Author: Larisa Zeland

You know you\’ve really stepped outside of non-ordinary reality when the next step you take takes you out of non-ordinary reality. It\’s like, hello carpet. Hello Richard. Very disturbing when the carpet starts talking back to you. As long as it doesn\’t argue with you, you know your reality\’s primary. No, mine\’s primary. You\’re just an illusion in my carpet reality. It\’s a magic carpet now, and you\’re on it. Oh boy.

I was at the psychology — what was it — Association of American Association for Psychology and Energy Medicine, something like that. ACEP, is that what it was? It wasn\’t all that comprehensive until I got there. I believe the psychology part, I\’m not so sure about the energy part.

Yeah, I got to the place where I was going to speak for that said conference, and I was walking down the hallway with another staff member and started commenting on how dangerous the carpet was, because the carpet had all these symbols laden into it, and I recognized some of this as a stack of Mayan symbols. And a lot of that Mayan energy has this paleo-ancient scientific technology embedded within it, and that\’s a morphic field again. That\’s a big field of energy we\’ve forgotten about, but it\’s there and you can kind of feel it.

So as I\’m walking across the carpet I started to activate it, and the carpet started doing all the things that carpet does around me, and then the walls started closing in — but not in a nasty way, calm, in a friendly way — and the hallway started to look a whole lot longer. Right? Reality as it was perceived through my perceptual lens became entirely distorted, which is useful and normal for me, and I started laughing. Kind of — not like, hey, Heath Ledger in the Joker. Poor man. Do you understand something? If you play in those realms like he did, and he really went for it in this new movie The Dark Knight, he tapped into the morphic field of the Joker. Not just Jack Nicholson\’s Joker, but the real morphic field of the Joker. He went for it. He went deep in the dark psychology of what was portrayed as the Joker in the comic books for many, many years, and the Joker was a psychotic murderer. He wasn\’t a fun guy. Right? He killed people because it was fun, you know. And if you go into that and you tap into the morphic field of that, that\’s how you wind up having — oh, Jake for breakfast. Not — notwithstanding the blood sugar effects, there\’s other effects that can be quite devastating.

So morphic fields, again, they can both liberate you and imprison you, and it behooves you to choose your company wisely. It really does.

Now I\’m definitely going to go see this movie because I feel like I\’m a dark psychotic masterpiece and that\’s what they called the movie. So, um, I feel calm being good company and probably have us just a good time, you know, of course. Somehow does a bit about — psychic daredevil, never a physical daredevil. I just don\’t have the coordination for it, you know. I learned to ride a motorcycle just a few years ago because before then the idea of motorcycle scared me, and then I hit a certain age and I went, you know, I\’m tired of being scared of motorcycles. That looks cool. I want one, you know.

Now it helps if you\’re reading books and then you have a hero, and Stephen King became here when I was reading The Dark Tower series. If you read The Dark Tower series — see, I\’m not a horror fan because again of the morphic field thing — but the Dark Tower series is about parallel universes and many other things: archetypes, parallel universes, how your thoughts actually get embodied into separate universes, and how then that outplays in a series of outcomes that then can merge or converge.

So I\’m reading this. Stephen King tells a story in one of the backs of the books, he tells a postscript, right, how he was working on, I think it was the second or third book, and he had — over he and this huge masterpiece, you know, and he took his Honda Goldwing — that\’s when he hadn\’t had one, right — took a Honda — katuk — his Honda Goldwing and he went up to the local bar, you know, over where he lived, and he took the manuscript with him. So he knocked back a few beers and then well very safely got back on his motorcycle and left his manuscript on the back of the bike, and as he drove off it all flew off in the wind. See, that\’s disturbing.

And so he — I guess he\’s a good-natured guy — he like recreated it, you know, or maybe had a template for — I don\’t think you had a complete template for it though, right. And then I just decided, okay, that\’s yet — you know, I\’m going to get Honda Goldwing. So of course there is eBay, the morphic field of eBay, and I went on eBay and I got one real quick. Trouble is, when you buy things on eBay you\’re not sure what you\’re buying, and if it\’s a motorcycle and your life\’s kind of at stake on the — on the — house table — and you ain\’t good, it is — you might not want to buy it on eBay. Just a thought. Ah, because it was old, it was an \’80-something and it was outdated, and when you try and turn with it it didn\’t turn so well, and you wind up kind of hitting another car or something, you know. Not good stuff.

I got a — got a BMW after that, and then there was no morphic field associated with it. Just somebody said that was really good and I went on the internet, did the smart thing this time. I read about what\’s the safest, which had, you know, anti-lock brakes, what had the turning capabilities, what was the most comfortable, right, etc., and then went and bought one. So do your research.

So we do our research all the time unconsciously. We\’re always moving towards our goals. You could say that we can actually two-point our goals, our manifestations, our desires, our outcomes. This idea of two-pointing — all it simply means is, and it\’s a key thing we teach in Matrix Energetics, but all it simply means is that you\’re going to pick one point of reference to begin from and then you\’re gonna pick a second point that is going to be measured as your desired outcome.

One of the ways that airplanes land at an airport some distance away is they have a beam that they\’re constantly tuning to, and within the course of the flight there they\’re often off course, and then what they have to do is just find that radar beacon and get back on it. So you do these course corrections. It\’s the same thing with your life. If what you\’re attempting to achieve isn\’t occurring, make a course correction. In other words, what you do is you assess it — that\’s your left brain — perform a new measurement. In other words, you set up, well, if I\’m here and I want to be here, then you simply move the energy so that it becomes back in line with your original intent.

Now how do you move the energy so it becomes back in line with your original intent? You pretend you can feel stuff. It\’s not that difficult. It\’s not that difficult.

