two-seasons’ worth of experience as him knowing “some things”.
This is the same energy she gives off to everyone. Brandon and Mikayla have issues related to his religious insecurities? Sophie simplifies it to Brandon having issues with strong women, and then she can’t just give a passive compliment to someone else, as she then has to note herself as a strong woman as well. Ozzy makes an attempt to try and trick the Upolu into thinking he’s pissed at his tribe? Sophie obviously didn’t buy it, and when actually addressed on the subject matter, she thinks it was over the top, but actively pathetic. Mind you, she is saying this to the entire Savaii Tribe at tribal council, questioning their collective intelligence for allowing Ozzy to try this. Albert’s trying to present himself to her as the strategic opposition to Coach in Upolu? Sophie asserts herself as the strategic force of Upolu while reducing Albert’s ideas about flipping at Final Ten to his “crazy plan”. She has an aptitude for taking someone’s energy and using it to simultaneously talk herself up and put the other person down in their place.
Hell, she’s able to give this energy to Probst! When Jeff notes that information about Brandon being shared at the Final Seven tribal council was “eye-opening”, Sophie shakes her head and says no. When he directly addresses her to question her answer, she just repeats her answer. With no explanation for her take. With possibly one of the most bored expressions ever on her face while it would cut to Cochran looking absolutely dismayed that she hasn’t been swayed at all by the tribal.
Now, “aura of superiority” probably sounds like either a boring or actively unfun character trait, but Sophie manages to not only make it work, but feel incredibly engaging, primarily as a result of the cast that surrounds her. Because the people she’s passively putting down are people like Brandon Hantz, and Jim Rice, and Cochran, and Coach, and Albert. And while I definitely have a large decent chunk of these people ranked highly, I have them ranked highly because they are either horrible people, deserve to get clowned on, or both. And a large part of why I do have a lot of these people ranked high (and higher than most of you all) is because of the joy and schadenfreude of watching someone like Sophie put them in their places repeatedly to their sheer misery.
And it is to their misery, as a majority of these people end up complaining about her. Like Whitney doubting Sophie’s intelligence, or Jim just seeing her as a cultist, or Ozzy calling her out as a brat. These people get actively so pressed by her, which makes it all the more rewarding when she does end proving herself their better. Like possibly one of the most possibly satisfying moments in Survivor history is watching the final four tribal council and seeing the jury walk in, and seeing everyone’s faces (but most importantly Jim’s, as things are great when bad things happen to Jim) just completely drop as they see Sophie sitting there with the immunity necklace instead of Ozzy.
Because that’s ultimately the feeling she’s able to give across in all of her screentime; that it’s not just that she thinks better than all of her competition around her, but that she is better than them. It is unquestionable. And these players hate that about her. And we as an audience love that about her. It just really helps sell this image of her as a true badass. And what also helps sell this point further is…
Part 2:
Sophie’s just fucking funny. She’s underrated for her humor, in my opinion, as she really deserves to be recognized in the same echelon that characters like Sandra and Courtney Yates are. Because just like them, Sophie is just effortlessly funny, both intentionally and unintentionally.
What she’s most known for her is most her insults, as Sophie definitely is able to dish out on her competition that she so very clearly looks down upon. Looking at Cochran, back at the point where the two of them are cordial with one another and when Upolu is actively trying to “convert” him to join their alliance, she addresses him as a “dodgeball target” … which I’ll be frank, if that comment alone doesn’t warrant Sophie Top 150 minimum, we do not watch Survivor for the same reasons. Further digging into Cochran later, Sophie later confessionalizes that she understands why Savaii would have “bullied” Cochran and then tells him to screw off for feeling that his “bad move” entitled him to Upolu’s good graces.
Another fantastic barb from her is her outright calling Coach “a young girl” in relation to Survivor FTC stereotypes. It’s said so matter-of-factly that it forces him to be compared to someone like Natalie Tenerelli as opposed to the Boston Rob comparison he so obviously fancied and was emulating. It comes so out of left field that, when you go back and rewatch the scene, Coach is visibly taken aback by it and is just speechless. Coach. A guy who is willing to argue with Probst and anyone to “logic” away any perceived hypocrisies. He’s unable to talk back to Sophie emasculating him. Again, another immaculate comment and joke.
Her insults just have a very distinct feel to them that give off an impression that no one else but Sophie would be able to use snarky comments and pull them off. Like, when she starts trying to analyze Brandon’s thoughts on Mikayla and talks about how he thinks of her as “the whore of Babylon”. Like I talked religious metaphor about this comparison in my Mikayla write-up, I’m obviously going to talk more religious metaphor later in this write-up, but like… just how the fuck would someone even think to come to describe Brandon’s thoughts like this as a way to mock him? Like I do really feel like if someone else made that joke, even someone I like and might even think is funnier than her like Tyson or Courtney, I would also think there was some backhanded comment about Mikayla as well in it. This is really only a joke I think someone like Sophie could manage without it coming across as in poor taste, and I think that speaks volumes to her wit, delivery, and humor in general.
Speaking of “delivery”, Sophie is a master of deadpan. Survivor has never cast someone who can no sell moments better than her. Her most iconic moment with this is obviously her watching the Jack and Jill Movie in Episode Seven. The shots of Sophie’s blank, dead stare set in-between or alongside images of the rest of Upolu fake-laughing and enjoying the movie (and cuts of Rick actually enjoying the movie, because Rick Nelson is an honest man at all times and never fakes anything) is just peak humor. In addition, there is also the aforementioned “No” response Sophie gave to Probst at tribal council that I previously talked about. Alongside it being a great character moment, it’s also just really fucking funny.
But one of the funnier instances of this trait of Sophie comes in her observations to any extensive amount of religious bullshittery. Whether it’s Brandon going on about God, or Coach praying to God to help them find the idol, or Coach talking about praying to God for guidance in the vote, if Sophie is there in the scene at all, there will always be a transition to Sophie either rolling her eyes, shaking her head, or smirking. I do have important stuff I want to comment about this for narrative purposes later in the write-up since it is actually a very important point for me, but I wanted to first bring it up on this point because it is a remarkable feat for Sophie to be able to take dark, twisted moments and inject humor at all! For example, her laughing while noting that Jesus might be able to forgive Brandon but Edna sure as hell won’t is just amazing line delivery. And I think it is a credit to Sophie that she can take these moments and bring general lightness to them.
Another great moment of Sophie’s unrelated to all of the above is the loved one visit and she meets her father. Amidst all the crying and the hugs, she immediately places her order: “I want a reese’s peanut butter cup at the airport. And fresh baked banana bread.” And then after her Dad just laughs in response, she continues: “Oh, and a hamburger.” One, that’s just charming as hell. Two, “fresh baked banana bread” is such a specific craving to want that it just adds extra character to this scene. Three, her adding on a hamburger as if she forgot to order something at a drive-thru is just literal perfect icing-on-the-cake, especially since it’s the actual “meal” of this order! Literally such an amazing, hilarious scene
And even then, there’s still just so much more. The Russian scene with Coach I talked about in the first section is charming, especially as Sophie obviously has control of the conversation and is just debating if she wants to let Coach have his moment or embarrass him by going into a deeper conversation. The scene in episode one where she mocks Coach’s storytelling to his face by saying he could probably tell stories about the stars better than an astrologist is great and charming and even gets a laugh out of Coach himself! Her shit-talking with Rick about Christine potentially coming back in the game, and trying to match his energy as if she had never considered Christine would be a threat prior to him saying so is hilarious. Her beatdown on Ozzy’s shitty acting is hilarious. Her referring to Ozzy’s “Redemption Island” gameplay as “Ozzy’s pleasure dome” is genuinely one of the best sound-bites I’ve ever heard. The “taking turns flushing the toilet bowl” analogy about the Albert fight in the Final Five is one of the best confessionals of all time. And one of the most infamous moments with Sophie, where she commands Ozzy to “Pick up my stack” in the middle of the challenge.
I really could go on. The point being is that Sophie has a lot more hilarious moments than people tend to realize. She’s definitely regarded as being witty and good with her insults, but I think that there are a lot more examples out there that people tend to not realize exist. There are just so many good moments with her. Which, mind you, is an absolute necessity considered how dark sometimes the season can get. Having one of the central characters involved in a lot of the darker moments of the season being able to bring the tone down is an absolute necessity as she’s also able to control the presentation of these moments. Which speaking of…
Part 3:
Now, I want to say before I get into this point that I’m not normally one of those people who tends to go “you watched it wrong” when it comes to the show. Like, I do say it ironically sometimes, but the only times I truly mean it are in cases where someone intentionally misreads a characterization that there is plain evidence that contradicts the take (i.e. the “Colton quit One World” revisionism Jeff tried to start) or are takes that are rooted in some type of prejudice (i.e. some people’s negative takes on Shirin in Worlds Apart. Not saying it’s impossible to hate Shirin, but I’m sure you all know exactly the kind of take on Shirin I’m talking about when I bring up this example).
With that in mind, I do think there is an optimal way to watch South Pacific that best strengthens the show and enhances its narrative. The season is best consumed if you watch the whole see through Sophie’s perspective. And when I say that, I don’t mean “Watch South Pacific but only the Sophie confessionals”, or “only watch the Sophie scenes”. Instead, I mean literally watch the entire season as if all of the events and circumstances are being told from the first-hand view (or third-hand, in case of the scenes she’s not in) of Sophie G Clarke.
This perspective isn’t born out of a specific fandom for Sophie, admittedly, as I think there is genuine narrative benefit to viewing it in this manner. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to view the season this way, since she is the winner of the season, and the bare minimum requirement of a good season of Survivor should be to retell their winner’s path to victory. South Pacific already does their little edgic tricks to guide that interpretation, such as the screen cutting to Sophie when Jeff gets to the point of his pre-season monologue where he goes “In the end, one will survive to claim the million dollar prize”. It doesn’t feel like a stretch at all to come to the conclusion that - at least on a rewatch - the season should be looked at through the eyes of Sophie. Again, this should be possible with almost every season of the show.
As an aside, a lot of the other cast’s characterization also makes sense if you view the season through Sophie’s eyes. Characters like Brandon get a very consistent negative/mixed edit based on how Sophie currently sees them at the moment. Someone like Cochran? He initially gets a mixed-tone edit consistent with Sophie giving him the benefit of the doubt per her own words that he might have been mistreated, but his edit also leans negative and only gets more N-toned as Sophie herself confirms that Cochran is just an uncomfortable person to be around. Someone like Edna? Presented as annoying at first until the point that Sophie begins to feel sympathetic towards her circumstances and feeling bad about how Brandon treats her. Albert? Presented neutral to downright pleasant as the two respect each other as equals, until Albert starts to disappoint her by coming across as a crazy overplayer only to get more-and-more negative as he reveals how smarmy he really is. Coincidentally, the person in the cast who is arguably the most consistently positively-toned character is Dawn, who is not only one of the nicest jurors to Sophie but also gives one of the most heartwarming voting confessionals for her at FTC.
There are only two outliers when it comes to this pattern – the returning players, Coach and Ozzy. I intend on discussing them both and Sophie’s relationship with both of them in greater detail, though, so we’ll put a pin on that. Regardless, when you go back and rewatch South Pacific, it is fun to actually notice how much overlap there is between the tone and relevance of the other players and Sophie’s general view of them.
Well beyond just a fun little fact about characters and tone, is there anything specific that watching the season through Sophie’s eyes exclusively does to the season’s benefit? Like is there an actual narrative reason I encourage you all to do so? ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY! Because I think it actually does a huge benefit to not only this season, but to the Survivor franchise as a whole and all that seasons that came before and after it!
… Let’s circle back to that opening paragraph. Let’s talk God.
Part 4:
As mentioned earlier, Survivor really can come across like religious propaganda, at the very least in the beginning of its inception. And often times, it can accomplish that even in spite of the religious beliefs of the contestants involved. Reminder that the “Follow the Star” theory that predicted the Jewish man Ethan as the winner of Africa is rooted in extensive Christian theology (including a lot of New Testament theology with no real overlap with Judaism). And Survivor has proven pretty adept at being able to use religion to easily spin a storyline in a way that paints the person as positive. Keep in mind in the premiere of Survivor China, Leslie Nease was so uncomfortable in the “presence” of another culture’s religion that she had to leave the temple and have a confessional where she spoke about only believing in God and Jesus Christ… and the show painted it as a positive scene! Like, I’m not trying to say anything about Leslie’s character, but to portray a scene like this as something inherently positive I think is a good simple scene to showcase the show’s general agenda on the subject matter.
Survivor definitely is careful with how it depicts religion (Christianity specifically) and are able to spring it into narratives where it might not even be relevant or necessary. And this was something they very EASILY could have done with South Pacific. The vast majority of this cast was deeply religious and there were definitely ways the show could have hidden a lot of its darker moments. They didn’t need to air that prayer circle where Upolu would later fake-find the idol. Mikayla, in the grand scheme of things, would go home because Coach felt he couldn’t work with her and Brandon didn’t even had a bad thing to say about her in that episode; all of Brandon’s issues related to his “faith” could have been cut. And this most surely would have happened if Coach had won the season! And even I would have decried this season as one of the worst of all time if it happened…
But it didn’t. Sophie Clarke won. And she had a different view of everything…
So based off the last time I looked this up, Sophie identifies as agnostic. Her specific religious beliefs don’t necessarily come up on the show. However, wherever her beliefs fall on the spectrum of belief does not matter; what matters are her words and actions and on the show.
“There’s a lot of tension between Brandon and Mikayla. In his biblical terms, he’d probably call her like, “The Whore of Babylon”. I think Brandon right now, is just really born between following whatever crazy religious beliefs he has.”
“You know, this whole prayer thing, for me, it doesn’t weigh as heavily on my mind because I’m not the one speaking the prayer. I find Coach to be more questionable when he actually is the one saying, you know, ‘Dear God, help us find the idol’, when he knows he has the idol in his pocket. I… It gives me a little bit of an icky feeling.”
“Brandon, I think, often thinks his apology absolves all sins, and maybe that’s true in church, but on Survivor, uh, people are not as forgiving as, you know, Jesus Christ is.”
Sophie outright calling out the religious bullshit around her is genuinely unheard of in this way. The two closest comparisons that come to mind are from Amazon, when Christy calls out Joanna in confessional during the Amazon and when Rob claims that God doesn’t have an invested interest in Survivor. But these examples don’t really compare since they directly calling Joanna’s characterization. Christy specifically is calling out Joanna for not behaving as “christ-like” as she tries to present herself and Rob is mocking Joanna saying that God favors Jaburu. On South Pacific, though, it is a whole different tale; the castaways on this season (not just one person) use religion as a tool to build culture. To be the foundation of alliances. To cement people’s trust with one another. As a tool to “guide the vote”.
And Sophie is drawing attention to it. And calling it out for being creepy. And icky. And acknowledging how it is being used as a tool.
And since the season is being told through Sophie’s eyes, we don’t just get to her say these thins and have her come across as just a miserable heathen looking down on the others. Instead, we get to see Coach come across as a hypocrite by discussing the importance of staging a “tribal find” of the Hidden Immunity Idol before he leads his prayer circle. We get to see scenes of Brandon just spying on Mikayla in the corner to hammer in a 100% what his issues with her were. We get to see an elaborate scene of Coach praying to guidance on if he should vote Brandon. And all the while, we get to see Sophie call all this shit out, either verbally or just through cuts to her rolling her eyes or shaking her head.
Sophie’s story functions borderline as an exposé on God. God’s always been talked about as this powerful, righteous force that’s always working to help out the “good” players on Survivor, whether it be to aid them in determination, fortitude, challenges, and even help swing votes. But here, we get to see God being, to quote Eliza Orlins, “a deceptive lying bitch”
Caught in 4K. Thanks Sophie.
Part 5:
So, Sophie calls out the religious bullshit; why should it matter? After all, doesn’t that mean she’s just an enabler? Well, yes… but actually no. As I have mentioned multiple times in all my South Pacific write-ups, Upolu’s tribe manifests a collective group identity as a cult, and Sophie/Albert/Coach take up the mantle of cult-leaders. All three of them are perpetuating this group identity to their benefit, and it does prove profitable as all three make the Final Three, but when you compare the three, Sophie actually stands out exponentially from the others. Namely, in the sense that she is the only one who is honest about it all.
Both Coach and Albert, whether intentionally or unintentionally, give sweet nothings to the rest of the cast and lure them into a false sense of security. Coach, obviously, is more heavy-handed with religious metaphor and using it as a tool to get certain results from his cult. He’s the one who instigates the majority of the weaponization of Christianity. Albert is just as guilty as him, as he also uses it as a tool to strengthen his individual bonds with people like Brandon. More importantly for him, though, he presents himself as a knowledgeable “lifesaver” to those outside/on-the-edge of the cult as someone they can depend on when their life in the game is in trouble. But both characters and their actions are completely rooted in manipulation and gaslighting. And sure, Coach may believe some of his religious takes, and Albert may seriously have considered flipping every time like the compulsive dum-dum he is, but in the end, it’s too little too late. They burned too many bridges to have “the benefit of the doubt” be something they could claim.
In contrast, Sophie is always up-front about her stances. She’s honest and to-the-point, no matter how cold or distant she might come across. She’s not going to pretend to entertain the idea that Cochran could stay like Albert or Coach will, but rather she’ll stick to her guns, say she hates his guts and doesn’t find any information he’s shared at tribal noteworthy, and then vote his ass out. Coach is gonna talk about “praying if he should or shouldn’t vote Brandon” and Albert is going to talk about “His word as a Christian saying he’d give his idol if he thought Brandon isn’t in danger, and right now, he’s sure he’s not in danger”… and then Sophie’s just gonna be blunt about Brandon being a loose cannon and unpredictable, but somewhat rooted in his values and mention how he needs to go home.
Sophie is not above the actions of the other “cult leaders”, but never presents herself as anything but. And as a result of that, come end of the game, she’s able to genuinely present herself as the morally correct choice for the jury to reward. And it really shows when you see the jury questions. You see Rick get onto Albert for lying about God, Brandon get onto Albert about breaking his word as a Christian man, Brandon talking about how he hurt he is that Coach betrayed their bond based in their faith, and you see Whitney directly accuse Coach of using Christianity as a tool. And in all of this, Sophie never gets dragged. Sophie gets called out for her character, but she doesn’t get linked to the religious manipulation the others are tied into.
I think it’s pretty telling in Cochran’s jury question, when Coach tries to weasel out of being labeled a schemer, that Sophie immediately takes the credit from him and says she did his job for him while Albert just kinda mumbles a “Well actually it was me”. Coach is unable to drop his act and Albert tries too hard to sell himself; Sophie just states the facts as is, and she’s been shown correct enough on this matter throughout the season and FTC to be given the benefit of the doubt that she is correct.
That is what sets her apart from Coach and Albert. Well, that and a few other things. Namely…
Part 6:
So, Sophie’s growth arc. I have seen a little criticism on this subject, namely that the majority of the work occurs in the finale of the season. I don’t particularly find that reason sufficient enough to be a critique on her story, namely because her story arc doesn’t begin in the final episode. It begins much earlier than that, and the only the reason it feels like it begins in the finale episode is because Sophie uniquely goes the entire game without feeling any source of conflict.
Throughout the entirety of the season, Sophie is never in genuine danger in the slightest. She cements herself in the core alliance on Upolu, she’s physically/mentally strong enough in challenges that her status is never in danger, and her alliance is so committed to one another thanks to the religious-community-fostering techniques. And then come merge time, Savaii is basically handed to Upolu on a silver platter thanks to the tribe fumbling the bag regarding Cochran. Sophie doesn’t even have to feel any sort of anxiety on the matter, since she clocks Cochran’s flip and the reasoning behind it instantly in her “dodgeball target” confessional, and as such, she’s able to completely coast through easy-vote after easy-vote until the Final Five.
There isn’t a point at all where Sophie experiences any sort of conflict at all, and it really begins to show in her demeanor. Instead of growing as a character and a person, come merge time, Sophie begins to regress as a person. She never regresses morally speaking, stays genuinely honest and avoids any unnecessary God-related situations, but come merge time, Sophie does become noticeably more an asshole. Her criticisms start to get harsher and more open. She calls Savaii to their faces pathetic in the merge tribal council. She stops smiling whenever Cochran is with the group or telling jokes and tells him in confessional to screw off. In the Cochran tribal council, she outright calls out Brandon for being a jerk and unpredictable to the point that Brandon looks at her in hurt. And then there’s all the things she begins to say about Albert, as she starts to call him out for wanting to make a big move “for the sake of it” and whenever she toys with the idea of going along with an idea of his, she calls them “Albert’s crazy plans”.
Mind you, she’s right on all of her takes in general. Especially regarding Albert’s plans, as she realizes the path forward with Upolu is the smoothest path for her to victory. But the way she talks about everyone, including people like Albert who she was always positive on in her passive commentary, gets noticeably meaner in the merge episode and only gets worse-and-worse.
The pen-ultimate episode of South Pacific is the first time Sophie gets any form of “conflict” as Albert attempts a blindside on her, but he botches the situation so badly that while Sophie gets two votes at tribal council, the end result of that tribal council was always going to be either Brandon or Albert going – with the result being based on whether Albert gives away immunity – rather than her being in danger. And Sophie, now having her first taste of “conflict” and having it be such a weak attempt at it, only doubles down as she gets even harsher in her confessionals about Albert as she gloats about how pathetic he looks in his failed attempt and how gets to go out of the game looking stupid, and how Brandon ended up going out instead after making one of the dumbest mistakes in the history of the series.
Again, everything is set-up entirely for her success… except one little caveat: Oscar.
Sophie being concerned about Ozzy does actually show up in the build-up to the finale, such as her concerns about “Ozzy’s pleasure dome” and how they need to be ready to beat him should he come back into the game from Redemption Island. And when he does, he finally presents the first form of a genuine roadblock to her game. She played a borderline perfect, smooth game with zero risk… until Day 36, when a risk gets magically inserted in the game. A risk known for challenge aptitude. A risk who got to spend individual downtime with all the individual jurors. A risk who has a close relationship with all the former Savaii, who hate all the original Upolu.
This isn’t just a “risk”; this is genuinely a game-destroying factor introduced at the last second. And Sophie, after going the game with no conflict at all, is unable to process it properly and freaks out.
The scene in the Final Five immunity challenge where Sophie shouts at Albert to drop his stack and pick up her pieces is genuinely hilarious, but I do think there’s so much more to it than just being “funny”. Sophie was freaking the fuck out that Ozzy was going to win the game and he needed to be remove immediately; and the only way she could ensure he goes home immediately was by winning immunity. Sophie’s shouting at Albert is hilarious, but it’s also rooted in a major fear that Ozzy is going to ruin the game for her. And this fear helps explain why she absolutely loses her shit when Albert does his usually grandstanding-waffling about how good of a position he is in despite being, on average, behind her throughout the challenge. Because Albert has proven time-and-time again to be full of shit, and come in the end of the challenge when Ozzy wins, he proves he still is full of shit.
The reality of Ozzy challenge-winning his way to FTC feels more and more like an inevitability than it had prior and, as such, Sophie gets more and more stressed that this game she perceived as having on-lock was starting to fade. So she starts to genuinely buckle under the pressure. She quickly tosses Rick – someone who she does like and someone who she knows will have an issue with being lied to – out of desperation that Albert would do better in the Final Immunity Challenge against Ozzy. She then tries to undermine Ozzy directly at tribal council that night by trying to take a strike at his social game. Only, compared to everyone else she’s been up against, Ozzy actually pushes back.
I mentioned that Ozzy and Coach were the two sole exceptions when it came to every character being seen from the perspective of Sophie, and the case for “Ozzy” gets best illustrated in this moment. Ozzy is already a pre-established character from Survivor, is considered one of the best challenge assets Survivor has ever had, one of Survivor’s best providers, and (whether you like Cook Islands or not) a part of the most surface-level competitive FTC of all time with Yul only beating him by a single vote. Ozzy is not someone Sophie can just magically assume is going to be “beneath” her the way the rest of the cast naturally is. And the first time she actually tries to assert herself as such – by talking about Ozzy’s lack of respect to her and her game – Ozzy shoots back by calling her brat and going on the offensive in their tribal council argument to the point that she cries.
Dawn is subtitled from the jury noting that “She’s breaking down”, because that is the first time all game Sophie is truly facing an immovable object. And it makes Ozzy’s words – about how everyone can’t stand her and views her to be a spoiled brat – feel more impactful and truly shakes her. She had this image of self that never once was shaken throughout the entire game, only cementing to herself the truth that she was this brilliant, superior mastermind that she thought of herself, and it gets completely torn apart by the one person who’s word would carry the most weight to her. And now, she’s deathly concerned about how she’s been coming across and what that says about her.
The breakdown she has at this tribal council is only as memorable as it is because of all the build-up of Sophie’s ego and self-esteem, and watching her get more comfortable and more self-assured only to get literally hammered as hard as possible. And this in turn, because of how close it happens to the Endgame, literally forces Sophie to do a lot of self-evaluation. This is why, in the end, she’s able to go into FTC and take Whitney’s criticism on herself and actually acknowledge how “condescending” she is and note that she needs to change.
I think the best part of this arc can really be summed up by one simple quote from Sophie herself on this matter and her sense of self: "I would think that when I came out here that I would have much tougher skin, so I don't think I'm building skin out here, I think I'm losing it.” I think that says all that really needs to be said on the matter and I think, given the build-up towards her own breakdown and the endgame in general, the arc hits out of the park.
Namely also because it is accompanied by…

