'...What if She set up this experiment so that no single human subject can reach complete happiness—first of all She set it up that complete happiness for every single human animal is possible. But She set it up so that each individual can only reach complete happiness through and will the happiness of all others. Except those others who chose to dwell in their own unhappiness. See that qualification and why that qualification? I don’t think I have to elaborate; I think I did it fairly well.
Now, think about it. Reflect on it, because I am reflecting on it myself. And I am reflecting on, first of all, is that qualification valid? Look around you. You can or cannot do something about the uhappiness that comes from comes from the way people treat you—certainly if you are a woman and in an abusive relationship. Or if you a man and in an abusive, manipulative relationship that makes you unhappy. If you want to go a little further you can say you allow yourself to be unhappy, as you are affected by the behavior of that person, but still the unhappiness is due to treatment. Let’s not dismiss this point. Humans animals do not treat each other in ways to foster happiness. But at the same time, just consider with me that it may be impossible to do anything about people who dwell in their own unhappiness. So it’s some kind of qualification here and at some point, say if we are in a community of say 500 people and I share happiness with you and we are happy together and we do not mistreat each other in any way that would cause unhappiness, that would be a wonderful situation. But could we still do something about people who dwell in unhappiness, see what I mean?
So I don’t think… I’m not sure that the experiment was designed in such a way that the power of happiness as a synergism of happiness—joy, delight, freedom—would raise every human animal to the same level of happiness, but it would certainly make it possible for every human animal to achieve that level. That’s the second strand of Her code.
Now we come to the third strand and that involves the question, ‘how subjective is this experiment?” Or to put it in a more elaborate syntax—how subjective is the interactivity of a subject with the objective process of the experiment? You know that question brings to mind you know what. Good ol’Werner Heisenberg—and the Copenhagen School of Physics, blah, blah, blah. Now this is a chapter of history of physics which is a deplorable and disgusting record of fraudulence and ignorance as far as I’m concerned—but it’s an important chapter. Because there was Werner Heisenberg—I think it was in the 30’s—having discussions with Albert Einstein about who knows what—and among those discussions came up the subject of uncertainty.
So what is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle? Well you know, don’t you: that the act of observation alters the process being observed. Now take a close look that: look at the language. The act of observation alters the process being observed. Now what does the proposition imply regarding this experiment? It implies that there are two components: the process being observed—which is the experiment itself—and the act of observation. But who is at the source of the act of observation? Well it’s the observer.
Now the syntax of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle doesn’t really state the observer. I could restate it in this way; the process of observation conducted by an observer alters the process being observed. That’s a much better syntax, and in that syntax, there are two clear interactive components: the observer and the process being observed.
Now I would ask you to let’s take one more step—and reframe Heisenberg’s principle so it becomes a more complete, inclusive, holistic proposition. Because if the act of observation conducted by the observer can alter the process being observed—then why can’t the process being observed alter the observer? It’s a 2-way interaction. The process being observed—which is the phenomenon of the natural world in which the human subject is inserted—can certainly be affected by the observer. But likewise, the observer can be affected by the process. The observer is not neutral.
So what we want to do is tease out the 3rd strand of Her code by modifying the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Now shamans in a telestic method of the mysteries certainly understood both sides of this principle—anyone who undergoes an altered state or enters heightened perception through the use of sacred plant teachers will understand the proposition of Heisenberg in the reformulation I just proposed. The first thing that happens to you in these experiences of heightened perception is that you—the observer—are altered by what you observe. See that part is left out of Heisenberg’s proposition, isn’t it? (chuckle). That’s the problem with science.
But to the degree you surrender in ecstatic emersion to what you observe—to the degree that you can allow it to alter you—which it does by seizing you in an ecstatic manner—then you also claim your capacity to alter it—and that is your entry into the super real. It has to be both.
So the 3rd incline-the third proposition—is developing in your mind and mine right now, from this briefing on, it is developing in that manner and along those lines.
Can you see the doubling; the feature of doubling in the syntax? Where Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle has to be modified? The act of observation conducted by an observer alters the process being observed just as the process being observed alters the observer. This is an Idris principle—this is an Idris principle and it is an initial strand of code in the syntax of Her dreaming. So I look forward to developing this strand with you as we proceed.
And in concluding this briefing I want to assure you of something. And this is a most wonderful truth. I can attest to this truth out of my depth of my experience as a seeker and a shaman. This is one thing I’ve learned that is gloriously, fantastically wonderful.
When it comes to the content of Her dreaming—any human animal…any human individual…any human mind… can only learn so much. Even if you’re a polymath—even if you are like Goethe—who was a polymath naturalist who explored morphogenesis plants—who explored light theory—Goethe’s theory of color—who explored the formation of human bones—and other things—even if you are of that nature—there is only so much that one human can learn about the processes of the natural world content of Her dreaming. Now you can learn how water works…you can learn what are the properties of aloe vera—you could spend your whole life just learning what the properties of aloe vera are. Suppose you became a botanist and learned the properties of 200 plants—this would be fucking miraculous—but the bounty and complexity of the content of Her dreaming is so vast, that each human can only learn a sliver of it.
But when it comes to learning the syntax of Her dreaming, you can learn it all. All. In fact, that’s what you’re in the process of doing as you hear me speak these words. Those today in planetary tantra who undertake this commitment to learn the syntax of Her dreaming and reach the super real can learn it all; hence the gnostics were called ‘those who knew all’. Do you see that? Doesn’t mean they knew all there was to know about the natural world and the starry worlds—no. They knew a lot about the natural world and the starry worlds—and they knew it, baby—in granular detail—but when you apply that definition—those who knew the all—you need to understand what ‘the all’ is—and it’s the totality of the syntax of Her dreaming.
And I can guarantee you that it is simplific. This is a word that I love this word. And I invented this word when I was teaching a class in Santa Fe. Not ‘simplistic’—‘simplific’. Simplific The syntax of Her dreaming when you know it—is simplific. It is the essence of simplicity but it is not simple.
So I offer that characterization and conclude this briefing with that thought—and extend to you all huge gratitude for being in this experiment with me—and for collaborating with this exploration of the designs and purposes of the Wisdom Goddess.' John Lamb Lash