We hallucinate all the time, and I bet you right now, listening to this program, you could close your eyes — wherever you are, don\’t do it while you\’re driving, please — but you could close your eyes, and if you\’re not at home you can mentally reach out and touch and feel the front door of your house. Right? Do that now. Reach out and just touch the front door of your house. Now you can probably also see it. You can probably — want — you ask yourself how cool or warm it is, what\’s the temperature of it. Does it feel soft? Is it smooth? Is it hard? Does the paint need to be repaired? Are there splinters? You see, you can get all sorts of details, but only when you ask. If you asked, you shall receive. If you knock, the door will be open.

So that\’s one of those Jesus exercises: you ask, where\’s your door, and then you knock, and then it opens. Now they\’re doorways to perception that you can open as well, and that\’s one of them. It\’s a simple thing to take an exercise like I just gave you and then apply it to anything. You can apply it to anything.

One of the ways to begin to practice the ability to two-point or to measure is to — you could use your right foot as a reference. Just feel your right foot. Notice where it is.

One of the things that the people that built huge — Oedipus\’s — like the Empire State Building — they had to use a certain Indian tribe, and probably someone in the audience knows who they were, but there was a certain tribe to have the ability to be up high and not feeling comfortable, and they could even look down and feel okay. But here\’s the secret, and this is what you need to know, and I learned this because it was very important — because when I used to drive downtown when I moved to Seattle, I would get nausea and dizzy when I would go through the highway going downtown. There were like spillways and there were roads that would dip down, and when I would dip down my body felt like it floated up because I was noticing where the tops of the buildings were, and suddenly I thought, why, I was up there. And this is what would happen to people, and this is why they would fall, because they were not calibrating where their physical space was. They were not measuring their environment.

So if you can measure exactly where your feet are, and you know exactly where the top of your head is, and then you remain mindful of that when you\’re driving, if you look up you stay in your body. It\’s a real important point. The cool thing is, as I\’ve already told you, if you\’re driving and you find yourself at the top of the building and this is confusing and anxiety-producing, which it was for me — I could barely operate my car — that means that your consciousness is not restricted to your physical body in any way, is it? So your measurements — as soon as you think the thought, your measurement occurs. Thought is — as Einstein showed you in his experiment, his thought experiments — thought is the tool for the measurement. And as I told you what John von Neumann said about the two-point experiment, the act of observing collapses the possible into the actual. It takes the wave function of all possibility and collapses it down to what manifests.

So that being the case, two things are important: altered perspectives, so that what you observe is not always the same, particularly if you\’d like something to change; and also the ability to know where you\’re starting from, to know what your initial measurement point is.

So your left brain loves to analyze, it loves to measure, it loves to judge, it likes to criticize, too. Yeah, so if you give it something useful to do, it will do it. All you have to do, for instance, to stop a panic attack — one of the things you can do is to realize what it\’s trying to do for you. What is the purpose of — what\’s the positive purpose of this behavior? Right. Same thing with what you\’re measuring: what is your outcome, what\’s the positive purpose for doing something? Once you have the positive purpose, the next thing you have to do is let go of it, because if you hold on to what you want to have happen but yet you don\’t release it, it doesn\’t travel. You get this — it just stays within your bioplasmic field and it doesn\’t actually interface with action at a distance. You\’re still focused on the outcome and so it never goes out anywhere. Therefore your income remains the same, which can be weighty, and you wait and you wait and you wait and nothing changes.

So if you begin by noticing the feeling of your right foot — very simple, feel the weight of your right foot — now with your eyes or with your mind simply move, keeping aware, the one point is your right foot. Keep aware of the weight of your right foot, and you can extend a dotted line out, say just a foot more in front of you, and make a little point right there. Now you have essentially created a measurement, because you\’ve started with an initial point of reference, you\’ve then decided how far to move out, and then you\’ve put a second point when you moved out that far. Now the measurement is artificial. You don\’t have to know how many meters, centimeters, kilometers, inches, whatever. That\’s not important. Distance is not the thing — or at least a statistical judgement of what the distance is is certainly not the thing. Because what happens if you try and measure it consciously? If you try and control the outcome, if you try and say, am I doing it right — which is another way of trying to control the outcome — as soon as you ask the question, depending upon your habitual responses, you\’ll think you\’re not. Because you think, well, I can\’t feel anything, I never feel any of this stuff, right. I\’ve been to seminars and I never feel anything. You know, poor you, you know. Until you do, and then you go home — for me now I feel stuff. Now what do I do? You can\’t have it both ways. Either you\’re gonna feel stuff or not. You can\’t have it both ways. That\’s right. There\’s parts of you that can feel stuff and choose not to feel other things, so you have a selective process to your consciousness. Once you begin to realize that selective process is multi-dimensional, so therefore this simple little exercise gives you access to multi-dimensional consciousness.

And in multi-dimensional consciousness, if you\’re not doing it in a serious fashion and you\’re not holding on to the outcome and you\’re not working too hard to get it right, you perform a very weak measurement. If you perform a weak measurement, it doesn\’t disturb the ripples as much. Do you get that? Just a little tiny weak measurement, and the quantum wave function is, if not intact, you can introduce information into it. You can structure potential into the quantum wave function without collapsing it into a state of definiteness. Does this explain for you why sometimes your manifestations don\’t come to pass? You\’re focusing too hard, you\’re trying too hard, you\’re wanting something too much. Why are you wanting something too much? Because you don\’t trust you can have it. If you don\’t trust you can have something, then you continually — you create — all you — you beg, you plead, you moan, and what else do you do? You think of all the reasons why you can\’t have it, and then you tell yourself it\’s okay, because I can\’t have it, because this is just the way things are. Now you\’ve performed a very strong measurement: call my life still sucks. Not so useful, is it? Unless your life sucking is a vortex, and a vortex is a torsion field, and a torsion field can also be activated with potential and with information. More on that later in this program.