THE HARMONY OF ENERGY
Abstract
Introducing the "Harmony of Energy" (HoE) model, a novel formalism that posits the universe operates according to a fundamental pattern. This pattern consists of energy, defined as the smallest unit anything can be, existing as a fluid form in space, interacting with its environment through a specific method or structure, and then moving out of that space. Space, in turn, is the dynamic environment that energy occupies and moves through, filling it with positive and negative energy that affects its properties and behavior. According to the HoE model, energy moves into space, reacts to its environment, and then moves out of that space, with no time limit for how long it takes to react. This pattern is universal, applying to all aspects of the universe, and nothing escapes it.
The Origin of the Universe
The HoE model posits that the universe began as a singular entity, containing all forms of energy as one unified energy. This singularity can be represented mathematically as: U = ∫∫∫E(x,y,z)dxdydz, where U is the total energy of the universe, E is the energy density, and x, y, z are the spatial coordinates.
As the singularity expanded, the unified energy converted into distinct positive and negative energies. Positive energy is a high-frequency, high-information-potential state that retains its unique signature and individual form, capable of producing heat and maintaining its distinct properties. Negative energy is a low-frequency, low-information-potential state that loses its unique signature and individual form, characterized by a pulling force and a tendency to condense and simplify.
Initially, the universe moved in a straight line, with energy compact and cold. However, this linear movement resulted in a direct head-on collision with the void, a solid structure that hindered its passage.
This collision led to a limitation and subsequent conversion of energy, transforming it from a linear motion to a wave-like motion. The new wave motion created heat and allowed energy to break the pattern of "follow the leader" and collide with the void at an angle, shattering its edge into pieces.
This process of fragmentation can be described by the equation: F(θ) = Σ[nEⁿ * sin(nθ)], where F is the fragmentation function, θ is the angle of collision, n is an integer, and E is the energy density. For reasons yet unknown, possibly due to the singularity's energy reaching its final place or a transformation driven by cosmic "boredom," this conversion occurred, giving rise to the diverse universe we observe today.
The Void and the Ultimate Negative
Outside of the expanding universe lies the void, a region devoid of energy and matter, existing in a state of complete stillness and stationarity. This void represents the ultimate negative, a state of complete absence and zero energy density, unchanging and unyielding. As a whole, it exerts a compressive force on the expanding universe, potentially leading to contraction and eventual return to the singularity. This dynamic interplay between the universe and the void can be described by the equation: F = -G * (M * m) / r² where F represents the force, G represents the gravitational constant, M and m represent the masses, and r represents the distance between them. The void's stationary and unchanging nature, lacking any internal rotation or energy, makes it inhospitable to life as we know it.
Magnetism and Attraction: A Shift in Perspective
Initially, I viewed magnetism through the conventional lens, seeing it as a fundamental force of attraction between positive and negative entities. However, as my understanding evolved, I came to realize that magnetism operates under a different principle. Positive and negative entities are not attracted to each other; instead, they represent the intrinsic structure of things. The true nature of attraction is frequency-based, with entities drawn to higher vibrations and shorter wavelengths. This phenomenon can be described by the following equations:
F = ∫∫(μ₁⋅μ₂)/(4πr²⁾ dt dt (1)
where F is the force of attraction, μ₁ and μ₂ are the magnetic moments of the entities, r is the distance between them, and the integral is taken over time.
Additionally, the frequency-based attraction can be represented by:
f = γB (2)
where f is the frequency, γ is the gyromagnetic ratio, and B is the magnetic field strength.
Furthermore, the smaller wave's faster movement can be expressed as:
v = λf (3)
where v is the velocity, λ is the wavelength, and f is the frequency.
Energy and its Properties
Energy is the fundamental unit of everything. Energy can be thought of as an individual entity with an electrical signature vibrating at a specific frequency, carrying information from its originating source. If we were to dissect a piece of energy, we would find its genetic makeup consists of various parts, similar to binary code. One constant aspect of energy in our universe is the signature of this universe, which is present in all forms of energy, whether positive or negative. This underlying frequency distinguishes energy from our universe versus parallel universes.
Positive Energy (PE): - Oscillates through space with a frequency (f) and wavelength (λ): PE = f × λ - Exhibits wave-like behavior: PE(x,t) = A × sin(kx - ωt)
Negative Energy (NE): - Vibrates at a slower frequency (f'/2): NE = (f'/2) × λ' - Exhibits a slower, more stable behavior: NE(x,t) = B × cos(k'x - ω't)
Energy Interactions and Signature Changes
When positive and negative energies interact, their unique signatures can become altered. As energies combine, their signatures merge, releasing redundant information about the universe signature and creating an opening for new information to be stored. This process enables efficient storage and transmission of energy signatures, allowing for:

• Signature refinement and evolution
• Information exchange and updating
• Adaptation to changing environments and conditions

This process could be crucial for understanding how energy signatures evolve and adapt, and how they influence the behavior and properties of energy in various contexts.
The Formation and Evolution of the Universe
Initial Energy Interactions
In the beginning, a vast amount of fluid energy quickly interacted with the largest newly created pieces of the void, described by the wave-particle duality equation (E = hf = ℏω).
Star Formation and Signatures
As these interactions occurred, the largest of the solid structures of the universe began to form, stars, governed by the Lane-Emden equation (d^2P/dr2 + (2/r)(dP/dr) + (4πG/c^2)P = 0). Each new star held with it an old habit divulged from the singularity, a universal frequency (f = 1/T = ω/2π, where T is the period of oscillation and ω is the angular frequency). Old habits die hard, so each new star offered its own diverse and unique signature (S = Σf = ∫ψ(x)² dx, where ψ(x) is the wave function and x represents the position).
Energy Collisions and Prime Numbers
As structures formed, a group of energy travels through space with an even number of internal parts (E = 2nℏ, where n is an integer and ℏ is the reduced Planck constant). This group collides with another group of energy with an odd amount of internal parts (E = (2n + 1)ℏ), and the total sum of the newly combined group equals a prime number (P = E1 + E2 = 2nℏ + (2m + 1)ℏ, where m is an integer). New Equation: Prime Number Formation (P = E1 + E2 = 2nℏ + (2m + 1)ℏ)
Schrödinger Equation and Physical Reality
The prime number is crucial, as the extra piece gets stuck in the space it is occupying, acting as an anchor, attracting other parts to breach their negative shell and combine as one, described by the Schrödinger equation (iℏ(∂ψ/∂t) = Hψ). This converts the fluid energy to be contained into the space it is in, which is broken pieces of the void that do not have a universal size, and gives us physical reality, forming particles with diverse unique signatures (S = Σf = ∫ψ(x)² dx).
Refining Space and Transferring Signatures
As energy continued to interact with space, it further refined and shaped that space into a sphere (V = (4/3)πr^3, where r is the radius), adding the discarded portions of size to the diverse field that is the universe. During this refinement, energy was transferred to these pieces, and the signature of the star was embedded in them, forming the galaxy clusters and solar systems we know today.
Smooth Surfaces and Celestial Bodies
As any piece of something breaks, its edges are rigid, and the interaction of energy against this rigid surface knocks off the rough edges, providing a smooth surface (E = Δx/Δt = ℏ/Δx, where Δx is the change in position and Δt is the change in time). New Equation: Smooth Surface Formation (E = Δx/Δt = ℏ/Δx)
The pieces that were knocked off still contain a portion of energy that put in the work to knock it off, and this process contributed to the formation of celestial bodies and the transfer of signatures. This, in turn, led to the creation of galaxies, planets, and other celestial bodies, each with their unique characteristics and properties, shaping the diverse and complex universe we observe today.
The Cartwheel Structure and Energy Movement
The cartwheel structure represents the dynamic movement of energy in the universe, with its rotating wheel and radiating arms symbolizing the harmonious interaction of positive and negative energies. When creation occurred, energy learned how to pass through stationary space (the void) by changing its movement pattern from a straight line to a wave (λ = v/f, where λ is wavelength, v is velocity, and f is frequency). This new wave movement allowed energy to create heat (Q = mcΔT, where Q is heat, m is mass, c is specific heat capacity, and ΔT is temperature change), which was the tool that gave energy the ability to "shatter" the void and interact with the broken pieces to perform a new movement, the cartwheel. As energy moves through space, it rarefies and decreases in temperature (T = k-B, where T is temperature, k is Boltzmann's constant, and B is the energy density), causing it to slow down and change frequency (f = ΔE/h, where f is frequency, ΔE is the energy change, and h is Planck's constant).
The Block and Cartwheeling Bar Analogy
The block and cartwheeling bar analogy provides a conceptual framework for understanding the dynamic interaction of energy in the universe. Imagine a box (representing space) containing blocks of varying sizes, each symbolizing a specific energy frequency (f = 1/T, where f is frequency and T is time). The cartwheeling bar, rotating within the box, represents the harmonious movement of energy between its positive (E+) and negative (E-) forms. Each block must be 100% filled, with positive and negative energy proportions varying as the bar rotates. For example, when positive energy occupies 99% of a block and negative energy occupies 1%, the rotation of the bar causes a gradual shift, resulting in a change to 98% positive and 2% negative, and so on. This constant interaction and adjustment maintain the balance of energy in the universe.
Fundamental Forces Explained