The idea is very simple: when you try to do, that is when you cannot. It\’s not what Yoda said. What Yoda said is not actually quite correct, although it is essentially correct, because you have to look at it in a very specific way. It\’s not \”do or do not, there is no try.\” Okay, now try — what that means to me is a getting a lot of emotion involved. And remember I told you there\’s a big difference — Greg Braden makes this distinction as well — there\’s a big difference between feeling, which is an electromagnetic frequency spectrum, and feelings or emotional content. Emotional content is provided by your programming, of your environment, your parents, your upbringing, your culture. That\’s your expectations set. In order to access feeling state, you move to the empty set of no feelings.

This is, I believe, why the Buddha talked about desirelessness. Not because it\’s not okay to — yeah, I mean you can\’t love things, enjoy things, one things — but if you want to manifest something different or change the vibrational frequency of your response or change the lens of your consciousness, you have to let go of where you\’re focusing in order to shift.

So it\’s really simple to take that right foot, let go of your reference for it being your foot, realizing it\’s information, and then shift it. Now what makes it even more interesting — if you intend to shift your focus out exactly one foot, and you can measure that, by the way, by putting your left foot in front of your right foot so that you step off at what would be for you an actual foot, and then you make that measurement. Now take your left foot and move it back and just keep the knowledge of where that point was. This satisfies your left brain to be exact about things, and when your left brain has a nice task to do it will do that for you, and it will think that\’s what\’s important. That\’s okay, poor thing, because what the left brain does is it collapses experience — experience, all information that you cannot actually make sense of from a perceptual viewpoint — into a series of judgments, measurements, and analysis that constructs the 3D replica of what you think is your real world. Okay.

So we\’re not going to say that the left brain is not something we want. We don\’t want to be brainless about this. Certainly not what I\’m teaching in Matrix Energetics. Seems to be the way out of the dilemma of how to shut off the left brain. If you shut off the left brain by giving it plenty of information while simultaneously feeding a lot of parallel information, in both sides of your brain are happy, become synchronized, and move into a very altered state. And you can do this with your eyes open, without breathing funny, and without sitting in a very cramped position for a long time.

Now people will not usually use Aleister Crowley as a reference, but I\’m not most people. The physicist Aleister Crowley said about yoga — he was a very practical man, among other things, and he did experiments and he had a very fine mind — and he said some cool things about yoga that I think are just worth repeating. He said the main principle in hatha yoga was to find a position, any position, that was maximally uncomfortable. Once you got into the worst possible position that caused you the most pain, when you learned to transcend being in pain in that position, you\’ve now mastered the physical body. That makes it kind of simple, doesn\’t it. Then he talked about the breath control. The breath control is, of course, the breath is linked with the breath of life, which is linked with the idea whether you\’re alive or dead. And once you get control over the breath you\’re now pretty much in control of your autonomic functions and life or death, all right. And then once you\’ve got those two things, the mind\’s a little easier to bring under control.

Here\’s the thing: I don\’t think you should have to go through all those contortions, particularly as you get older. It\’s just not much fun. I prefer the contortions to be conceptual, right. Why not give your awareness something exceptional? If bodies don\’t exist — and I see no reason to discipline mine if it\’s a body of information — then that position is too much information for my body to take in and be comfortable with. And besides which, isn\’t there a big morphic field of torturing yourself in contorting yourself that these yogis have done for thousands and thousands and thousands of years? Why do it when they\’ve already done such a fine job? Just say, what a fine job you\’ve done, I\’m going to borrow that, please. So you just skipped the whole I\’m gonna sit in a very uncomfortable position in order to still my body, and you just instill the command: be still. It works.

Be still and know I am God. Oh, there\’s another big morphic field. I think I recognize that one. I mean, Jesus, you know. It\’s probably useful. So if you take statements and positions and perceptual biases that were useful for great masters to attain certain dependable outcomes, you now are performing a scientific experiment that the results have already been verified. Right. You do not have to experiment and reinvent the wheel, and you also don\’t have to put yourself on the wheel and have somebody throw knives at you, by the way.

I did that to Mark Done — Dr. Done, my research partner — i.e., hamster. No, he\’s a very wonderful physician, naturopath — position — Clara Volant mystic. I\’m not even fit to Don strap his boots, you know, because his feet smell like mine and it would — the odor would probably kill both of us. But I truly revere him, and one of the things I really revere about him — and I revere about you as well, and you listening to me on this program — is that you have that can-do spirit, and you\’re willing to entertain that which is entertaining. That\’s useful, right. And you\’re willing to have some fun and let go of some sacred cows.

That\’s another thing Mark landed on. One — in India he was like paragliding and he got out of control, and he had his backpack on and he was studying for naturopathic boards, and his backpack opened up in the air. This 500-page manual of everything we\’re supposed to know to be physicians that he had to take a test on next week opened — the binder is a three-ring binder — opened up, dropped like a bomb on India. All the children came out of everywhere and grabbed it for toilet paper, which is probably a useful application for medical knowledge. And then he landed on a cow, which is sacred in India. Good job, Mark. Get those metaphors conjoined: east meets west and half a cow.

So Mark at one point he was so open to new experience that I didn\’t tell him what I was doing — and this is the point of what I was talking about. I didn\’t tell him. I merely put him like within the star position on a wheel, blindfolded him, bound his wrists and his ankles, and threw knives at him. Now understand, I did this just in my mind. He had the physical experience of being blinded, spinning on his axis, and having something scary whirling at him from out of nowhere. This is what we call tracking or calibration.

Calibration means that if two or more gathered together, there I am in the midst of them. That \”I am\” is the I Am consciousness, or that spirit of the one in the all, you see. So if two or more of you can agree to something, or if you even take two points for a reference, you have a measurement, and within that measurement is all possibility, all consciousness. So if Mark could have an experience like that — and many other people, my daughter, can have the same experience — is more or less, as far as I can tell, that I\’m having as I\’m having them. Or I can choose to share them, to transfer them. Energy is transferable. Thought energy is transferable. Experience is transferable.

Now you can easily understand pattern information and activity at a distance as a field, and we\’re talking about morphic fields. So if you pattern information and then share it, all you have to do is resonate with the field of that information and you have it. That\’s why I say you don\’t have to necessarily meditate or do yoga or do anything else. That\’s not to say that you should assume that, for instance, you can borrow the information of a master mountain climber and then try and scramble up Mount Everest without any preparations. That\’s called stupid. That\’s the moron field, is stupid, which is much bigger than the morphic field of expert climber. Guess what: if you\’re going for that and you don\’t ask the correct questions, make the correct assessments, what\’s the likelihood that you\’ll think you\’re getting the expert mountain climber morphic field and you\’ve actually accessed the moron field of stupid? Again, don\’t do stupid things.

See, don\’t do something because a voice told you to. If it tells you to jump or shoot people, think first before you shoot or jump. Right. I\’ve been in churches, right, in Catholic Church — now it\’s understandable. Have you ever sat through a Catholic Mass, particularly when it used to be in Latin? It\’s like — I\’m up in the balcony — it says jump, or get up and yell. You know, it\’s like, I think this is just my conscious mind trying to take control of an untenable situation. But the point is, you can learn to make your assessments.

Even something as simple as performing a measurement between two points — make that life transforming, because it\’s not the measurement that\’s the thing. It\’s the information potential that you tagged on to the way you measure. It\’s what David Bohm called the quantum potential. Literally, it\’s the infolded information that then pops into manifestation when you give it something to do.

---

Notes on corrections I made:

• \”stack or Mayan\” → \”stack of Mayan\”
• \”Oedipus\’s\” (likely garbled — probably a mis-hearing of something else, but I left it as-is since the reference is unclear)
• \”Aleister Crowley\” — the transcript says \”physicist,\” but Crowley was an occultist, not a physicist; I kept the transcript\’s wording.
• \”Greg Braden\” → Gregg Braden (spelling)
• \”Dr. Done\” / \”Mark Done\” — likely Mark Dunn (spelling uncertain)
• \”Clara Volant mystic\” — garbled; likely a mis-transcription of something like \”clairvoyant mystic\”
• \”moron field\” — in the transcript this is \”more of a guilt\” / \”more field\”; I\’ve rendered it as the apparent intended pun \”moron field\”
• \”David Boehm\” → David Bohm

I read something very interesting — I think Paramahansa Yogananda said it, but it\’s also in a new book by Jay Alfred called Brains and Realities, or I think it was published in 2006, very interesting book, Brains and Realities — talks about the idea that the void is full, the vacuum — and the universe is empty. In other words, the void is the real deal, and everything here is complete illusion. Now how could that be? Well, it\’s pretty simple: if we\’re 99% nothing, right, and maybe that 1% is just what we think we are, that would make us a hundred percent nothing with nothing doing.

Right. One of the easiest ways again to make a measurement is to decide an outcome and then do nothing, and then notice what changes. Now how do you do nothing and have something change? Well, if the void is where everything pops from, and the void is described by us in our left-brain reality as nothing — if we flip the right-brain reality, what we have, we have the inverse of nothing, which is the all. Confusing. Very useful. Confusing, isn\’t it?

If your brain is confused, it means you\’re learning. Seriously. If something I say, or something you encounter, or something you read confuses you, it means you\’re learning. If you\’re not confused, you\’re assuming. I\’m confused by everything. The carpet confuses me on a daily basis. I\’m serious, because I\’m willing to walk so that each step takes me potentially into a different reality, or a new experience, or a new awareness. That would be a walking meditation. Kind of like walking pneumonia, with side benefits of inspiration and inhalation and illumination. Carpet as boutique meditation.

Now some of these carpets — pretty good. Like in San Francisco, I believe that they were probably on LSD when they, you know, made them. And I says, San Francisco — the Grateful Dead probably hired out people to lay down carpet where they were performing, and then people would see it and say, I want some of that, and then pretty soon San Francisco\’s got all this weird carpet. Mark and I wound up with our heads inside of the carpet and the first seminar we taught in San Francisco, because — well, A, we\’re weird, and the carpet was weird, and we had a resonance phenomenon going there — and we went up with our heads inside the carpet.

I went to just — just to say, don\’t do this at home. They said none of those things. This is a morphing field of stupid. Please do not duplicate it.

When I was much younger I experimented a little bit with altered states, with chemical phenomenon, LSD, things like that. I went to The Exorcist on LSD. Just wanted to see, you know, if I could hold it together. Was actually kind of interesting, because on LSD it splits you into multiple awarenesses, so you could actually kind of even see how the movie was pieced together. It was actually less scary, which was kind of cool and useful — because that would have been a really bad idea, and it is a really bad idea. Please don\’t do that. Drugs in general are a really bad idea.

Why? Because what I\’m talking about allows you to generate your own drugs. Why do you think people want drugs in the first place? They\’re looking for a way out, they\’re looking for a change, a doorway into a different perception. Well, this does that without any chemical substances, because your brain is capable of producing what looks like LSD.