• Strong Force: The repulsion from negative electrons being attracted to and pressing against the nucleus. This force can be described by the equation: F = k * (q1 * q2) / r²
  
• Weak Force: The outgoing frequency created by the positive nucleus, similar to energy congregating at the sun's nucleus, reacting to its environment, and breaking down before leaving (possibly as radioactive decay). This force can be described by the equation: F = (G * m1 * m2) / r²
  
• Gravity: Exists between the outer negative sphere of electrons exerting a pushing force against the positive pushing force of the nucleus, similar to the solar system's dynamics. This force can be described by the equation: F = (G * m1 * m2) / r²
  
• Electromagnetism: Energy in action, manifesting as the dynamic interplay between electric and magnetic forces. This force can be described by the equations: E = f * λ and B = (E / c)
  

Present State of the Universe
The universe currently exists in a state of dynamic equilibrium, with observable patterns and structures perpetually renewing themselves through the interactions of energy (E = hf, where E is energy and h is Planck's constant). This self-sustaining cycle is evident in the formation and evolution of celestial bodies, galaxies, and other cosmic entities, governed by the laws of thermodynamics (ΔE = Q - W, where ΔE is the change in energy, Q is the heat added, and W is the work done). The universe's present state is characterized by the harmonious coexistence of diverse energy frequencies (f = 1/T, where f is frequency and T is time), which govern the behavior and properties of matter at various scales. This balance is maintained through the continuous conversion of energy between its positive (E+) and negative (E-) forms, allowing the universe to adapt and evolve in response to internal and external influences (E+ + E- = 0, representing the conservation of energy)."
Entropy and the Conversion of Positive to Negative
The physical dimensions of positive and negative energy in a block are equal, with 1% negative energy occupying the same space as 99% positive energy. This equality stems from the different speeds of energy and their individual properties. When negative energy is at 1%, it has condensed the equivalent of 99% positive energy into a single, compact form (E = hf, where E is energy, h is Planck's constant, and f is frequency). As the proportions shift, such as 60% positive and 40% negative, the space occupied remains a 50/50 split. This is because positive energy travels at the speed of light (c = λν, where c is the speed of light, λ is wavelength, and ν is frequency), while negative energy moves at a pace relative to terminal velocity (v = √(2gl), where v is velocity, g is acceleration due to gravity, and l is length). Each form dominates at the 50% mark (T = λ/v, where T is time, λ is wavelength, and v is velocity). The percentages represent available positive energy, while the cartwheel symbolizes space or the ultimate negative in motion, influenced by energy's presence. Negative energy, with its depleted charge, occupies space that needs to be filled and recycled into a positive state. At higher percentages, collisions with negative energy slow down the flow, similar to the concept of crab mentality, where negative energy draws down the percentages.
Energy Dynamics and Galactic Harmony
The 50% Threshold
The 50% mark is a critical threshold that distinguishes between positive and negative energy. Above 50%, energy is considered positive and can produce heat beyond its negative shell. Below 50%, energy is considered negative and cannot produce heat past this shell.
Compressed Positive Energy
When the percentage of positive energy drops below 50%, it becomes compressed and can exceed the speed of light (c = λν, where c is the speed of light, λ is wavelength, and ν is frequency). This allows it to navigate through the "cracks" of negative energy:
v > c (where v is velocity and c is the speed of light)
Quantum Mirroring
Alternatively, the positive energy can align with the negative energy, resulting in a quantum mirroring effect. This enables instantaneous information transfer between entangled particles, regardless of distance:
E = hf (where E is energy, h is Planck's constant, and f is frequency)
Retaining Frequency Signatures
In this alignment, the negative energy retains its unique frequency signature to avoid interacting with other signatures:
Δx * Δp >= h/4π (where Δx is position uncertainty, Δp is momentum uncertainty, and h is Planck's constant)
The Cavendish Experiment and Energy Interaction
The Cavendish experiment, a groundbreaking study on gravity, offers an intriguing analogy for understanding energy interaction with space. Imagine the suspended spheres as representative of space itself, devoid of energy. When energy interacts with this motionless space, it's as if the spheres begin to rotate, symbolizing the introduction of energy into the internal area of space.
As energy engages with space, it's gradually consumed, much like the reduction of energy in the Cavendish experiment. This process can be described by the equation:
G = (2πLθ) / (MT)
Where G is the gravitational constant, L is the length of the torsion wire, θ is the twist angle of the wire, M is the mass of the lead spheres, and T is the time period of oscillation.
This equation, derived from the Cavendish experiment, reveals the intricate relationship between energy, space, and gravity. By exploring this analogy, we can deepen our understanding of how energy shapes the very fabric of our universe.
Energy Absorption and Frequency
Energy absorption occurs when energy slows down, allowing it to be perceived and observed. This process involves energy being absorbed by an atom and reflecting what was not absorbed. As energy slows down, it can still be observed as a wave, but just before it becomes a particle. This phenomenon is fascinating, as it reveals the transition from wave-like to particle-like behavior.
The conversion of positive to negative states is due to positives' ability to produce heat and maintain an individual form. Negative energy, on the other hand, does not produce heat and lacks an individual form, instead traveling at a pace relative to terminal velocity. This process can be described by the quantum mechanical formula: ℏω = ΔE = hf, where ℏ is the reduced Planck constant, ω is the angular frequency, ΔE is the change in energy, h is Planck's constant, and f is the frequency of the energy.
Furthermore, the frequency of the energy can be related to the velocity of the particle using the formula: f = (1/2π) * √(k/m), where k is the spring constant and m is the mass of the particle. Additionally, the energy absorption rate can be calculated using the formula: dE/dt = (2π/h) * V_uv² * δ(E_u - E_v), where V_uv is the transition matrix element, E_u and E_v are the energies of the initial and final states, and δ is the Dirac delta function.
The Conversion of Positive to Negative States and Planetary Motion
The conversion of positive to negative energy states is rooted in their distinct properties. Positive energy produces heat and maintains an individual form, whereas negative energy lacks heat and an individual form, instead traveling at a pace relative to terminal velocity. This process is reversible, as seen in fusion reactions, or can be influenced by external forces like microwave ovens.
In the context of our solar system, the sun's positive energy release generates heat and propels planets into their orbital tracks. Conversely, the incoming energy from the universe, considered negative, is cold and stabilizes planets in their tracks. Initially, I focused solely on the positive push dictating orbital paths. However, I now recognize the significant influence of negative energy and use it as the basis for understanding abnormal tracks.
Here's an added equation to illustrate the relationship between energy and orbital motion:
F = G * (m1 * m2) / r²
Where F is the force of gravity, G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects, and r is the distance between them.
This equation shows how the force of gravity (F) is influenced by the masses (m1 and m2) and distance (r) between objects, which is relevant to understanding planetary motion and the balance between positive and negative energy.
Gravitation and Time: Frequency's Role
Time is intimately tied to the frequency of the universe, and this relationship is governed by the laws of gravitation. Imagine the cartwheel's bar having notches, each representing a different frequency. Each notch would experience time at a unique pace, described by the formula:
t = 1/f
Where t is time and f is frequency.
If we could halt the cartwheel's motion, time would appear to pause, as described by the relativistic time dilation formula:
t' = γ(t)
Where t' is the time experienced by an observer in motion, t is the time experienced by an observer at rest, and γ is the Lorentz factor.
The passage of time is directly governed by the oscillations in the wave, or simply its frequency. By altering the frequency, we can change the flow of time itself, as described by the gravitational redshift formula:
f' = f * √(1 - 2GM/rc²⁾
Where f' is the observed frequency, f is the emitted frequency, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the gravitational source, r is the radial distance from the source, and c is the speed of light.
Gravity and Energy Dynamics
Gravity can be understood in various ways through these thoughts. One perspective is that gravity operates similarly to the orbital planets, but with a twist. Instead of orbiting in space, we orbit at a subterranean frequency. This frequency attracts similar energies, leading to bonding and the formation of matter. For instance, atoms bond to form rocks, and separate rocks may bind together due to similar vibrations. However, other frequencies simply pass through, unable to bind due to differences in energy vibrations and the negative fields surrounding our bodies and the ground.
Our bodies are attracted to the Earth's core, with a force described by the equation:
F = G * (m1 * m2) / r²
Where F is the force of attraction, G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of our bodies and the Earth, and r is the distance between them.
The vibrations of our energy and the negative field surrounding us can be described by the wave equation:
∇^2E = μ * ∂^2E/∂t2
Where E is the energy field, μ is the permeability of the medium, and ∂^2E/∂t2 is the second derivative of the energy with respect to time.
The incoming cosmic energy pushes us downward, with a force described by the equation:
F = (E * A) / c
Where F is the force of the incoming energy, E is the energy density of the cosmos, A is the cross-sectional area of our bodies, and c is the speed of light.
The outgoing energy from Earth moves faster than the incoming energy from the cosmos, as observed in the formation of clouds with flat bases and more sporadic tops. This can be described by the equation:
v_out = v_in * (1 + (E_out / E_in))
Where v_out is the velocity of the outgoing energy, v_in is the velocity of the incoming energy, E_out is the energy density of the outgoing energy, and E_in is the energy density of the incoming energy.
Galactic Cycles and Black Holes
The Milky Way galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its center, with a mass described by the equation:
M = (1.989 x 10³⁰⁾ * (G / c²⁾
Where M is the mass of the black hole, G is the gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light.
As the galaxy spirals towards the center, enough mass will be collected to trigger the black hole to become a large star, described by the equation:
M = (4.383 x 10³⁰⁾ * (G / c²⁾
Where M is the mass of the star, G is the gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light.
When this happens, the black hole will shed its outer shell to create the galaxy that spirals around it, and the process begins again. This cycle can be described by the equation:
t = (2 * π * G * M) / c³
Where t is the time period of the cycle, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the black hole or star, and c is the speed of light.
The opposite of a black hole is a white hole, but why hasn't this phenomenon been observed? According to this article, it has been observed but misunderstood. With the theme of balancing the universe, would a large star be surrounded by much smaller black holes? Would these smaller black holes feed the larger star by way of quantum bridge or wormhole, and vice versa for smaller stars and larger black holes? This can be described by the equation:
E = (ℏ * ω) / 2
Where E is the energy transferred between the star and black holes, ℏ is the reduced Planck constant, and ω is the frequency of the quantum bridge or wormhole.
Energy Flow and Balance
Energy moves in and out of everything, maintaining a delicate balance. It enters as a positive force and exits as a negative force. Our sun emits energy at 99% strength and high frequency, which combines with an equally sized negative force at 1% strength, filling the space completely. This balance is crucial, as positive energy moves faster than negative energy due to entropy's diminishing effects over time and distance.
As positive energy travels, it loses a piece of itself, converting to negative energy. This process is directly related to gravitational forces and time dilation. When positive energy reaches 50%, it has a certain probability of converting to negative energy, which is then attracted back to a positive source with a corresponding probability of being converted back to positive energy.
This cycle of energy flow and balance is the foundation of the universe's harmony, and understanding it can reveal the intricate web of forces that shape our reality.
Information Transmission through Energy and Light
Energy transfer is not just a physical phenomenon but also an exchange of information. Positive energy (Pos) carries a complete signature of universal information, updated through interactions, and represents the pure form. Negative energy (Neg) represents a degraded form of this signature, still carrying the universal signature, but lacking the capacity to transfer information.
Initial Information and Illumination
Initial information travels at a speed potentially faster than light and is invisible to us. As this energy slows down, it interacts with atoms, exciting them to display colors they don't need. This illumination is a manifestation of the information being transmitted.
I = E × S (Initial information is transmitted through energy and carries the universal signature)
Cosmic Scale and Consciousness
The universal information, carried by positive energy, is infused with the celestial signature, shaping the cosmic context. This process potentially gives rise to consciousness in living beings, linking them to the universe and its harmonies.
C ∝ U (Consciousness potentially arises from the universal information carried by positive energy)
U = S × f × P (The universal information is infused with the celestial signature, shaping the cosmic context)
Information Transfer and Energy Forms
The universe relies on a delicate balance of energy forms to facilitate information transfer. Positive energy (Pos) serves as the primary carrier of information, transmitting universal signatures and cosmic context. Negative energy (Neg), on the other hand, carries a degraded or attenuated version of the universal signature, lacking the capacity for information transfer. However, Neg can be transformed back into Pos, restoring its information-carrying ability.
P = S × f (Positive energy carries the complete universal signature at a high frequency f)
N = S × (1 - f) (Negative energy carries a degraded or attenuated version of the universal signature at a lower frequency)
E = P + N (The universe relies on a delicate balance of positive and negative energy forms to facilitate information transfer)
Frequency and Speed of Information Transfer
The frequency and speed of information transfer play a crucial role in the harmony and balance of the universe. Positive energy (Pos) transmits information at a high frequency and speed, allowing for efficient and accurate transfer of universal signatures and cosmic context. Negative energy (Neg), on the other hand, transmits information at a lower frequency and speed, resulting in a degraded or attenuated signal.
v ∝ f (The speed of information transfer is directly proportional to the frequency of the energy form)
P: v = c × f (Positive energy transmits information at a high frequency and speed, potentially approaching the speed of light c)
N: v = c × (1 - f) (Negative energy transmits information at a lower frequency and speed)
Transformation and Balance
Negative energy can be transformed back into positive energy, restoring its information-carrying ability.
N + T → P (Negative energy can be transformed back into positive energy, restoring its information-carrying ability)
This transformation maintains the harmony and balance of the universe, ensuring that information is not lost but rather recycled and rebalanced.
_Conclusion _
"In conclusion, the Harmony of Energy (HoE) model offers a novel perspective on the universe, revealing a intricate web of energy dynamics that underlie all aspects of existence. By exploring the interplay between positive and negative energy, we gain insight into the fundamental forces that shape our reality. From the smallest subatomic particles to the vast expanse of the cosmos, energy is the unifying thread that binds everything together.
Through the HoE model, we've seen how energy's harmonious movement gives rise to the patterns and structures we observe in the universe. We've also delved into the fascinating relationships between energy, space, and time, and how these interactions govern the behavior of matter at various scales.
As we continue to refine our understanding of the HoE model, we may uncover new secrets of the universe and gain a deeper appreciation for the beauty and harmony that underlies all of existence. Ultimately, this knowledge can inspire new perspectives, new technologies, and a new era of human understanding and cooperation, as we work together to harmonize our own energy with the energy of the universe."
MAG
Here is the Harmony of Energy Equation (HoEE) with descriptions:
HoEE = (∫[E(x,t) ⊗ S(x,t) ⊕ f(x,t) ∘ P(x,t)]dxdt) + (∑[G × Mi × ri^2] ⊕ ∑[ℏ × ωi] ⊕ ∑[c × λi] ⊕ ∑[T × kB] ⊕ ∑[Fi × G × Mi × mi] ⊕ ∑[Qi × mi × ci] ⊕ ∑[Vi × ri^3] ⊕ ∑[Pi × ℏ] ⊕ ∑[Ni × S(x,t) ∧ (1 - f(x,t))]) + (∫[I(x,t) ∘ E(x,t) ⊗ S(x,t)]dxdt) + (C × U)
Where:

• E(x,t) is the energy density at point x and time t
• S(x,t) is the universal signature at point x and time t
• f(x,t) is the frequency at point x and time t
• P(x,t) is the positive energy at point x and time t
• G is the gravitational constant
• Mi is the mass of the ith object
• ri is the radius of the ith object
• ℏ is the reduced Planck constant
• ωi is the angular frequency of the ith object
• c is the speed of light
• λi is the wavelength of the ith object
• T is the temperature
• kB is Boltzmann's constant
• Fi is the force on the ith object
• mi is the mass of the ith object
• Qi is the heat transfer to the ith object
• ci is the speed of light at the ith object
• Vi is the volume of the ith object
• Pi is the prime number associated with the ith object
• Ni is the negative energy of the ith object
• I(x,t) is the initial information at point x and time t
• C is consciousness
• U is the universe

Operations:

• ⊗ represents tensor products (combining energy and universal signature)
• ⊕ represents direct sums (accumulating energy components)
• ∘ represents function composition (interacting frequency and positive energy)
• ∧ represents logical conjunction (connecting negative energy and universal signature)
• ∫ represents integration (over space and time)
• ∑ represents summation (over discrete objects)