See, the thing is with LSD — Albert Hofmann discovered it — the thing with LSD is it was never what caused the hallucinations. The hallucinations were caused by how your brain chemistry reacted to the initiating substance. Well, the initiating substance can be a thought or a measurement. Now a thought in itself can become a measurement.

I mean, literally — I mean, what did Einstein do? He imagined riding on a wave of light, looked over at another one, you know, and looked at the — I think it was the gravity of the earth — and noticed whether or not the light bent. You see, that\’s a measurement, and he did it as a thought experiment.

So it\’s obviously true that in order to do something like what we call the two-point process in Matrix Energetics, you do not have to touch a body. Why would it make sense to touch a body if bodies don\’t exist? It makes no sense whatsoever. However, we are so wed to that body of information, instead of beliefs that we believe in — in order to change something in our physiology, or our structure, or our chemistry, or our emotions, we need to do something to it in response. Well, that\’s a Newtonian measurement, and it goes right back to that Newtonian delusion.

And Newton was a wonderful scientist, and he was also an alchemist, by the way. He was attempting to prove spiritual principles through physics and through mathematics, because he believed in the Creator, he believed in God, he believed in a magical universe, he believed in the will of the Creator moving through the creation and being a part of that. He believed all these things, and he believed that the math and the physics actually would allow him to show people that. While all of that just got shined away when we went into so-called rational science — which was actually an irrational fear reaction to the church.

This is true. You see, when you start threatening people like Galileo with, you know, incarceration, torture, and burning at the stake, science gets affected. Science says, screw you, you know. First, we\’re not going to believe in a God that\’s going to torture us. We think that\’s ridiculous, and so we\’re going to split off from God, and we\’re going to split off from church, because you guys have got it locked up there. And besides, if we say that we are in the realm that you claim to hold the keys to the kingdom to, then you\’re just going to torture us, and that sounds like a really bad idea.

\”Jay Alford\” is likely Jay Alfred (author of Brains and Realities).

\”Paramahansa Yogananda\” — the transcript says this, though the reference is a bit uncertain in the talk itself.

\”major senators\” is almost certainly a mis-transcription of \”Matrix Energetics\” (the software/ASR garbled it).

\”the more if you field is stupid\” in the earlier file was similarly garbled — likely \”the morphic field of stupid.\”

So what we\’re gonna do is what — yeah, Leo did. He tried — he said there are primary and secondary qualities of matter. He said the primary qualities are the things you can measure, like distance and weight and density and volume. Okay. The secondary qualities were things like emotion, like love, and color — the subjective experience of color, right. These qualities would be called subjective, and these qualities the so-called material, objective qualities — there\’s our objects — so they\’re objective. So we can comment upon what we can see, feel, touch, smell, and measure.

So here\’s where the two-point is really great, because the act of making a measurement gets you in a morphic field of science. See, and the left brain goes, ooh, it\’s science, we\’re happy. And the right brain goes, uh-uh, that\’s for Dr. Science part, right — uh uh uh, you didn\’t say the magic word. The magic word is access. When your left brain is doing something, your right brain is free to do whatever else. So you want to perform a soft measurement, and that allows your right brain to move into states of multi-dimensional awareness, and that makes good drugs in your head. And when you make good drugs in your head it changes — actually can even change — the cortical structure of your anatomy, of your brain.

Did you know this? The same book, Brains and Realities by Jay Alfred, talks about a study that Newberg and d\’Aquila — I believe their neuroscientists — made, where they looked at the cortical thickness of long-time meditators and saw that in certain areas of the brain they were thicker. Cool.

Here\’s the thing: if you believe that\’s the only way to make your brain thicker, well, there\’s a lot of ways to make your brain thicker. Some of them useful, some of them not. Marijuana can make your cortical layers thicker. Trouble is, it makes it denser where you actually can\’t use the layers — they become useless. That\’s true. It deposits a tar-like substance over the cortex of the brain, so that\’s not necessarily a useful concept either, is it. But cortical thickness — that\’s, um, that\’s not a useful concept either.

Remember what I talked about about Einstein, and how they tried to figure out why Einstein was so smart. Thought it must be because his brain — because his brain was larger than everybody else\’s, and it had more folds and undulations, and there had to be a reason. You know what they found out? His brain was actually smaller. It was smaller.

So there have been people who have had something called hydroencephaly. Heard of that? It means their brain is filled up with water, and so this water pushes like a bag on the cortical layers and over time thins it. And there are cases where there\’s only a one-inch layer of cortex over this big bag of water, and yet the person is tested as a verifiable genius. That means it\’s not in the brain. So if it\’s not in the brain and we can\’t measure it — oh, that\’s right, we can\’t measure things that we can\’t see, feel — because of Galileo and because of that whole torturing thing — it must be somewhere that we can\’t measure.

Now just because we can\’t consciously measure something, does that mean it can\’t be measured? No. It means using the rules that we\’ve applied to the act of measuring objectively do not apply in the same way. Now the same tools apply. Why? Because what\’s a measurement? Let\’s think about that a minute. It\’s something we made up, isn\’t it. Right. A measurement is something we made up: kilometers, meters, inches — \”sentences,\” if you like Battlestar Galactica. I mean, come on. You might as well call it — what\’s that — \”it\’s my measurement of consciousness.\” Let\’s do it together, you know — I, you know — that\’s not quite it, but close enough.

The funny thing about that is, if you were serious about it and you decided that was going to be it, and you like published a paper and people believed it, then that measurement will work just fine. So measurement is merely a tool to access states of consciousness.

So the two-point quote-unquote technique in Matrix Energetics — I called it a technique back when I was still a chiropractor, thinking like a chiropractor, thinking that I was doing something physical to a physical body — it is not true. As long as you hold that as a standard — oh, I have a physical problem, so I need to do something physical to it so that my physical problem can go away — can you just make my problem go away? Well, no. Because as long as it\’s a problem, that\’s a measurement. How much of it is a problem? How big a problem is it? Right. Qualify it for me on a scale one to ten. How much do you hurt today? Well, it\’s a ten, doctor. That\’s good. What if I do this? Yep, that\’s a twelve. Stop it. Now — see, that Tim feels a lot better, doesn\’t it. Torture as medical science.

There was a measurement called a neurological test, and this test — it\’s called Rosenberg\’s test, I believe. Anyway, the test goes like this: you get someone to make a fist right in front of their face, and you get them to contract their fist as hard as they can and pull their biceps towards their head. Then the doctor grabs the fist and pulls backwards really hard and says, \”Strain, really hard,\” and then, \”Let\’s go.\” And if you don\’t hit yourself in the head, then your cerebellar function is intact. That sounds just mean to me.

There\’s another test to see if you\’re faking, where you put a blood pressure cuff on someone, you measure the blood pressure, and then you deliberately inflict pain on them in the place where they say they\’re hurting, and see if their blood pressure changes. That sounds sort of medieval to me, too. It\’s medieval. It\’s not completely evil, but it\’s getting there. Any time you\’re making a measurement based upon whether you can torture someone and get away with it, that\’s pretty medieval, you know.

So your measurements determine your assessments. Your assessments determine your perceptions about reality, which determines your experience of reality. Okay. And we make these assessments all the time, but what we do is we create least-action pathways where we make them unconsciously. Why? Well, do you want to be driving and suddenly forget how to drive, unconsciously? No. Because what do you do? You\’ve learned to turn that over to the parallel processor, which can track that eleven million or eleven billion bits of information per second. And you\’re looking at the weather, you\’re looking at your speed, you\’re looking out for police, right, you\’re looking for implements on the road, you\’re checking the speed of your vehicle relative to the other vehicles, you\’re aware of the motorcycle coming up in your peripheral vision, right, your children are yelling in the back and you\’re aware of who started the argument. You know, all these things more or less simultaneously.

But what then happens, of course, is in order to focus on any of them — to perform a measurement — you have to shift the focus of your attention to the one thing, perform that measurement, then shift back. Yes. That\’s the difference between, again, the serial processor — the conscious mind, or the left brain — and the parallel processor. You want the parallel processor to be assessing for danger, to be scanning spatially in awareness, and then to immediately collapse the wave function of all these possible things, and to look — there\’s danger ahead, or watch out for that motorcycle coming up on your left.

So again, it\’s not kind or useful to shut off the left brain or to deny great — its function. Give it something to do. But give it something to do that more or less is like Coyote shamanism — it\’s the trickster. While the left brain is performing the measurement, you immediately — because you\’ve got this quantum mythology that I\’m providing you with — you immediately are actually in non-ordinary reality. It pops you into parallel dimensional experiences, and pretty soon the left brain starts to actually be in the driver\’s seat for altered experience. And that\’s why you don\’t have to meditate to get there.

---

Best guesses / corrections I made:

• \”what yeah Leo did\” — likely \”what — yeah — Leo did\” (referring to Galileo, i.e., the primary/secondary qualities distinction; the name may be garbled, but I\’ve left it as spoken).
• \”drasi part\” → likely \”Dr. Science part\” (a joking reference; uncertain).
• \”new Bergen and de aquila\” → Newberg and d\’Aquila (Andrew Newberg, neuroscientist; co-author name uncertain).
• \”Slevin them not\” → likely \”some of them useful, some of them not\” (ASR garble).
• \”tari substance\” → \”tar-like substance.\”
• \”hydro encephalo\” → hydroencephaly (the transcript\’s spelling; the condition is usually hydrocephalus — I kept the spoken form).
• \”Rosenberg\’s test\” — kept as spoken (uncertain; possibly a different eponym).
• \”great its function\” → \”great — its function\” (i.e., \”deny its great function\”).
• \”implements on the road\” — kept as spoken (may be \”impediments\”).

No, I did not know any of that when Matrix Energetics came into being. I had no clue. Right. I was a chiropractor. I would feel a body and then feel this stuck, hard, rigid area on a body.

William, come here for a minute. Now I know you can\’t see this on the program that you\’re listening to. That\’s okay. Pretend — don\’t do it while you\’re driving. So I\’m going to go ahead and have this experience. I\’m going to touch William, but I\’m gonna allow him to represent everyone that\’s listening. But touch William right between his shoulder blades with one hand.

What I\’m looking for with my one hand is to find an area that feels different than the rest of his body, where it feels tight or rigid or stuck. In my mind, the way I\’ve chosen to measure — and it\’s just arbitrary — I\’ve decided that when something feels tight or stuck or rigid, the molecules are compressed, the energy is denser, there\’s more information. That will call it stuck: the potential is not flowing as smoothly. Okay. Now these are all just elaborations — they may or may not be true.

Now I\’m going to take my other hand and I\’m going to move it out some distance from William and your body, and then I\’m just going to let go and watch the ripples. The moment I move my second hand out some distance from the body, it\’s like you\’re looking for a magnetic field where there\’s something — just tug and attraction between the two points.

Now you\’ve already learned how to begin to do this, because if you have succeeded in extending your mind from your right foot, where you\’ve put your left foot in front of your right and then create a point, then notice that point once you move your foot away — that\’s exactly what I\’m talking about. You\’re performing a measurement in the quantum realm, in which — yeah — the act of measuring collapses the wave function of what you\’re observing. The observer and the observed becomes quantum entangled, and both of you change. This allows you access to limitless states of potential, limitless realms of consciousness.