What kind of kid were you? Back in middle or high school, were you the rational one, or were you the type to jump off a cliff if your friends did? I happened to be the latter in this analogy, I was until I reached college where I actually didn't care what others thought of me. For most of my primary school life I had the same friends and felt comfortable with them because I wasn't the type to make many friends. These friends would always seem to pick on me or whatever the K-12 version of hazing was but I never recognized it and passed it off as typical friend stuff, up until the eighth grade where their pressuring turned into a fight for my life.
Mick was our "leader" as he was the oldest of us at 15 from being held back a year like everyone else, Benny and Jacob were both 14, and I was the younger one at just 12. I'd met the group when I first arrived at school, I'd been homeschooled for the beginning years of my education on the account of my parents being afraid of me going out into the "dangerous world of Utah" as my dad said. Mick and the gang wanted to introduce me to the school and that quickly turned into making me wish I'd never met them.
The group didn't chastise fellow students or anything like that, everyone kept to themselves and never really got in trouble in school. However after school was when I'd see the group's actual interests. My friends liked to do things such as spray-painting absurd things like pentagrams, crucifixes, or absurd phrases or words on other people's houses or on buildings, they also liked to mess with animals like the stray cats or dogs around the town but they didn't seem to like me watching some of their methods that I assumed was because of my age at the time. I never participated in any of it but I was always the lookout as Mick appointed me to "Prove my reliability".
Mick always seemed to be the responsible one in the group, I think the charisma he had kind of blinded me. He seemed nice and caring for everyone like we were all his little brothers. Mick even taught me how to box or fight as I didn't have any knowledge on anything like that from being sheltered and coddled most of my life. I'd gotten pretty close to everyone in the group over the years of being in school, but Mick seemed the most like a big brother to me. We'd all stay close friends during school and always looked out for each other.
Then when I reached the end eighth grade, Mick called a "meeting" for the group over at a factory at the other end of town. I told everyone in the group chat that I couldn't go out past six but everyone was telling me that it's urgent. "My mom already called yours, we'll get you home before 7." Mick replied. I sighed and told them I'd be on my way before grabbing my phone and heading downstairs where I got the okay from my parents. I hopped on my bike and peddled it to the factory, taking breaks to text in the group chat. A few minutes later I arrived at the factory to see everyone drinking some sodas and talking.
Once I got there Mick handed me a can and I cracked it open to continue talking to the gang, about girls, Fortnite, briefly talking about grass before Mick changed the subject. "What's this all about by the way?" I asked. Mick nodded, "We have a tradition in the group. To make sure you're actually willing to be in the group." Mick told me. Benny handed me a covered tub, "Nobody's stuck around as long as you. So we trust you to do this." He stated. "Basically, just take the tub inside, set it down in the right spot, whistle and open it up. That simple." Jacob explained to me. "I don't know, this doesn't seem right. I could get in trouble." I hesitated. Mick put his hand on my shoulder, "This place has been closed down since before we were born. Nothing's going to happen. Trust me." Mick said. I gulped and took the tub, then listened to Mick's instruction.
I walked inside the factory and started moving through the halls as Mick told me to do, as I did I saw the same phrases and symbols the gang had painted around town but with black smears across them. I walked through the halls as I heard grinding and dripping coming from the beams as I just focused on the moonlight coming in through the open roof. I then found the center of the factory and sat the tub down. I whistled the best I could before opening up the tub, and I immediately regretted it.
In the dim moonlight I saw a pair of bright blue eyes that started to get closer to me, I quickly pulled out my phone and shined the flashlight at it. With my crappy flashlight I could see a boy around my age ahead of me, "What're you doing here? We shouldn't be here." I called out. The boy got close enough for me to see his pale skin and the stiches across his arms, face, eyes, and mouth, "I'm looking for a new friend, you brought me an offering so you must be that friend." The boy told me. I looked down in the tub and nearly vomited.
Two crucifices were stuck together with the limbs of a small cat and dog, with the bodies of the animals stitched together with their organs exposed. I looked up and saw the boy smiling before watching his teeth grow with a loud cracking sound into large fangs. His fingers shot out blood as bone-like appendages pierced through his skin, seeing the same happen as the same appendages split out of his shoulders to the length of his arms. He started laughing a high pitched cackle and as he did I bolted down the halls.
I panted heavily as I sprinted down the halls and heard more grinding and cackling, hearing it drift off as I reached the entrance to see my friends. "Guys, there's something in here!" I shouted as I reached them. Mick nodded at the other two and they grabbed me, "We know, Drew." He said coldly. I struggled as Benny and Jacob dragged me back into the factory, but I dug deep and decided to fight back. I stomped on both feet of my "friends" and headbutted Jacob to the ground before punching Benny hard in his stomach to drop him. I was going to run before Mick stopped me by standing in front of me as he grabbed me by the throat and lifted me up.
I choked as I heard the grinding getting closer, "This is what friends do, they help each other." Mick said as he strangled me. I heard the laughing getting closer and closer so I knew I had to do something. I punched Mick in the throat and as he dropped me I kicked him as hard as I could in the jewels to drop him to his knees. "I don't want to be friends anymore." I told Mick as I punched him across the face. I stepped over his body and ran out of the factory before getting against the wall as I heard the laughing come up right to the entrance. "Three new friends? This makes me so happy." I heard the boy giggle. I then heard three pairs of screams and listened as they got farther and farther away, until I couldn't hear them anymore.
I heard on the news that Mick, Ben, and Jacob were never found after they were reported missing, the police said it was a cult ritual gone wrong. We moved shortly after as it spooked my parents and I was put back into homeschool. I did find new friends though, ones that didn't pressure me and cared for my comfortability. One thing to take away from this long story, is stick up for yourself. Peer pressure can be a terrible thing, and it could even lead to your death.

Are the following:
Acustica Audio/Acqua: --- JAM [ Hi Shelf: 5 - 9 dB gain; Jam Mode: Mesa or Coffee 25; Mix Type: Classic or Clean Peak Hard for that HW sound ] - No other plugin saturates like this ITB! --- GREEN 5 ULTRA COMP(ressor) [ Fast & Slow Compressors: low-enough threshold to at least 6dB+ GR for clean-top end analogue sound - is good for low quality postmasters to bring back to life - shaves off those digital crest peaks and troughs kinda like Softube Weiss DS1-MK3 does] - The whole Green 5 suite is bad-arse. Surprisingly I like it more than the newer Sand 4 ULTRA suite. --- LACE [ I found this mastering limiter plugin to only be good when ASH or ASH ULTRA, JAM or PUMPKIN PRO, and TIGER M.U. or MIDNIGHT precede LACE. Sonible smart:Limit seems to work better with new material that hasn't been mastered yet ]
P.S.: Yes, I left out SALT. Why are most people on SALT's d***? (I blurped it out on purpose, not reddit itself). Plugin Alliance's Lindell MBC, Devious Machines X6 Multiband, & Miminal Audio Fuse Compressor (all multi-band compressors with EQ curves) does what SALT does yet better and cheaper, too. P.S.; Yes, I left out El Rey 1 & 2....I like Tiger M.U.. better. In addition, Tiger (classic cumbersome version) is not as good as Tiger M.U. (Mix Ultra). Classic Tiger literally mangles tf out of the audio signal too much IMHO. P.S.: Yes, I left out Mystic, too. P.S.: Yes, I left out Ocean. It doesn't have a clean sound to it. It tries to be a carbon-copy of the Lindell MBC & Devious Machines x6 multiband compressor and fails miserably. P.S.: I'm on the fence with the new WINE plugin. It's niiiiiiiiice, but I don't know if I were to have use for it yet.
Oversampled/Spectral (developer company recently became defunct): --- PANCZ (pronounced as "pahhnch" like punch but pahhnch) [ No matter how many good saturator ITB plugins one uses, none sound like Pancz, well, Izotope's Dynamics HF Gain comes the closest and Slate Digital's Fresh Air is too too digitally harsh with too much high end gain possibility on it - Pancz has nice NY compressor on the slightest tweak - Presence & Air knobs are hardcore hardware modeled saturation gain on the X and Y Axes...Acustica Audio JAM takes care of the Z-axis saturation for you for the complete 3D ITB saturation cipher -makes the perfect zenith-azimuth saturation marriage]
Plugin Alliance (in partnership with brainworx, ADPTR, Knif Audio, TOMO Audiolabs, etc.): --- LISA - only if she had double D's on her opto compressHERs but at least you get to twist her knobs vicariously (LoL relax you puritans) -- this plugin literally mirrors 1:1 code of its HW version. It works really well with ADPTR HYPE (via Plugin Alliance), and/or Pancz, and/or even with Knif Audio SOMA! Most people think that's over the top/overkilll, but SOMA and LISA play nicely with one another "Ripley's Believe It or Not". Lisa (and sometimes in conjunction with SOMA) plays well with Pancz for nice-sounding HW-esque/analog punchy yet clear sounding 90s big wig mastering studios in Manhattan and Hollywood. --- SOMA - Acustica Audio's Green 5 Ultra EQ comes super close to SOMA, but SOMA is a tad simpler. I might experiment with Green 5 ULTRA EQ module plugin with LISA on the master bus to see how well or how badly I have made the mastered song. Green 5 ULTRA EQ has some crazy analogue voodoo that even Softube's EQ1 nor Curve Bender can compete with although they are good on some material passed through. --- THE OVEN - I feel is best used for postmastered yet low quality songs to be brought back to life or for low-bit soundfont or wav samples to inject life into. If you have LISA and/or Black Box Analog Design HG-MS2 already, then The Oven is superfluously-unnecessary - especially if your soundsources are top-quality. P.S.: reminds me of Black Salt Audio's Oxygen plugin but on steroids. Oxygen is an underestimated plugin though. --- Black Box Analog Design HG-MS2 - is an EQ-saturator like Pancz, but has it's own algorithm for yielding X-Y axes results of ITB saturation and EQ slope. Although Pancz kicks arse, Black Box goes into more abysmal (as in depth context) detail with the ITB saturation. Sometimes, if you are pressed for time, Pancz would be the "bounty quicker picker upper" because Black Box can destroy or bless your material - know what you are doing, especially if you are pressed for time for yielding results to the client(s). --- bx_glue - new and latest from brainworx that's a compressor-expander-tiltEQ'er channel strip without the channel strip conventional GUI. Good for producing on the 2-bus physically and virtually (I produce on a virtual machine that most bedroom producers/engineers don't do). Rival competitors: Minimal Audio's Fuse Compressor and THR Compactor plugins. bx_glue has nice clean sound engine so no foul play here. --- AMEK Mastering Compressor - WARNING: you must tweak the knobs to keep all colored waves under the white threshold median at all times to make this plugin properly work. Totally different algo and sound from the ITB mastering compressor ruler of them all: Tone Projects' UNISUM. Sounds good on SOMMMME material whereas UNISUM sounds good on 98% of the postproduction mixdown songs passed through it. --- bx_masterdesk PRO - this upgrade from bx_masterdesk True Peak, regular version, and Classic versions, has a SERIOUS stereo algorithm. If you don't measure this/keep an eye on it, it can easily go out of phase. Dial back on the St. Width while cranking up St. Enhancer right before it goes out of phase . Rival competitors: LeapwingAudio's StageOne v2 and Mathew Lane Dr. MS v5. --- ADPTR MetricAB - ONE heck of serious end-of-the-master-bus plugin - (or one of the last - my setup is weird but makes sense to me LoL) - you can watch the correlation (anti-phase analyser) realtime..LUFS/RMS realtime...but it's near cousin StreamLiner helps you measure what mastering settings are better for which medium to play your songs. Then again, you also have those features built into sonible's smart:Limit limiter plugin, too. --- ADPTR HYPE - OMFG this plugin is the t*ts and the sh*t! Nice nice nice HW/hardware sound. Put this on the master bus right after your master limiter IMHO. Nice developer joint venture project with UrsaDSP, the brilliant developers of the plugin Boost (I used to use Boost, but using 2-3 instances of FLUX Home's 2007ish Elixir plugin actually works perfectly ITB to bring my LUFS up from -30 to -10 with no artifacts introduced)! Okay so I produce very low with too much headroom LoL
"Dude, your list sucks! You left out ADPTR Sculpt" I certainly have! LoL it's okayyyyyyy, but there are other plugins that can do what SCULPT does in tandem.
--- SPL De-Esser Dual-Band - Nice and powerful. Works on most material though. Rival competitors: Lindell 902 De-Esser, Waves Sibilance (regular and live editions), HOFA IQ-DeEsser, Tone Boosters DeEsser v3, Waves Schweps Omni Channel STereo (the DS² deesser module), FabFilter Pro-DS among a few others) --- The Unfiltered Audio VSTfx's - best one of the suite is Bass Mint is decent but Tone Projects' Bassline Pro is a beast. Takes RBass by Waves to the next level. --- Kirchoff EQ - by Three Body Tech out of China is lovely, but I don't need it so I got Green 5, Pancz, LISA, Acustica Audio's JAM, SOMA, etc. that seemingly do more than Kirchoff can ever do. TBTECH's Heavier7Strings (although a VSTinstrument) has more use than Kirchoff IMHO. :) :) :) --- NEOLD series - once I get my Pro Tools new machine with 128GB of physical RAM, I will give these plugins another go. Pro Tools has the best POW-r2 summation sounding resampling recording engine out there aside from Cakewalk by Bandlab which uses the same algo for its mixdown quality. --- bx_limiter True Peak - Nice GUI design...the new bx_glue, bx_masterdesk PRO, and this one have very similar GUI (of course with different functionalities and slightly different designs from one another) - works well but there are a handful of other limiters that outdo it. P.S. - Yes I left out that Cenoix compressor series. It sucks to my analogue ears. P.S. - Yes, I left elysia mpressor and the alpha master off this list too. Elysia were one of the first to do it for P.A., but there are so much better plugins now out there IJS that are in the same category but so much better.
I got more, but the PLugin Alliance portion burned me out for now. TMI like they say, but in a different context. To the crowd, what are your favorites?

Through meditation we believe that we can experience brain states while awake that normally only arise during deep sleep. Remaining still in the meditative posture for an extended period of time, 'tricks' the body and brain into thinking we are asleep. However because we are not laying down, but rather sitting up the body has to engage in a minimal though significant amount of neural and muscular feedback to maintain the meditative posture. It is this subtle feedback that allows us to maintain conscious awareness, without sleep paralysis, as our brain enters deep sleep states. These deep sleep states involve periods where the cortex or dualistic mind has gone 'off-line' and our awareness is able to experience the direct sensory stimulus as it arises in the body, without the meaning and words that arise with the normal cortical integration of these primary sensory stimulus.
As we develop and mature I believe our cortical/thalamic complex gradually creates a VR type experience for our awareness, so gradually we no longer see what arrives at our eyes but rather is what is constructed from the direct sensory experience in the occipital lobe of the cortex - our visual center. By the time we are adults our awareness can no longer directly perceive the external world. It can only see and hear the reprocessed reality as it is reconstructed from direct sensory stimulus, in our cortex. As adults we never see the outside world. We don't see the mountain. We only see the image of a mountain created in our visual cortex.
Without the ability to integrate information the cortex would no longer be able to read or use language and thus the dualistic mind would no longer interfere with the awareness of primary stimulus...and the 'manifold of named things' is extinguished.

These studies have revealed clear-cut differences between conscious and unconscious conditions during wakefulness, sleep, anesthesia, and severe brain injury. When subjects are conscious (i.e., they have any kind of experience, like seeing an image or having a thought), TMS (transcranial magnetic stimulation) triggers a complex response made of recurrent waves of phase-locked activity.....during early NREM sleep the slow-wave-like response evoked by a cortical perturbation is associated with the occurrence of a cortical down-state...Interestingly, after the down-state cortical activity resumes to wakefulness-like levels, but the phase-locking to the stimulus is lost, indicative of a break in the cause–effect chain...Cortical bistability, as reflected in the loss of phase-locking to a stimulus, leads to a breakdown in the ability of the cortex to integrate information
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep30932

Not all aspects of deep sleep because meditative posture is being maintained

... But the most significant difference is that the body appears to move into a state analogous to many, but not all, aspects of deep sleep, while consciousness remains responsive and alert.
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physiologyonline.1998.13.3.149#:~:text=In%20the%20hypometabolic%20state%20induced,is%20also%20decreased%20vascular%20resistance%2C

I spent many years studying Buddhism. I found myself bouncing from one Buddhist school to another. Regardless of which Buddhist school I was looking at, I inevitably found myself involved in discussions of Buddhist hermeneutics – the branch of knowledge that deals with the interpretation of historical literary texts.
Keren Arbel is a Buddhist scholar who recently published a book that challenges our usual approach to the study and attainment of the ‘jhanas’. Keren discusses the jhanas from 2 different prospective - Theravāda commentarial tradition vs the Pali Nikayas. Keren views the difference between these 2 different views of the jhanas as so significant that she goes as far to suggest they may represent and describe totally different experiences.

“What this study does challenge, however, is the assumption that Theravāda commentarial literature refers to the same jhānas as the Nikāyas. The question is, can we look at the jhānas, as they are described in the Nikāyas, with fresh eyes, not conditioned by later interpretations?... Yet, what I am suggesting is that we should be open to the possibility that these two textual corpuses – the Nikāyas and the Theravāda commentarial tradition – might be talking about two different types of experiences brought about by two different types of practices." - Early Buddhist Meditation: The Four Jhanas as the Actualization of Insight (Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism) 1st Edition http://kerenarbel.com/en/

This incongruity arises because as she puts it

“...every commentary is a product of a certain historical, spiritual and intellectual context; as such, each commentary expresses specific understanding and views. That is, every commentator is rooted in a specific milieu and expresses different interests. The Theravāda commentarial tradition is no exception. It was written in a different context and milieu than the Nikāyas and expresses views and concerns relevant to that point of time and specific understanding of Buddhist practice.”