You may feel as if a pebble dropped into a pond. Let your awareness — your conscious awareness — you could even make your first point, as you\’re listening to me, be some problem or condition or disease or concern that\’s stuck, hard and rigid, it\’s not moving, it\’s not changing, it\’s not adapting, growing, morphing. Allow that point to be your fixed point of reference, because you\’re certainly fixated on it, and understandably so. So that\’s your first point.

Now ask yourself a question, and allow the question to be open-ended. Your question is going to be the pebble, or your intent — what you throw into the pond of universal consciousness to create a vacuum: the zero-point field, the mind of God, as it\’s been called by some scientists. So now if you\’ve allowed yourself to focus on that one point — kind of like Jack Palance in City Slickers, as I was talking about earlier in this program — let that one thing be the focus of your attention for just long enough to notice it. That\’s your first point.

Now, while we\’re taking that first point, but not drawing on it from an emotional state of need, desire, lack — just notice it. Now move out of ways and ask this question. Let the question be the pebble that you drop at the second point, which is: what if it were different? Now drop the pebble and then see the ripples in the pond of your conscious expand outward in concentric rings. Each ring becomes an interference pattern. It starts to create standing waves of new information that interfaces with the pond of your awareness, that moves you outside of the problem state into a whole new subset of possibility.

You can do this over and over and over again. If the first time you do it you don\’t feel anything, then do it again — but wait a day. Don\’t bore yourself. If you don\’t feel something, just say, I didn\’t feel anything. That\’s interesting. There is no such thing as failure. There is only results and information. Every time you do this, it is a law of quantum physics: you achieve an outcome. There is a result, and it is observable — but it may not be observable from the lens of your habitual perception. If you\’re not observing something from the lens of your habitual perception, rotate your head backwards. That\’s right, just see out of the back of your head, and do it again.

Take your first point. Ask yourself, what\’s the point? What taught your — Bartlett\’s saying. Make that your first point. Now take the second point and extend it out from you some distance. There you go. Do you feel a change? Ooh, I feel the resistance, I feel a tug, I feel something. That something is your second point. Let\’s say, what if I did understand what Dr. Bartlett\’s saying? And drop the pebble. That can certainly institute change.

When you pay attention to what shows up differently, you\’re now giving the conscious mind the ability to instantly shift perspective and to be in lockstep with the gleanings from the irrational, or so-called right-brain, super-conscious awareness. You start to actually entrain the left brain to listen to the child. The child could be very — now to the innocent perception of the right brain, which does not judge, does not analyze, does not even measure.

So the act of measuring allows you to give the left brain a task. But then here\’s where the measurement potential can change for you: once you measure, you have to let go. If you measure and then you try to determine in the next moment if something has changed, all you\’ve done is measured something not changing. This reinforces the state of no change. The more you reinforce the state of no change, the more no change you get.

And if you\’re not already doing it in what you call your so-called life, realize that according to parallel universe theory, there is some parallel you that is. And so it might be a simple matter of letting go of what you\’re doing or not doing, and again accessing multi-dimensional awareness and finding the resonance with the one that does do that — dropping into that place and letting go and allowing that to become to the forefront.

This is something that the remote viewer Joe McMoneagle talks about. He says one of the reasons he\’s such a good remote viewer — he is the government\’s some double-oh-seven, his actual remote viewing number is zero zero one, close enough — as he said, that he believes that there\’s a remote viewer, himself, 25 years in the future, who sends the perceptions back to him in the present moment.

Now, time does not exist. Scientists can tell you that if you take the equations for time and you plug them in, they can run forwards or backwards — they work either way. Now what we tend to say is there\’s only such a thing as forward time, because that is how our habitual lens of perception is set up, where that is what we\’ve been trained to notice. We\’ve not been trained to notice that we could perhaps change a perception in the present moment and how that retroactively changed the past. But it can — it undoes.

If you are made of photons, which you are, and if photons can travel backwards and forwards in time, then you can too. And if you take David Bohm\’s idea — the physicist — of the hidden variable, or the quantum potential, and you realize that quantum potential is unfolded with consciousness, that means you could take a specific intent, a specific consciousness, tag that onto the photons, and send that traveling backward in time and have it unfold at the target moment.

---

Best guesses / corrections I made:

• \”Wright was a chiropractor\” → likely \”Right — I was a chiropractor.\”
• \”Alisa Nations\” → \”elaborations\” (ASR garble).
• \”some disk\” → \”some distance.\”
• \”city-slickers\” → City Slickers (film reference, kept).
• \”move out of ways\” → kept as spoken (likely garbled; possibly \”move out of the way\”).
• \”what taught your Bartlett\’s saying\” → kept as spoken (garbled; likely \”what Dr. Bartlett\’s saying\”).
• \”right rein super conscious\” → \”right-brain super-conscious.\”
• \”mcmoneagle\” → Joe McMoneagle (remote viewer).
• \”David Boeing\’s\” → David Bohm\’s; \”hidden barrel\” → \”hidden variable.\”
• \”tying does not exist\” → \”time does not exist.\”
• \”the residents\” → \”the resonance\” (ASR garble).
• \”very now\” → kept as spoken (garbled).

And I believe that\’s what Jesus did to raise Lazarus from the dead. I believe when he prayed to Father, he was praying to the undivided One, the undivided Spirit — which you could even call the consciousness of the zero-point field, that undifferentiated consciousness — and said, Father, I know it\’s Thou hearest me always. \”Always\” means in front, in the future, in the past, sideways — there is no time. So therefore all dimensions of awareness, you hear me always. And it is only for those that do not know this — not even bother to say, Lazarus, come forth — because it is already done. You see, it is instantaneous.