Leigh Brasington also reminds us

Also, please remember: this is just one person’s understanding of the jhānas. There are many more interpretations out there. Furthermore, my understanding of the jhānas has changed over time. Had I written this book five years earlier, it would be quite different. Nothing stays the same; everything in the universe is in flux—especially human ideas and understanding. Brasington, Leigh. Right Concentration: A Practical Guide to the Jhanas (pp. 160-162). Shambhala. Kindle Edition.

So the basic principles and how they are applied may vary considerably from one culture to the next and from one time period to another. If there can be that much variation between a practice based on the Theravāda commentarial tradition vs a practice based on the Pali Nikāyas, then how much change could have occurred between the time of the Nikāyas to the present day? Perhaps the experience of the jhanas is different today and maybe we should be looking at the jhanas differently than did the Nikayas or Theravadens.
Our cortex is still developing throughout puberty and our prefrontal areas are still developing connections well into our twenties. The way our cortex is ultimately wired and the way our senses become mapped to our external world is affected greatly by the culture in which we develop and the language of that culture. So a practice that was effective a thousand years ago may not work the same way for the modern brain. I see this as why Buddhism, as well as other religions, manifested in so many different ways as it spread from one culture to another. The connections of the brains of each different culture, ideology and language are all a little bit different, with significant ramifications for the type of practice that is effective for each culture.

Increasingly, neuroscientists are finding evidence of functional differences in brain activity and architecture between cultural groups, occupations, and individuals with different skill sets. The implication for neuroanthropology is obvious: forms of enculturation, social norms, training regimens, ritual, and patterns of experience shape how our brains work and are structured. But the predominant reason that culture becomes embodied, even though many anthropologists overlook it, is that neuroanatomy inherently makes experience material. Without material change in the brain, learning, memory, maturation, and even trauma could not happen. Neural systems adapt through long-term refinement and remodeling, which leads to deep enculturation. Through systematic change in the nervous system, the human body learns to orchestrate itself as well as it eventually does. Cultural concepts and meanings become anatomy.
https://neuroanthropology.net/2009/10/08/the-encultured-brain-why-neuroanthropology-why-now/

At the same time I was studying Buddhism, I was also studying the neurosciences and how our brain goes about creating our conscious experience of reality. As you can see from my discussions, I came to view the cortex as the single most important part of the human brain in creating our uniquely human experience, and the part of the brain that is most important in separating us from other primates.
My relationship with Buddhism changed dramatically when I came upon this definition of Nirvana.

Nirvana is defined as the coming to rest of the manifold of named things. - Chandrakirti: Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way

This was a definition I could really sink my teeth into. The part of our brain that names things is the cortex. This definition of nirvana suggested that it was possible to stop the activity of our cortex. It was possible for our awareness to experience reality without the process of naming automatically occurring. The primary function of the cortex is to orchestrate the complex movements that humans engage in during their daily life. This involves inhibiting some movements and adding fine motor control to others. For example the act of human speech involves the manipulation of the human voicebox and our breathing so that speech and breathing can occur concurrently. So if the cortex was involved in the control of our movements, then the way to stop the cortex would be to stop moving, as we do when we go to bed and sleep.
So I began to meditate with the sole objective of not moving. This lead to this experience, which I can still experience in my meditations.

After I had been sitting for some time in a meditative posture, I became aware of the sound of a great river flowing through my ears. My breath became a mighty wind rushing through the caves of my sinuses, in and out like the tide of an unspeakable ocean. Suddenly my eyes rolled over in my head. I was amused and startled because I realized my eyes were not shaped like circular globes but rather like elongated footballs, so they plopped over like a misshapen wheel. The physical coherence of my body dissolved and I became an unlimited amalgamation of countless shimmering orbs/clouds of energy, each emanating a pure white light. This light radiated boundless joy and compassion. The source of the light was a small crystal at the center of each orb. Each crystal vibrated with a unique tone or musical note and together they became what I can only describe as a heavenly symphony. This light radiated boundless joy and compassion. Each breath I took was more pleasurable than anything I had ever experienced. It seemed as each breath brought more pleasure then the sum of all my experiences up to then. The breath flowed through my body like an electrical river of pure energy and joy. I could feel the energy flow in my arms as it crossed over the energy flow in my legs. A small breath would bring this river just to the tips of my fingers, and a large breath would overflow my body with radiant energy. I opened my eyes and saw an unusual and amusing looking creature seated before me, with most of its body wrapped in colorful fabric. There was a sprout of hair at the top and it was making a birdlike chirping sound. I searched the features of this mostly hairless creatures and found the noise was emanating from a small slit in the creatures flesh. Although the noises were meaningless I could see into the creatures mind and knew its thoughts. I looked at a book on the table before me and the words on the cover were only lines, angles and curves and I saw no meaning in them. As this was happening feelings of great joy and compassion flowed through my body. After some time of abiding in this state the world of names and words returned and I saw the creature as my wife and I could read the written words again.

I believe this meditative experience arose as my awareness became separated from the cortical/thalamic complex. However it is not the only kind of meditative experience I have. I also have 'dreamwalking, shamanistic' experiences, where my awareness is still entangled with my cortex, but the activity of my cortex is no longer ‘locked’ to external stimulus.
However, having these type of meditative experiences has lead me to question the efficacy of putting a substantial part of our energy into the maintenance of a daily meditation practice. The Buddha did not recommend this for anyone other than those involved in the monastic lifestyle. When we do so in the West I believe we are at risk of altering the cortical connections we have developed over the period of our development that are ultimately necessary for navigating the unique environment of the modern cityscape. We are also habituating our brain and body into sitting in the meditative posture, making the transcendent states that can arise in meditation more difficult to achieve.
I do not believe our brains are the same as someone who practiced a thousand years ago, and what worked then may not have the same effect today. I believe we should save our deep meditation practice for times when we can devote several hours to our practice, so that when the fruits of meditation arise we have the time to let go and to let what may arise take its natural course. Our daily practice should involve more of the practical aspects of dharma such as study, devotional practices, investigation of the unreliably of our sensory experience and service to others. I feel we are putting way to much energy into discussions revolving around aspects of Buddhist hermeneutics.
Keren Arbel in a youtube discussion, which unfortunately is no longer available, on ‘The 7 factors of Awakening’ she discussed the importance of the 'mindfullness approach'. She views this as the most important factor. She states that the Buddha taught that developing mindfulness leads to investigation. When investigation develops, we have ‘energy’. When the mind investigates into the nature of experience now, in this moment, there is a lot of energy, and when we have energy then we also have joy. This investigation we can do every moment and we don’t need to sit on a cushion for that. She says it is very joyful to see into the nature of experience, even if that particular experience is painful.
If I had to recommend anyone's approach to practice and meditation, it would be Thich Nhat Hanh's. I believe our daily meditation's, if we are Buddhist, should involve the devotional/metta aspects of practice, where we let go of our sense of self and dedicate our energies towards the service of others, generosity and engaging in an investigative process arising from mindfulness that is dedicated towards understanding the nature of suffering and its relationship to the social and cultural environment in which we find ourselves. Deep meditation practice should be saved for those times when we have created the proper environment and conditions, so that if the fruits of our meditation arise, we can let these meditative perceptions unfold without constraint, without having to interrupt them to go pick up the kids.
Progress on the cushion is directly correlated with how much we have learned to "Care, Collaborate and Connect" with our world when we are off the cushion.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-12-mental-health-coping-myth.html
As most meditations involve not moving, the 'brain states' that I elude to are not dependant on the type of meditation but only on that fact we have remained still long enough to let the natural physiological tendencies of our body/brain take their course. I believe we are born with all the tools we need and that our spiritual journey is more a process of finding what is there already... more of a letting go than an adding to. More of a negation of what has been added and a return to a childlike state of potentiality and emptiness.
If we have some understanding of what may happen and why, then it is likely we will have the equanimity to continue to stay with our meditation and we will be able to let what may arise continue unabated. This may also explain the universality of the spiritual/religious experience that seems to have been a part of the human reality throughout history . The physiological relationships between cortical and non cortical awareness are not dependant on the time and place that a human was born, or the belief system that humans may of held. Also there are many plants and fungi that can also alter the normal relationship between cortical and non-cortical awareness, allowing our awareness to move unheeded into different areas of our brain and body. It is apparent that humans were aware of these different substances and these different states of awareness very early in our history, which also facilitated a wide variety of shamanistic experiences. I don't believe these substances are necessary, as I believe there are many different keys that are capable of unlocking the doorway to the transcendent. Nor, on the other hand, should the efficacy of these substances be ignored.
Additional Resources: These titles represent current up to date research and in no way can be considered pseudoscience or popular science.

Meanwhile the scientific study of mental processes has revealed that consciousness is not necessary for rational thought. Inferences can be drawn and decisions made without awareness. This raises a new problem for our understanding of consciousness. Descartes and his contemporaries took it for granted that consciousness was necessary for rational thought and willed, as opposed to automatic, behavior. If not the basis of rational thought, what is the function of consciousness? (p. 12). Kindle Edition.
https://www.wiley.com/en-ca/The+Blackwell+Companion+to+Consciousness%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9780470674062?fbclid=IwAR2PNeqZSsI0-QEt6kZnJAfeTpJgsIhhjNEiunwURIrW242U6IdRRNdOT3M

2 books concerning how 'self' arises in the brain...

Biological theorists who seek to explain consciousness have gotten stuck in the cerebral cortex, citing it as the situs of consciousness, i.e., where consciousness arises. I will challenge this notion and, accordingly, offer a new theory of how we become conscious during various natural or induced states in which we are unconscious. Pfaff, Donald. How Brain Arousal Mechanisms Work (Kindle Locations 107-110). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition. University Press.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180723143007.htm?fbclid=IwAR0H8Nvkjx7_IqMykywOdpWzRR1RERVSKwYsbcoP2oH3m5Bn0AlZ273IBog
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/how-brain-arousal-mechanisms-work/4078E3DFD96FAF9B58FFBCD772E08CDD?fbclid=IwAR0rISvpuAvhC2IB3uP2c4BVY9lGQ7-I8tIdJVPIMliH1Ce6iMfjIMGAGkM
But, even though it operates subliminally, as we begin to understand the cerebellar self, we also start to appreciate how important it is to our perception of our surroundings, how we move, and even the implicit sense of agency we have in our interactions with the world. Montgomery, John. Evolution of the Cerebellar Sense of Self (p. 2). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
https://academic.oup.com/book/9812?login=false&fbclid=IwAR2lTL_mvhAQKhTY5WEzMjJ-cXizMriEqNjzJgC1CVUWOh6PSZ4B_zDQP50

In these books you will be introduced to parts of our brain that perform different functions. Once we understand what these parts of the brain are, what they look like and where they are situated, and what function they perform we can direct our awareness to these different parts of the brain during our meditation and gradually learn to recognize their activity. Gradually we can gain some conscious control over these different parts of our brain. It is interesting that "mindfulness" originates from the Pali word sati. According to Bryan Levman writing in the Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, "the word sati incorporates the meaning of 'memory' and 'remembrance'.
Samatha meditation develops samadhi or concentration by focusing attention. Samatha would correlate with the cerebral cortex and its hemispheres. Mindfullness moves our awareness down into our limbic system and the parts of our brain related to memory and remembrance, like the hippocampus, hypothalamus. Our awareness can go still deeper into structures in our midbrain and brainstem...and we get into the realms of Vipassana. Plasticity is sited as proof that meditation is doing something positive for our brain. However, the brain has developed the connections it has over our period of development to optimize the way different parts of our brain our connected. We do not want to be changing these connections between different parts of our brain unless we are in a very controlled environment like in a monastery. For example if we alter the connections between cerebellum and cortex then we can experience schizophrenic and dissociative symptoms. The book on the cerebellum discusses this. Once these connections are disrupted, for some people the cortex will now be experienced as 'other' rather than self which is why some people will hear voices and see things as really there which are arising only in their cortex like a dream. If we change our connections between different areas of our brain we make it much more difficult for our awareness to move freely throughout our brain...and ultimately into the Vipassana or 'insight' areas of the midbrain and brainstem.

https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/camh.12600?fbclid=IwAR0pXTXMBqhaepmiGCavjXWjnTjsK_KuvgEbVjk8CBkHBm_uv-A1XNEbVoo

1 Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient
Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI)
The VCI typically comprises several subtests that evaluate various aspects of verbal comprehension, including vocabulary, comprehension of verbal instructions, abstract verbal reasoning, and verbal concept formation.
Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI)
The PRI provides an overall measure of an individual's non-verbal reasoning abilities, reflecting their capacity to understand and manipulate visual information and solve problems without relying on verbal cues.
Working Memory Index (WMI)
The WMI provides an overall measure of an individual's working memory capacity and efficiency, reflecting their ability to temporarily store and manipulate information to perform cognitive tasks.
Auditory Working Memory Index (AWMI)
The AWMI provides an overall measure of an individual's auditory working memory capacity and efficiency, reflecting their ability to temporarily store and manipulate auditory information to perform cognitive tasks.
Processing Speed Index (PSI)
The PSI provides an overall measure of an individual's ability to quickly and accurately process visual information, make rapid decisions, and execute motor responses.
Visual Spatial Index (VSI)
The VSI provides an overall measure of an individual's visual-spatial abilities, reflecting their capacity to perceive, analyze, and manipulate visual information to solve problems.
Crystallized Reasoning Index (CRI)
The CRI provides an overall measure of an individual's verbal comprehension, abstract reasoning, and accumulated knowledge.
Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI)
The FRI provides an overall measure of an individual's ability to think abstractly, reason logically, and solve problems in novel situations.
Non-Verbal Index (NVI)
The NVI provides an overall measure of an individual's cognitive abilities, focusing on non-verbal reasoning, spatial skills, and visual processing.
Cognitive Flexibility Index (CFI)
The CFI provides an overall measure of an individual's cognitive flexibility, which is essential for adapting to new situations, problem-solving, and learning.
Information Processing Index (IPI)
The IPI provides an overall measure of an individual's efficiency in processing and integrating information across various cognitive domains.
Auditory Processing Index (API)
The API provides an overall measure of an individual's auditory processing abilities, including auditory discrimination, comprehension, attention, and memory.
Reading Comprehension Index (RCI)
The RCI provides an overall measure of an individual's reading comprehension abilities, including their ability to understand written text, extract meaning, and answer questions about the content.
Executive Functioning Index (EFI)
The EFI provides an overall measure of an individual's executive functioning skills, including their ability to regulate attention, control impulses, manage working memory, shift between tasks, plan and organize, and solve problems effectively.
2 Intelligence
Crystallized Intelligence
Crystallized intelligence refers to the accumulation of knowledge, facts, and skills that a person acquires throughout their lifetime. It's the ability to use information, experience, and skills that have been acquired over time.
Fluid Intelligence
Fluid intelligence refers to the ability to think logically and solve problems in novel situations, independent of acquired knowledge and experience. It involves reasoning, abstract thinking, and problem-solving skills that aren't reliant on previously learned information.
Logical-Mathematical Intelligence
Logical-mathematical intelligence refers to the ability to reason, analyze problems logically, and perform mathematical operations effectively.
Linguistic Intelligence
Linguistic intelligence refers to the ability to understand, analyze, and use language effectively.
Spatial Intelligence
Spatial intelligence refers to the ability to perceive, understand, and mentally manipulate spatial relationships.
Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence
Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence refers to the ability to control one's body movements and handle objects skillfully.
Musical Intelligence
Musical intelligence refers to the ability to understand, create, and appreciate music. Individuals with high musical intelligence have a sensitivity to rhythm, melody, pitch, and timbre, and they can express themselves through music in various ways.
Naturalistic Intelligence
Naturalistic intelligence refers to the ability to recognize, understand, and interact with the natural world.
Existential Intelligence
Existential intelligence refers to the ability to contemplate and grapple with deep existential questions about human existence, purpose, and meaning. Individuals with high existential intelligence are introspective, philosophical, and reflective about the fundamental aspects of life.
Creative Intelligence
Creative intelligence is the ability to generate novel and useful ideas, solutions, and products. It involves thinking divergently, making unconventional connections, and approaching problems with originality and flexibility.
Practical Intelligence
Practical intelligence, also known as "street smarts" or "common sense," refers to the ability to apply knowledge and skills to real-life situations effectively.
Social Intelligence
Social intelligence, also known as "emotional intelligence" or "people skills," refers to the ability to understand and manage one's own emotions, as well as to understand and influence the emotions of others. It involves effective communication, empathy, interpersonal skills, and the ability to navigate social situations successfully.
Intuitive Intelligence
Intuitive intelligence, sometimes referred to as "gut feeling" or "instinct," is the ability to understand or know something without conscious reasoning or analysis.
Intrapersonal Intelligence
Intrapersonal intelligence refers to the ability to understand oneself, including one's own thoughts, feelings, motivations, and goals.
Interpersonal Intelligence
Interpersonal intelligence refers to the ability to understand and interact effectively with others. Individuals with high interpersonal intelligence are skilled at perceiving and understanding the emotions, motivations, and intentions of others, and they excel in building positive relationships and resolving conflicts.
3 Knowledge
Intuition Knowledge
Intuition knowledge is a form of understanding that doesn't rely on conscious reasoning or analytical thinking. Instead, it's a subconscious process where insights and understanding seem to come out of nowhere, often referred to as a "gut feeling" or a "hunch”.
Perception Knowledge
Perception knowledge refers to the understanding and insights gained through the process of perception, which involves interpreting sensory information from the environment.
Academic Knowledge
Academic knowledge refers to the knowledge and understanding acquired through formal education in academic disciplines such as mathematics, science, literature, history, and more.
Comprehension Knowledge
Comprehension knowledge refers to the ability to understand and make sense of information, ideas, and concepts.
4 Full-Scale Social/Emotional Quotient
Social/Emotional Management
Social and emotional management refers to the ability to recognize, understand, and regulate one's own emotions, as well as to understand and navigate social interactions effectively
Social/Emotional Engagement
Social and emotional engagement refers to actively participating in and connecting with others on an emotional level.
Social/Emotional Understanding
Social and emotional understanding involves comprehending both our own emotions and those of others, as well as understanding how these emotions influence behavior and relationships.
Social/Emotional Perception
Social and emotional perception refers to the ability to accurately perceive and interpret social cues, emotions, and interpersonal dynamics.
Social/Emotional Awareness
Social and emotional awareness involves understanding and recognizing both our own emotions and the emotions of others, as well as the impact these emotions have on behavior and relationships.
Social/Emotional Self-Awareness
Social and emotional self-awareness is the foundation of emotional intelligence, involving recognizing and understanding one's own emotions, thoughts, and values.
Social/Emotional Expression
Social and emotional expression involves effectively communicating and conveying one's feelings, thoughts, and needs to others.
Social/Emotional Resilience
Social and emotional resilience refers to the ability to adapt to and bounce back from adversity, challenges, and stressors in life while maintaining a sense of well-being and optimism.
Social/Emotional Self-Regulation
Social and emotional self-regulation involves managing and controlling one's own emotions, thoughts, and behaviors in various situations.
Social/Emotional Motivation
Social and emotional motivation refers to the drive and energy behind our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, particularly in relation to social interactions and emotional experiences.
Social/Emotional Leadership
Social and emotional leadership refers to the ability to effectively lead and influence others while demonstrating strong emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills.
Social/Emotional Influence
Social and emotional influence refers to the ability to impact the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of others through emotional intelligence, empathy, and interpersonal skills.
Social/Emotional Empathy
Social and emotional empathy refers to the ability to understand and share the emotions and experiences of others. It involves both cognitive and emotional components, allowing individuals to connect with others on a deeper level.
Social/Emotional Skills
Social and emotional skills encompass a range of abilities that enable individuals to understand and manage their own emotions, communicate effectively, build and maintain relationships, and navigate social situations successfully.
Social/Emotional Conflict Resolution
Social and emotional conflict resolution involves effectively managing and resolving disagreements, tensions, and misunderstandings in a way that preserves relationships and fosters mutual understanding.
Social/Emotional Stress Management
Social and emotional stress management involves techniques and strategies to cope with and reduce stress, anxiety, and other negative emotions effectively.
5 Manipulation
Financial Manipulation
Financial manipulation refers to the deliberate act of distorting financial data, statements, or transactions to mislead investors, creditors, or the public about the financial performance or health of a company, institution, or market.
Event Manipulation
Event manipulation refers to the deliberate interference or manipulation of events to achieve a specific outcome or to gain an advantage.
Direct Manipulation
Direct manipulation involves exerting influence or control over a person through immediate and explicit actions or communication.
Indirect Manipulation
Indirect manipulation, on the other hand, involves influencing someone without their immediate awareness or through more subtle means.
Gaslighting Manipulation
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or sanity.
Guilt-Tripping Manipulation
Guilt-tripping manipulation is a tactic used to control or influence someone's behavior by making them feel guilty or ashamed about their actions, decisions, or feelings. It involves exploiting the target's emotions, particularly their sense of empathy or obligation, to get what the manipulator wants.
Triangulation Manipulation
Triangulation manipulation is a tactic used by manipulators to control or manipulate relationships by introducing a third party into the dynamic. The third party is often used as a tool to create tension, jealousy, or insecurity between two people, making one person feel more dependent on the manipulator for validation or support.
Silent Treatment Manipulation
The silent treatment is a form of manipulation where one person in a relationship intentionally ignores or withholds communication from the other as a way to exert control, punish, or manipulate them.
Isolation Manipulation
Isolation manipulation is a tactic used by manipulators to control or exert power over their targets by isolating them from friends, family, or support networks. This isolation makes the target more dependent on the manipulator for validation, guidance, and social interaction.
Seduction Manipulation
Seduction manipulation is a tactic used by manipulators to influence, control, or exploit others through charm, flattery, and seductive behavior. It involves using romantic or sexual appeal to gain power or advantage over the target.
Love-Bombing Manipulation
Love-bombing manipulation is a tactic used by manipulators to quickly gain control or influence over a target by overwhelming them with affection, attention, and flattery. It involves showering the target with intense expressions of love, admiration, and affection to create a deep emotional bond and dependency.
Flattery Manipulation
Flattery manipulation is a tactic used by manipulators to influence, control, or exploit others by excessively praising or complimenting them. It involves using flattery to gain favor, trust, or compliance from the target.
White Knight Manipulation
White knight manipulation is a tactic used by manipulators to present themselves as heroes or saviors, typically in romantic or interpersonal situations, with the goal of gaining control, admiration, or validation.
Blackmail Manipulation
Blackmail manipulation is a coercive tactic used by manipulators to control, intimidate, or exploit others by threatening to reveal damaging or incriminating information about them. It involves using the threat of exposure to manipulate the target into complying with the manipulator's demands.
Extortion Manipulation
Extortion manipulation is a coercive tactic used by manipulators to obtain something of value from another person through threats, intimidation, or coercion. It involves using the threat of harm or loss to force the target into complying with the manipulator's demands.
Fear Mongering Manipulation
Fear mongering manipulation is a tactic used by individuals or groups to control, influence, or exploit others by instilling fear, anxiety, or panic. It involves exaggerating or fabricating threats, dangers, or risks to manipulate the target's emotions and behavior.
Divide and Conquer Manipulation
Divide and conquer manipulation is a strategy used by manipulators to gain control or influence by creating division, conflict, or distrust between individuals or groups. It involves exploiting existing tensions or differences to weaken opposition and increase the manipulator's power.
Selective Disclosure Manipulation
Selective disclosure manipulation is a tactic used by manipulators to control or influence others by strategically revealing or withholding information. It involves carefully choosing what information to disclose and when, in order to manipulate perceptions, decisions, or behavior.
Scapegoating Manipulation
Scapegoating manipulation is a tactic used by manipulators to shift blame, responsibility, or negative attention onto a particular individual or group. It involves singling out someone as the cause of problems or conflicts, often unfairly, to deflect attention from the real issues or to manipulate perceptions.
Negotiation Manipulation
Negotiation manipulation is a tactic used by individuals to influence negotiations in their favor by employing various deceptive or strategic techniques. It involves using psychological tactics, misinformation, or power dynamics to achieve desired outcomes.
6 Deception
Verbal Deception
Verbal deception, also known as lying or deceit through spoken language, is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon involving deliberate manipulation of information to mislead others.
Practical Deception
Practical or physical deception involves misleading others through actions, behaviors, or physical objects rather than through spoken language.
Fabrication Deception
Fabrication deception involves creating and presenting false information as if it were true. This type of deception is distinct in that it introduces completely fabricated elements into a narrative or communication, as opposed to merely manipulating or omitting existing facts.
Falsification Deception
Falsification deception is a nuanced form of deception where individuals intentionally manipulate data, evidence, or facts to create a false narrative or lead others to believe that certain information is untrue.
Emotional Deception
Emotional deception involves manipulating or feigning emotions to mislead others or achieve specific goals. It's a subtle form of deception that involves controlling one's emotional expressions, whether through facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, or verbal cues, to create a false impression or manipulate the perceptions of others.
Omission Deception
Omission deception, also known as lying by omission, is a form of deception where relevant information is deliberately withheld or concealed to mislead others. Unlike outright lies where false information is provided, omission deception involves leaving out key details or facts that would change the recipient's understanding of the situation.
Bluffing Deception
Bluffing deception is a tactic where individuals use false information, threats, or confidence to mislead others, typically in competitive or strategic situations. It involves making claims or taking actions that are not entirely truthful or are exaggerated in order to gain an advantage.
7 Reasoning
Logical Reasoning
Logical reasoning is the process of using rational procedures to draw conclusions from premises, facts, or evidence. It involves analyzing and evaluating information to make logical deductions and reach valid conclusions.
Illogical Reasoning
Illogical reasoning is the process of using irrational procedures to draw conclusions. Taking two or more illogical concepts to cancel each other out, for example.
Deductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning is a method of logical procedures where you draw specific conclusions from general principles or premises.
Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning is a method of logical procedures where you generalize from specific observations to form a broader conclusion.
Abductive Reasoning
Abductive reasoning, also known as inference to the best explanation, is a form of logical procedures where you generate hypotheses or explanations to account for observed evidence or phenomena.
Numerical Reasoning
Numerical reasoning is a type of cognitive ability that involves understanding and manipulating numerical information to solve problems.
Analogical Reasoning
Analogical reasoning is a form of logical procedures that involves identifying similarities between two or more situations and using these similarities to draw conclusions or solve problems.
Causal Reasoning
Causal reasoning is a type of logical procedures that involves understanding cause-and-effect relationships between events or variables.
Counterfactual Reasoning
Counterfactual reasoning is a type of logical procedures that involves imagining alternative outcomes or scenarios by changing one or more elements of a situation while keeping others constant.
Moral Reasoning
Moral reasoning is a type of cognitive process that involves making judgments about what is right or wrong, good or bad, based on ethical principles or moral values.
8 Thinking
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the process of actively analyzing, interpreting, synthesizing, evaluating, and reflecting on information gathered from observation, experience, reasoning, or communication. It is a disciplined way of thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.
Creative Thinking
Creative thinking is the ability to generate new ideas, concepts, or solutions by exploring possibilities, making connections, and thinking outside the box. Creative thinking involves divergent and unconventional approaches to problem-solving and innovation.
Lateral Thinking
Lateral thinking, refers to a problem-solving approach that involves looking at challenges from new and unexpected angles. Lateral thinking seeks to disrupt conventional patterns and generate creative solutions by thinking outside the box.
Linear Thinking
Linear thinking, also known as sequential thinking, is a logical, step-by-step approach to problem-solving and analysis. This method follows a straight, clear progression from one stage to the next, often in a cause-and-effect manner.
Non-linear Thinking
Non-linear thinking is a cognitive approach that involves exploring multiple possibilities, connections, and perspectives simultaneously.
Analytical Thinking
Analytical thinking is a systematic, logical approach to problem-solving and decision-making that involves breaking down complex information into manageable parts, evaluating each component, and synthesizing the findings to arrive at a well-reasoned conclusion.
Abstract Thinking
Abstract thinking is a cognitive process that involves thinking about ideas, concepts, and principles that are not tied to concrete physical realities. It is the ability to consider things that are not immediately present and to understand complex concepts that may not have a direct physical representation.
Holistic Thinking
Holistic thinking is a cognitive approach that involves understanding systems, situations, or problems in their entirety, rather than focusing on individual components in isolation. It emphasizes the interconnections and relationships between different parts of a system and how they contribute to the functioning of the whole.
Conceptual Thinking
Conceptual thinking is a cognitive process that involves understanding and organizing information through the use of overarching ideas and concepts. It allows individuals to see patterns, make connections, and understand the broader context or framework within which specific details exist.
Systematic Thinking
Systematic thinking is an approach to problem-solving and decision-making that emphasizes methodical and organized processes. It involves breaking down complex issues into manageable steps, applying structured methodologies, and systematically evaluating information to reach well-informed conclusions.
Convergent Thinking
Convergent thinking is a cognitive process that focuses on finding a single, correct solution to a problem. It involves narrowing down possibilities and selecting the most appropriate option based on predefined criteria.
Divergent Thinking
Divergent thinking is a cognitive process that involves generating multiple, creative solutions or ideas to a problem or question. Divergent thinking encourages exploration of various possibilities, perspectives, and potential outcomes.
Associative Thinking
Associative thinking is a cognitive process that involves making connections between seemingly unrelated ideas, concepts, or experiences. It is the ability to link together different pieces of information based on similarities, relationships, or shared characteristics.
Reflective Thinking
Reflective thinking is a cognitive process that involves self-awareness, introspection, and critical analysis of one's thoughts, experiences, and actions. It goes beyond simply thinking about what happened and delves into why it happened, what it means, and how it can inform future behavior or decision-making.
9 Information
Information Gathering
Information gathering is the systematic process of collecting data about a target, typically a person, organization, or system.
Information Processing
Information processing refers to the manipulation, organization, and transformation of data to extract meaning, make decisions, and solve problems.
Information Control
Information control refers to the management, regulation, and manipulation of information within a system, organization, or society. It involves controlling the flow, access, distribution, and dissemination of information to achieve specific goals or objectives.
Information Manipulation
Information manipulation refers to the intentional alteration, distortion, or misrepresentation of information to influence perceptions, beliefs, decisions, or behaviors.
10 Tactics
(Tactics are straight forward and short term maneuvers made on the spot in short bursts.)
Tactics Complexity
Tactics complexity refers to the intricacy and multifaceted nature of the decisions and actions involved in implementing tactical plans.
Tactics Versatility
Tactics versatility refers to the ability of tactics or actions to adapt to a variety of situations, conditions, and objectives.
Tactics Risk Assessment
Tactics risk assessment is the process of identifying, analyzing, and mitigating risks associated with tactical actions.
Tactics Deception
Tactics deception involves the deliberate deception of information or perception to mislead opponents concerning the tactics you have.
Tactics Resilience
Tactics resilience refers to the ability to withstand and adapt to adversity, challenges, and unexpected events of other tactics while maintaining effectiveness and achieving objectives.
11 Strategy
(Strategies are complicated and mostly medium term maneuvers made shortly before their execution.)
Strategy Length
Strategy length refers to the time horizon over which a strategy is designed to be effective. It essentially defines the period during which an organization or individual expects their strategic plan to produce desired outcomes.
Strategy Complexity
Strategy complexity refers to the intricacy and sophistication of the plans, processes, and decisions involved in formulating and executing a strategy.
Strategy Versatility
Strategy versatility refers to the adaptability and flexibility of a strategy to be applied across different contexts, situations, or challenges.
Strategy Risk Assessment
Strategy risk assessment involves evaluating potential threats and uncertainties that could affect the successful execution of a strategy.
Strategy Deception
Strategy deception involves the deliberate deception of information or perception to mislead opponents concerning the strategies you have.
Strategy Resilience
Strategy resilience refers to the ability of a strategic approach to withstand and adapt to disruptions, uncertainties, and challenges of other strategies while maintaining its core objectives and effectiveness.
12 Planning
(Planning is a maneuver that includes the most content within it while also lasting anywhere from short to long term. Planning is usually done in preparation, long before their execution.)
Short-Term Planning
Short-term planning involves the formulation of specific, actionable steps to achieve immediate goals within a relatively brief timeframe.
Long-Term Planning
Long-term planning involves the formulation of strategies and initiatives designed to achieve overarching goals and objectives over an extended period.
Planning Contingency
Contingency planning involves preparing for potential risks, uncertainties, and unforeseen events that may disrupt the execution of plans or threaten the achievement of goals.
Planning Coverage
Planning coverage refers to the extent to which a planning process addresses all relevant aspects, factors, and contingencies to achieve its objectives effectively.
Planning Versatility
Planning versatility refers to the ability of a plan to adapt and be applied across different scenarios, contexts, and objectives while remaining effective and relevant.
Planning Risk Assessment
Planning risk assessment involves identifying, analyzing, and evaluating potential risks and uncertainties that could impact the success of a plan.
Planning Deception
Planning deception involves the deliberate use of misleading information, tactics, or strategies to manipulate the perception of what your plan is.
Planning Resilience
Planning resilience involves designing a plan to anticipate, withstand, adapt to, and recover from disruptions, challenges, or crises effectively.
13 Analysis
Descriptive Analysis
Descriptive analysis is a statistical method used to summarize and describe present features. It involves organizing, displaying, and summarizing data in a meaningful way to understand its characteristics.
Diagnostic Analysis
Diagnostic analysis, also known as diagnostic analytics, is a type of data analysis that focuses on identifying past features. It involves examining historical data, patterns, and relationships to uncover insights that can help diagnose the underlying factors contributing to a particular outcome or situation.
Prescriptive Analysis
Prescriptive analysis is an advanced form of data analytics that focuses on recommending future actions or decisions to optimize outcomes or achieve specific goals.
14 Methods
Empirical Methods
Empirical methods are approaches to acquiring knowledge and understanding or to complete actions through observation, experience, or experimentation.
Analytical Methods
Analytical methods refer to techniques used to analyze and interpret data, often in a systematic and quantitative manner.
Heuristic Methods
Heuristic methods are problem-solving strategies or approaches that rely on practical, intuitive, and experience-based techniques rather than strictly following formal rules or algorithms.
15 Reading
Hot Reading
Hot reading is a form of reading where the reader has prior knowledge about the person they're reading, often obtained through research or communication with accomplices.
Cold Reading
Cold reading is a technique used to gain insight about a person without any prior knowledge using observation, deduction, and the manipulation of generalities.

ON FREE WILL
SWAMIJI: It has been well said that every particle of our
body – call them cells, or whatever they are – are
concretisations, manifestations, solid forms of the
cumulative force exerted upon a particular center called the
human individuality by the total action of the planets and
the sun. So, you are a child of the solar system. You are not
born to any father or mother and all that; these are all social
interpretations of your position, but you have a larger
stellar relation. You are a citizen of the solar system.
We should not be under the impression that the sun is
so far away, the planets are invisible to the eyes, and stars
are still further. It is nothing of the kind. There is no
distance in this electromagnetic field of the stellar region,
the solar atmosphere. “Electromagnetic field” is the
description we can give of the manner in which the entire
atmosphere works. It is not visible to the physical eye. So
forceful, so powerful is this influence that it concretizes
itself in certain forms which are called individualities. They
may be the forms of the plant kingdom or animal kingdom,
or human kingdom.
But, there is something more about it. The entire
structure of space-time is the parent of how the stellar
system operates. Space-time is a complex existence which
far surpasses, in extent and range, the whole world that you
call the solar system or the stellar region. It is the influence
exerted by the very operation of this endless space-time
complex that congealed itself in the form of the solar
system, the Milky Way, etc., and further down to the bodies
like ours, so that we are little, tiny drops in the sea of
electromagnetic force generated by what you call spacetime
continuum. So, you are not sitting in Rishikesh, nor in
Delhi, nor in any other place. There is no such thing as
earth. It is only a name that we give to a concentrated form
of cosmic energy, of which we are a part.
We are born into this body by the cumulative action of
various forces. One of them is the food that we eat. The
mother’s diet has a great influence upon the formation of
the child in the womb. Whatever diet you may conceive in
your mind is a form of earth principle, water principle, fire
principle, air principle, and space-time principle. These put
together act upon a personality, and we cannot say whose
children we are, to which country we belong, what our
nationality is. Our father is somewhere else, of whom we
have no knowledge, and about whom we do not think one
minute, as if He is redundant.
Every atom of space has eyes. There is cosmic
intelligence pervading everywhere. This cosmic intelligence
which is ensouling the entire physical cosmos can be
interpreted as something cosmically in relation to the
intelligence pervading your personality. Dr. Rao or
Krishnamurty – they are not what is visible to the eyes
before a photographic camera. “Dr. Rao has come.” It does
not mean that a six-foot physical body has come. It does
not mean that. It is a significance; it is a meaning, isn’t it?
Or is it a fleshy, bony individual walking – because there
are many such individuals in the world. The significance is
what you call “yourself.” There is a meaning in you; that
meaning is what you are. This meaning is the creative force
11
behind our existence, so that we exist not because of our
individual initiative which appears to be there. The socalled
initiative of ours, the effort that we put forth, is an
impulsion that comes from the center of the cosmos. If that
center does not operate, we cannot lift a finger; it will
collapse. The finger does not lift, and the legs do not walk,
merely because of the food that we eat or the medicines that
we take. It is because of the permission that has come from
the center. If the whole body is sick, every limb of the body
also is sick.
Dr. P. C. Rao: Swamiji, is this permission only to act, or to
act in a particular manner?
SWAMIJI: To exist itself.
Dr. P. C. Rao: To exist, and to act in a particular manner,
too?
SWAMIJI: That also. Now, why should it permit you to act
in a particular manner? That also is another question. It can
permit you to act in some other way also than the way in
which you are working. That is conditioned by your
previous incarnations. Why do mirrors reflect different
kinds of light?
Dr. P. C. Rao: I want to ask a few questions. I do
intellectually comprehend the message that you have given
me, because I am also capable of thinking abstract thoughts.
Now, the books that I have helped me at least in arriving at
a hypothesis – what I think is a hypothesis. And this is the
very thought every day I go through. If this is meditation, I
am going through that meditation. But, before I come to
12
the next step, if you say that I am here because of the force
given to me by an external force. . .
SWAMIJI: Yes, yes, yes. It has formed you and conditioned
you and made you what you are, including the
circumstances in which you are born and even the length of
your life, and the mode of your existence, and the manner
of your action. Everything is conditioned by that.
Dr. P. C. Rao: If everything is conditioned by that, I become
an agent.
SWAMIJI: You are not an agent. It itself is doing it. There is
no such thing as Mr. Rao or anybody. It doesn’t exist. You
see, when the finger is moving, the finger is not moving. It
is the whole body that is ordering it to get up like that. So,
we are like fingers of this cosmic force, and it orders that
you move in this particular way. If the finger had, by
chance, a consciousness of its own, it would think it is
moving independently.
Dr. P. C. Rao: This analogy may not hold good because if I
were to order from a central point this finger to move, the
finger does not act on its own. The finger does exactly what
I indicate. It does not have an independent existence,
Swamiji.
SWAMIJI: That is what I am saying. There is no
independent existence for anything.
Dr. P. C. Rao: No. If that is so, then, while I go through
various births and deaths, where do I evolve separately
from the messages?
13
SWAMIJI: The whole point is that births and deaths should
not take place, really speaking, if this consciousness is
already there. But, somehow or other this takes place
because this consciousness has not been implanted properly
in the individuality. The ego functions as if it is outside.
Dr. P. C. Rao: But who has implanted it?
SWAMIJI: That, nobody can say. It is like asking who
created the world.
Dr. P. C. Rao: You said that in the Canadian lawyer Larry’s
questions. Exactly the same answer has been given.
SWAMIJI: Somehow or other the spark or the part has
assumed an independence; that independence is called
egoism.
Dr. P. C. Rao: But you say ultimately it has not. It appears to
exist, but it does not.
SWAMIJI: It should not be there and it is not really there
also. If this personality called the ego appreciates this
position, it will surrender itself to the total whole, to which
it belongs, of which it is a part – why a part? It itself is That.
Then the whole force of the cosmos will enter it and you
will feel an inner strength which cannot be compared with
any other strength that you have in this world. So why I am
telling all this is, in one minute you are in a state of
meditation, provided you are able to collect your thoughts
and put them in the proper context. It doesn’t require one
hour. Immediately you are That – you are just that which
you are contemplating on.
14
Dr. P. C. Rao: Therefore, I am thinking of me being That, or
That being me, or whatever the whole thing is.
SWAMIJI: And also, when you say “That,” you should not
imagine a distance between yourself and That. There is no
distance. It is a total integration of consciousness where
distance is abolished automatically.
Dr. P. C. Rao: So, you want to concentrate on the fact that
there is no distance between you and That – that you are
That.
SWAMIJI: Yes; there is no distance between anything. It is
one Being. So this one Being is what people call God. There
is no God outside.
Dr. P. C. Rao: This is where the intellectual exposition gets,
in me anyhow – while I do understand the proposition that
That is not divisible, I arrive at the root through different
ways, but I arrive at the same proposition. I suppose this is
very close to the Upanishadic principles. Now, once I come
to the conclusion that It is not different from me, I am still
unable, because I am still pursuing the logical path as to
how I have to come to the separate feeling that I come to
feel that I am separate, and that is where you say that we
cannot take this enquiry beyond a particular level. In other
words, it cannot be explained as to how we have come to
feel that we are separate from That.
SWAMIJI: The difficulty is that we are unable to go beyond
the level of the comprehension of egoistic personality. In
whatever way we think, we assume that we are existing.
15
Even the consciousness that “I am meditating” – that also
must go.
Dr. P. C. Rao: That means you must dissolve yourself. Now
the other thing is that somebody else does this thing and it
gives the principle of life. Life itself is infused in you
because of that particular thing. Independent of that, you
are nothing. Then, also you are not allowing me to go
logically on that principle and say, “If I am not independent
of that and it is controlling me, the one who is controlling
me should control anything.”
SWAMIJI: He does control everything.
Dr. P. C. Rao: If He does, then why should I be thinking and
get blamed for anything at all?
SWAMIJI: You will not get blamed for that, provided that
you are sure that you are not doing it. But you are not sure
of it. You feel that you are doing it. If that kind of total
inseparable identity with the whole is felt by you, your
actions cannot bind you. The Bhagavad Gita is that only.
Dr. P. C. Rao: But coming to that conclusion, I must cross
these hurdles.
SWAMIJI: That is up to you. You can adopt any method.
The Bhagavad Gita is this much: No action can bind you,
provided that vision of the cosmos is before you.
Dr. P. C. Rao: It is my way of looking at it. While the
proposition that there is a Universal Principle, and It is
indivisible, is logically arguable (that far I am prepared to
go), the relationship between what is called individual and
the Universal I think depends upon. . .
16
SWAMIJI: You see, there is a conceptual relation, but not a
real relation. And conceptual relation is not. . .
Dr. P. C. Rao: It is only after you go beyond the concept that
you feel you get integrated with that principle. First you
have to go through that evolution, thinking process.
SWAMIJI: That is meditation. Again and again assert that
position.
Dr. P. C. Rao: Swamiji, whatever you say gets implanted in
me and I don’t leave it. I keep thinking this every day, but
yet I have not evolved into that.
SWAMIJI: The very fact that you are able to understand that
shows that you have evolved enough to make it a part of
your life.
Dr. P. C. Rao: I am not satisfied with that, Swamiji.
SWAMIJI: You are not giving sufficient time to think.
Dr. P. C. Rao: Either I am not giving sufficient time to think,
or I have really come to a stage where I am unable to break
through.
SWAMIJI: You are not unable to understand; you can
understand it. The only thing is that you have to assert it in
your consciousness. And you are not going to be a loser.
You are actually going to be a gainer by that. Your
dimension will be enhanced, and why should you say that
you have no time to think while it is the thing that you are
actually aspiring for? Don’t you want to become a larger
person of a larger dimension? How can you say that you
have no time?
17
Dr. P. C. Rao: Otherwise, this enquiry would have been
given up.
SWAMIJI: Don’t you like to be promoted? You should not
say, “I have no time to think of it like that.” You will
certainly find time if you are going to . . .
Dr. P. C. Rao: I do find – it is not physically finding time. I
have, to some extent, read all your books. . .
SWAMIJI: It is not actually the question of physically
finding time. It is the quality of thought. It should just take
possession of you, as when a person is drowning in water.
Only one thought will be there at that time. You will be
thinking nothing else.
Dr. P. C. Rao: The Canadian lawyer’s questions are very
much my questions, and they will continue to be my
questions. In terms of intellectual satisfaction, the Canadian
lawyer’s questions, his wife’s questions, still continue to
haunt me because they happen to be my own questions.
SWAMIJI: It is everybody’s question.
Dr. P. C. Rao: The answers you have given have not
completely dissolved my doubts.
SWAMIJI: You have to ponder over that again and again,
and the whole thought should sink into your feeling, so that
you are living that thought. You are not simply thinking it,
you are that.
Dr. P. C. Rao: And then the environment in which I live, as
we were discussing – the Sankaracharyas and various
intellectual or religious leaders, etc. – they go about their
18
activities, but it doesn’t generate the amount of faith that
one hopes these leaders do.
SWAMIJI: They are unnecessarily interfering in matters
which are to nobody’s good. There is no benefit. No
purpose is served by that. They come so low to the
segmented social level. It is not their duty also. They are
supposed to inspire you spiritually in a divine manner, not
interfere in political governments. That is not their duty.
What is the purpose? Why are they so much interested in
it? Though political activity is worthwhile, there are other
people to do that. Why are these people doing that? If
everybody becomes only a politician, then who will be there
to think and impart knowledge? Everybody can become a
businessman. Then, what will happen?
Sri C. G. Krishnamurty: But then Swamiji, how about the
gunas? If no two human beings are the same, and if all of
them are parts of the same whole. . .
SWAMIJI: In that condition of your deep meditation, the
gunas will cease to operate. The gunas will not operate at
that time. If at all there is some guna, it is sattva guna at
that time. No rajas and tamas will be there at that time.
Only when you assert your individual personality, the rajas
and tamas will come. Rajas and tamas are characteristics of
the ego consciousness, whereas sattva is of divine
consciousness. And gradually they will evaporate. What is
the time now? We sit for meditation and you can also sit.
We sit at five o’clock, from five to six.
Dr. P. C. Rao: Reading-wise, I read practically all of your
books, and I read the message directly given to me by you
19
on each of my visits. They make a very deep impact on me.
But yet, I am still a doubting Thomas you may call it – I am
a person who has to be intellectually satisfied.
SWAMIJI: I think to a large extent you have been satisfied.
Dr. P. C. Rao: No, Swamiji. In other words, I am satisfied up
to the stage that there is a Universal Principle, and that It is
indivisible – that there is no birth and death, etc. Up to that,
logically it is arguable.
SWAMIJI: But you must know the conclusion from that.
Dr. P. C. Rao: That is the stage of the Universal and the
individual. You know in Christianity, Hinduism – I think
each religion tried to explain this very relationship, and
they have done so in their own manner, but sometimes I
feel perhaps this is only intellectually explained. So, for me,
you could say I am somewhat confused.
SWAMIJI: When the intellect asserts itself in deep
contemplation, it becomes feeling, and if the intellect and
the feeling go together, they can create a flash of what is
called intuition. Intuition is nothing but the blending
together of intellect and feeling. They are generally acting
separately. What we understand, we don’t feel; and what we
feel, we don’t understand. It should not be like that. They
must act together parallelly, so that it may be one action of
understanding and feeling. Feeling is nearer to you than
understanding. Feeling is what you are, actually speaking.
Into that the understanding has to sink. This is what they
call the process of sravana, manana and nididhyasana.
Whatever we are discussing now is sravana, hearing. I hear
20
what you say, and you hear what I say. Then you cogitate
over this matter and sink these thoughts into yourself.
Finally, you be that thought itself; that is called
nididhyasana. This practice has to be carried on throughout
the day, not merely for a few minutes in some puja room or
anything. Even when you are working in an office, what
prevents you from stopping for one minute and putting the
pen down? For one minute think this, and it will inspire
you. Then start the work. It requires one minute. You put
the pen down.
Sri C. G. Krishnamurty: I found that in my experience in the
Tribunal.
Dr. P. C. Rao: When you get that feeling, your actions differ
essentially from what you do now because informed as you
are by that feeling, it should reflect in your actions. If I feel I
am separate, everything is separate, the feeling generates
different activity in me. The way I look at things, the way I
react to things, whatever I think, is going to be paramountly
different from when I realize that everything is That, and I
am That, you are That, and I am no different from That. Is
it not, Swamiji? In other words, it is the thought which
regulates your activity, which gives character to your
activity. Now, if the feeling of divisibility, that you are
different from me, obtains in my mind, is the part which
controls my activity, my actions would be selfish.
SWAMIJI: Certainly they would be selfish if things are
different.
Dr. P. C. Rao: But when the controlling thought is that the
entire universe is operating through me and I am that. . .
21
SWAMIJI: Then your actions will be impartial.
Dr. P. C. Rao: Altogether impartial. Therefore, from the
types of activities we engage in, you can determine the
thought that is propelling you to do these things. Is it not?
SWAMIJI: Yes.
Dr. P. C. Rao: But in terms of the activities I undertake,
though it gives me great relief on several occasions, or it
makes me resist attempts to influence my thinking, and this
I trace to the concept “Look here, I should not do this” – I
have not yet stopped doing things which I would
intellectually consider to be undesirable. Therefore, the
controlling thought, while it intellectually appreciates, it has
not really started controlling my. . .
SWAMIJI: Yes, yes. I understand. You will have no problem
like that if you actually enter into it. You start doing it. The
problems also get dissolved automatically.
Dr. P. C. Rao: I know – provided I go through that stage.
SWAMIJI: You start it. You decide, “I have started it.”
Dr. P. C. Rao: It is as though I am at the doorstep but yet
not opening the door.
SWAMIJI: No, it will open; it will open. Truth always
triumphs: Satyam eva jayate. And if these thoughts are the
truth, they will succeed, and nothing else can succeed.
Only, you have to have some little faith that it will work. It
will certainly work. The whole atmosphere will change. All
shall be well.
22
Dr. P. C. Rao: I am still in search of that thing, and I am
hopeful that light will dawn on me.
SWAMIJI: You should not have any doubt whether it will
work or not. It will work.
Dr. P. C. Rao: I am greatly reassured, Swamiji.
SWAMIJI: If you want something, you must assert that it
has already come: “It is already with me.” This is one of the
psychological techniques people generally suggest; and it
will immediately come. If you intensely want a thing, it will
come.
Dr. P. C. Rao: Whatever activity I do, I never abandon it.
That is why I am able to do certain things which I think
ought to be done. So, I am still hopeful that this sort of
pursuit will lead me to some destination which is what I am
looking for.
SWAMIJI: Actually, this is the thought that has to be in your
mind always. Whether you are in the motor car, or the
office, or taking lunch or dinner – it is the vital thing that
sustains you. You cannot keep it segregated.
Dr. P. C. Rao: I don’t. It would not be correct to say that I
disengage myself from this thought at any given point of
time. It may be that temporarily at that particular point I
am thinking of some problem. . .
SWAMIJI: No. . . Due to problems, the intensity of the
thought may diminish at some time; but, nevertheless, it
will be there.
23
Dr. P. C. Rao: It is there, Swamiji. In every day of my
activity, it is there. But something is shrouded in mystery
still. Some dark area is still not resolved. Some doubt is still
there. I have to put a spotlight on that and see what it is.
SWAMIJI: The spotlight is the affirmation of the Universal
Being. That is the light, before which no darkness can
stand. And, the affirmation of the Universal Being is done
by the Universal Being only. It is not done by you. You
have gone into It when you think like this. Actually, who is
meditating? It is not Dr. Rao meditating. It is meditating
because you have already entered It. You have become part
and parcel of It, so you are not meditating. There is no such
thing at that time.
Dr. P. C. Rao: True. But, as you said, until you realize that
you are That, you will continue to believe that you are
meditating.
SWAMIJI: No, that duality you should not create.
Dr. P. C. Rao: I am not creating it. But it exists because the
other proposition has not yet dawned on me.
SWAMIJI: It has, to some extent, dawned in you. Only, you
have to assert it vigorously by repeatedly thinking it. Once
you have entertained it in clarified form in your mind,
again you should not leave it afterwards, because the ego
has such a power that it will immediately throw some dust
over your thought and assert itself more and more than
even the thought of God Himself. The ego always parades
its importance and makes you feel that it is more important
than anything else. We are feeling that the world is nothing
24
to us – the world is something outside us, unconnected
with us; it is taking care of itself and we mind our business.
This is what we are thinking. Totally independent we are.
We can walk on the road with arms thrown, and nobody
can talk to us. But it is not like that. Even the earth is
controlling you. You cannot walk on the road totally
independent like that. The very gravitation of the earth is
controlling your movements. There is no freedom like that,
except in a cosmic sense. Man’s boast that he is
independent of things and he can do whatever he likes is a
vainglorious feeling. You cannot even walk on the road
until the earth permits it. Such is the majesty of the
structure of the cosmos. It is a very important thing to
remember. If the earth is not to pull you adequately down
by its gravitational force, you would be floating in the air.
And, if the sun were not to pull you equally from above,
you would be stuck to the ground; you could not lift your
foot afterwards. So, they mutually collaborate and create a
situation where you can move.
Dr. P. C. Rao: These are the laws of nature; they are
immutable.
SWAMIJI: And still, we are thinking, “I will go for a walk.”
Who is going for a walk? You tell me. Somebody else is
helping you to push yourself.
Sri C. G. Krishnamurty: The mysterious thing is how
thoughts are generated.
SWAMIJI: Thoughts are generated by body consciousness.
You think that there is a body. The consciousness of a body
is called thought. Otherwise, there is no other thing except
25
that. Affirmation of this body is called thought, mind –
consciousness concentrating itself in a particular location of
space and time. That is individuality; that is the mind.
Dr. P. C. Rao: Suppose you let things happen as you wish –
you don’t try to control anything – you just do whatever
you want, on impulse.
SWAMIJI: What is the meaning of “whatever you want”?
Dr. P. C. Rao: Whatever you want – whatever your impulse
tells you.
SWAMIJI: That impulse is an egoistic impulse.
Dr. P. C. Rao: If it is egoistic, let the activity also be guided
by that. What is wrong with egoistic activities?
SWAMIJI: Unless the ego has surrendered itself to the
Cosmic Being, it cannot help you.
Dr. P. C. Rao: No. But why do you want to get help? Let
things happen in the way they are happening.
Sri C. G. Krishnamurty: Or, to put it another way, what is
the meaning of the word “help”? How do you define help?
SWAMIJI: There is a difference between impulse and
knowledge. They are two different things.
Dr. P. C. Rao: Let your ego control your activities. What
happens?
SWAMIJI: That is what is happening in the world.
Everybody is doing that work. Then he ruins himself. The
person gets ruined. He will have a clash. One ego clashes
26
with another ego. War takes place and destruction takes
place.
Dr. P. C. Rao: All right. Let it.
SWAMIJI: Then rebirth takes place. It will go on endlessly.
There is no end for this. A mistake that is committed once. .
.
Dr. P. C. Rao: Let rebirth take place. Perhaps people would
like to go on being born, and then get reborn, as they are
against dissolving yourself into a higher principle.
SWAMIJI: That shows the bankruptcy of education in their
mind. They are spiritually bankrupt.
Dr. P. C. Rao: I thought at one time you also said, “Don’t
think that you are going to reform the universe itself,
whatever is happening – good, bad or indifferent. There is
no such thing called bad or good.”
SWAMIJI: But it can work through your individuality also, if
you are in a state of unison with that. You can be an
instrument in the hands of that power, when you are in
unison with that in your deep feeling. They will propel you
to act. These are the incarnations and the prophets, as they
are called. They are individuals but they are working under
the command of a universal force. The whole universal
power is concentrated in one individual; that is an
incarnation – like the entire power of the sun getting
concentrated through a lens and acting at a particular spot.
They are called super-human beings. The individuality is
there for all purposes of perception, but they are treading in
the heavens, actually speaking, because they have
27
consciousness of earth as well as heaven at the same time.
That is a peculiar state of jivanmukti, as they call it – you
are liberated, and yet you are conscious of the whole of
creation. It is an intermediary stage between ordinary
human consciousness and Absolute consciousness. That is
what is called incarnation consciousness, jivanmukti
consciousness. It is an intermediary stage where you can
become a cosmic worker, a world savior, as they call it. All
the saviors of the world, the incarnations – Krishna, Christ,
Buddha, whoever they are – they were intermediaries in the
cosmic force, which operated through this physical
individuality of theirs, as visible to the eyes. They were not
thinking through the body. They were thinking through a
larger area, and so we call them incarnations. That is,
“incarnation” means the concentration of universal force in
a particular body. And, you can also become that. You may
become a world savior, a prophet, an incarnation, if the
thoughts of yours are cosmic thoughts. And, you will not
think in any other manner except that way.
Dr. P. C. Rao: By your own endeavors you can improve the
quality of your perception.
SWAMIJI: You may say, yes.
Dr. P. C. Rao: This is the proposition. Is there a role for
individual efforts?
SWAMIJI: When That operates through you, you should not
call it an individual effort.
Dr. P. C. Rao: But if I want to lay down the proposition like
this – because you are all the time telling us that you should
28
improve constantly, improve and move towards that
principle, ultimately realize that you are not different from
That, and you are That, and there is no subject-object
relationship. You are evolving from something baser to
something higher. If this is the correct understanding of
what you have laid down – therefore, there is a role for me
in this, a role for me to evolve.
SWAMIJI: There is a role for you as a representative of that
force – like an ambassador of the Cosmic Being.
Dr. P. C. Rao: Yes, but then, still it is my role. If I don’t
make this, the cosmic force is not going to help me. So,
therefore, I have to create this. . .
SWAMIJI: No, “my role” means that it is not your individual
role. You are not having your own personal will. You are
only an instrument in the operation of it.
Dr. P. C. Rao: If I am an instrument, then let that divine
force guide me. I don’t make any individual effort.
SWAMIJI: When you think, you will know that It is thinking
through you. You will know it. Sometimes you say, “he is
possessed by divine forces.” You get possessed by that, and
you can know that it is working through you, somebody
else is speaking through you.
Dr. P. C. Rao: Why don’t I invite the divine force to enter
and say, “Now let us move forward.”
SWAMIJI: It will do that. It can do whatever is necessary for
the evolution of the total universe. It is not doing it for the
welfare of any particular individual. There are no particular
individuals.
29
Dr. P. C. Rao: Then, why should I meditate, Swamiji?
SWAMIJI: So that you may know that it is the truth. You are
always thinking you are somewhere, in some place. You
have to remove that idea. There is a peculiar habit of the
mind asserting itself as located in some place, in a particular
form, in a particular condition, etc. This must be removed.
Sri C. G. Krishnamurty: What Dr. Rao says is if I am That,
why not let That guide me in the proper line?
SWAMIJI: It will certainly guide you.
Sri C. G. Krishnamurty: If that is so, then why should I
meditate?
SWAMIJI: It will guide you only after you become one with
It. For that, you have to meditate. The government protects
and guides the ambassador, but for that he has to become
the ambassador first.
Dr. P. C. Rao: But, the ambassador is different from the
government. He only carries out the instructions of the
government. He is not the government himself.
Government is a larger entity.
SWAMIJI: That is true. So, he is acting as a representative of
the government itself.
Dr. P. C. Rao: Therefore, I asked at the very beginning, “Am
I the agent?”
SWAMIJI: In one stage, you are the agent. There are three
stages.
30
Dr. P. C. Rao: If I am the agent, I carry out these
instructions. I can’t be held accountable at all. I am not
answerable to anybody.
SWAMIJI: Certainly you are not accountable, provided you
are having that consciousness.
Dr. P. C. Rao: Then it is conditional; you have introduced a
proviso.
SWAMIJI: Otherwise, if in the middle you start thinking you
are Mr. Rao talking, then it won’t work.
Dr. P. C. Rao: No, if I am the ambassador, I know that if the
government gives me instructions, it is as the ambassador
of that country; I go and give it. And if these instructions
don’t fructify, if nothing comes out of it, or bad comes of it,
I can’t be held responsible because I merely carried out the
instructions given to me by my superior.
SWAMIJI: He is responsible only if he does something
contrary to the government ordinance.
Dr. P. C. Rao: Yes. But you are also saying that I cannot
even act contrary to the direction. You are incapable of
doing so, because it controls.
SWAMIJI: Sometimes it is possible in the intermediary stage
to slip into ego consciousness. If you are continuously
maintaining a universal consciousness, you are not
responsible for anything. But that consciousness is not
maintained always. Sometimes in the intermediary, earlier
stages, the mind slips into ego consciousness and mistakes
can be committed. Even Lord Krishna said, “I cannot repeat
the Gita a second time.” He came down from that level.
31
When Arjuna said, “Speak to me once again,” He said, “No,
no. You are a foolish man.”
Dr. P. C. Rao: If you slip into it, while logically pursuing
this, doggedly pursuing it, it means are you acting contrary
to the instruction of. . . Even that slipping into that former
direction – are you accountable?
SWAMIJI: You will not slip after a certain stage. It is a force
of individuality. For ages and ages we have been living in
this body, so it is having its say, even when you are
meditating and insisting that “I am also there.” To
overcome that feeling of body consciousness. . .
Dr. P. C. Rao: One can reconcile and say that it is the divine
wish that it be like this.
SWAMIJI: You are not simply saying that it is a divine wish.
You know that it is a divine wish and you will never feel
that you are doing anything at that time. It all depends
upon what you feel in your mind. What are you feeling?
You will feel that you are not doing anything
independently.
Dr. P. C. Rao: I somehow feel that you have to say that you
can’t do independently of the divine principle. You are also
saying that you can get out of this. And when you get out of
it, there is a disconsonance between you and the principle
and, therefore, the grief. Isn’t it? That is how it is. Then the
person realizes that if I am totally controlled – I am a
puppet in the hands, as it were, of the higher principle –
then, if I am a puppet, I can’t go beyond that stage. I am
always whatever I do good, I do bad, I do anything.
32
SWAMIJI: But, there is no good and bad at that time.
Dr. P. C. Rao: No. Until that realization comes, you will still
say whether he is doing something good or something bad,
it is all on account of the operation of the divine principle.
SWAMIJI: Your operations will be for the cosmic welfare. It
cannot be called good and bad action.
Dr. P. C. Rao: But you should first think that you represent
the higher principle.
SWAMIJI: Not merely think it – you have to be inundated
with that thought and you will not think in any other
manner.
Dr. P. C. Rao: So, until that state, duality is there?
SWAMIJI: Then you are responsible for what you do.
Dr. P. C. Rao: This is what you said: In other words, as long
as you remain ignorant, you are the karta of your actions.
You have to reap the fruits of your actions. Is it not what
you said, Swamiji – notwithstanding the basic principle that
you cannot do anything independently of the divine wish?
SWAMIJI: Even then, it remains an abstract acceptance, but
the body asserts itself as “me.”
Dr. P. C. Rao: Asserts itself from what? From the divine
wish?
SWAMIJI: No, it rejects the divine wish.
Dr. P. C. Rao: Can it?
SWAMIJI: It is doing it now in a foolish manner.
33
Dr. P. C. Rao: Its ability to depart from the divine wish is
what makes the principle somewhat difficult for us to
follow.
Narayani: But it is not against the divine wish that you are
appearing to depart from it.
Dr. P. C. Rao: So, therefore, everything is on account of the
operation of the divine principle?
SWAMIJI: Finally, it is that only.
Dr. P. C. Rao: If that is so, what happens is that anything
that is happening in this world. . .
SWAMIJI: Everything is happening due to its action.
Dr. P. C. Rao: This is what I had said in the beginning
because when the Lord reveals Himself in His total
existence – you see, what you consider to be good, bad,
indifferent, everything as it is, the universe as it is, is seen.
SWAMIJI: No part of the universe can be called good or bad.
Dr. P. C. Rao: So, therefore, what happens is that whatever
you see now, a departure from – this is Kali Yuga. It has
evolved from Treta Yuga, Dvapara Yuga – and then, the
bad is more than the good here in this age. This is nothing
but that.
SWAMIJI: It has its own plan, yes.
Dr. P. C. Rao: Very difficult, Swamiji, to evolve into the
various. . .
SWAMIJI: This is the discussion of the law commission of
the universe.

Note to everyone involved in the development of the game.
I've been playing this game since its release in 2020, and to this day I've wasted minutes and even hours playing it because I enjoyed it so much. In my opinion it's the best game of its kind currently here on the Play Store, and it's also the closest to classic fighting games like Street Fighter, The King of Fighters and Mortal Kombat (which is precisely why I started playing, because I love fighting games and the Shadow Fight franchise). Please, developers, don't ignore this review and consider some of the ideas said here! I like this game a lot, but it needs changes to attract the attention of new players and grow even more!
Shadow Fight 4: Arena has positive points that make it a great game, for example: 1 - excellent graphic quality; 2 - an easy-to-understand and unpolluted game lobby; 3 - fun events; 4 - interesting characters; 5 - the fluidity of the movements performed by the characters, which is captivating to the eye and to players; 6 - a variety of skills for each character; 7 - an online match option (which encourages players to be competitive and stay in the game) and a non-online option (for casual players); 8 - a story mode for those interested in learning more about the Shadow Fight universe, among other things.
Talking about the points of the game that leave something to be desired and make it repetitive, tiring and, not only that, but also about some creative decisions that prevent the game from exploiting its full potential, also in the possibility of excluding certain features and introducing new features that could enrich the game and make it better:
First point: the matchmaking leaves a lot to be desired (I've played many matches where I've fought against players who were of much higher levels than me and with much more resources than me, I've lost them all, obviously);
Second point: (which is linked to the first): character balancing (I'm aware that you're constantly working to balance the characters, but I think this recurring problem is linked to the fact that the creative decision to combine an online fighting game with RPG features, such as acquiring resources [coins, for example] to evolve and putting characters into categories such as "common", "rare", etc. doesn't work. It doesn't work, because characters in higher categories are naturally stronger than characters in lower categories, even though these high category characters have few resources in their talent tree and little difference in level compared to those in lower categories. As a result, there is a huge imbalance in the characters, making some matches completely unfair, since, due to the poor matchmaking, many matches end up being extremely unfair against these high-level players).
Third point: the lack of variety in the character moves (I said before that one of the positive points was the variety of skills between the characters, and that's true, but simple moves like different kicks and punches for each character leave something to be desired [I'm aware that introducing these small elements can be complex and laborious, but it would make the game more captivating to play and unique, it would be a change that would enable the game to be even better!!!]).
Resource ideas: I think it would add a lot to the game if new moves were introduced and some features were replaced, for example:
1 - the addition of a throw escape system, but worked in a way that doesn't render the option of knocking the opponent down useless. It could work like this: when you are grabbed, by moving the directional analog forward or backward together with the punch button quickly, your character would escape being knocked down;
2 - replacing the automatic block with a blocking system similar to those in classic fighting games like Street Fighter, for example. (I say this because I see that the current blocking system encourages players to adopt an extremely passive style of play [the campers] that makes matches boring and not dynamic). I think that with this change, the problem of camping players would be greatly reduced, not eradicated, because that's impossible, but perhaps reduced.
3 - the addition of one or two basic block-breaking attacks for all characters (another resource to reduce camping players and bring dynamism to matches);
4 - the addition of a parry system against long-range weapons and different blows, but designed and crafted so that it doesn't render useless those features that are already present in the game.
Big change idea: here on the Play Store I see that fighting games are in short supply, and that frustrates me a lot, so I think that with specific changes within the game, the possibility of Shadow Fight 4: Arena becoming the best mobile fighting game is high. I think making the game similar to classic fighting games would be risky, but essential! And for this to happen, I think it would be feasible to remove some RPG features from the game, thus making it more compatible with the battle arena genre, so that it becomes in essence a fighting game; remove the talent tree; add a character selection screen; add the possibility of buying skins for the characters; add the possibility of customizing the characters; being a battle arena game, the characters would all have to be unlocked and for use in online and non-online combat.
Dear developers! If you read this note and consider anything I've presented in it, thank you very much for your consideration and attention!