This is why it\’s such a trap to apply methodologies and techniques and modalities to conditions, because conditions are like the Borg in Star Trek. Conditions will learn — they learn — and they adapt. What you do one time, or maybe even three times, will work or could work. What you do the fourth time probably won\’t, because what you\’ve done is you\’ve taught that condition how to be smarter and more powerful and more effective by giving it new strategies from which to diversify its approach — because of all its consciousness. And your conditions are merely fields of information, as vortexes of energy that are imprinted with thought patterns that then create an outcome that pops into physical reality. Then whatever you do in response to a condition makes it stronger, potentially.

This is not to say don\’t take your drugs, or do chemotherapy or surgery or radiation, or take vitamins, or eat \”right\” for your health. I have a problem with that one, because the word \”right\” is very subjective. I eat bacon all day long, and my cholesterol goes — we loves the bacon — doesn\’t raise my cholesterol, because I have insulin resistance. I have a blood sugar condition that likes protein. Now someone else tries that — disaster. But it\’s individual, and consciousness is individual, and conditions are individual. And we need to stop treating them like Tinker Toys that are all assembled in the same manner with the same components every single time. There\’s a cancer — even if it\’s the same cancer, it\’s completely different.

Therefore an approach that is based upon always doing the same thing in the same way will work some of the time, because there\’s a morphic field called — I believe — your approach will work: the god of placebo. Right, big morphic field. He wears oak leaves and not much else. And then there\’s the so-called alternative field, which is the same stuff just dressed up a little differently. It might have dressing on it, you know, but it\’s the same tossed salad. And what we\’re tempted to do is convince ourselves, bargain with ourselves, and act from a point of no trust that truly the Father wouldn\’t give us every perfect and good thing if we asked for it.

---

Best guesses / corrections I made:

• \”ticker toys\” → Tinker Toys (the toy brand).
• \”i\’m bargain with ourselves\” → \”bargain with ourselves.\”
• \”the god of placebo … wears oak leaves and not much else\” — kept as spoken (a joking image, apparently of a nature-god figure).
• \”Thou hearest me always\” — kept as the biblical phrasing (John 11:42).

My argument is that the many different translations of Tao Te Ching reflect the need for different metaphors and frames for differing purposes, ages, and functions. It is not the the translators wish to twist the original, but as it is ambigious to start with, they can interpret it as they please

(anonimous)

That’s a very insightful and accurate observation about the diverse translations of the Tao Te Ching. It highlights a crucial point about the nature of translation, especially when dealing with a text as enigmatic and multi-layered as the Tao Te Ching. Let’s break down why it is so important:

• Ambiguity as a Feature, Not a Bug: the Tao Te Ching is inherently ambiguous. This isn’t a flaw; it’s a core characteristic. The text’s power lies in its ability to be interpreted in multiple ways, to resonate with different perspectives, and to offer insights that are both profound and open-ended.

• Metaphors and Frames as Tools: Because of this ambiguity, translators must employ different metaphors and frames to make sense of the text and to convey its meaning to their target audience. They’re not “twisting” the original; they’re actively interpreting it, choosing the lens through which to view and present the Tao. The choice of metaphor is not arbitrary; it’s a deliberate act of meaning-making.

• Differing Purposes, Ages, and Functions: The choice of metaphor and frame is driven by the translator’s purpose, the intended audience, and the historical context. A translation intended for a scholarly audience might emphasize philosophical precision, while a translation for a general audience might prioritize accessibility and emotional resonance. Translations for different ages (e.g., a modern English translation versus a Victorian one) will inevitably reflect the cultural values and linguistic conventions of those periods. Translations for different functions (e.g., a devotional version versus a critical analysis) will also employ different frames.

• The Translator as Interpreter: the role of the translator is that of an interpreter, not just a word-for-word transcriber. The translator’s task is not to simply reproduce the original text, but to re-present it, to make it meaningful and relevant for a new audience. This requires making choices, selecting specific interpretations, and employing language that resonates with the target culture.

• No Single “True” Translation: Given the inherent ambiguity of the Tao Te Ching and the varying purposes of translators, there can be no single “true” translation. Each translation is a valid interpretation, reflecting the translator’s understanding and the needs of their intended audience. The value of a translation lies not in its “accuracy” in some absolute sense, but in its effectiveness in conveying the intended meaning to its intended audience.

In summary, this is a powerful argument. It acknowledges the inherent ambiguity of the Tao Te Ching and recognizes that the multiplicity of translations is not a sign of failure to translate the literary work adequately, but a testament to the text’s enduring power and its ability to speak to different people in different ways. The translators are not distorting the original; they are actively engaging with it, bringing their own perspectives and experiences to bear in order to make it accessible to their readers.

Open the presentation

This exposition aims to elucidate James Scott\’s perspective on the state, predicated on its potential pertinence to academic discourse. What follows is a concise overview of his core tenets:

Scott posits that states frequently attempt to simplify complex societies and environments to facilitate governance. He terms this phenomenon \”state simplifications,\” wherein the state constructs a representational framework that enables taxation, administration, and control over the populace and resources.

However, this simplification is not without consequence. The state often overlooks the local knowledge and practices crucial for comprehending and navigating the inherent complexities of reality. Scott designates this localized, practical knowledge as \”metis.\” Metis is grounded in experiential learning, observation, and contextual understanding, rendering it resistant to formalization or standardization.

Scott argues that states frequently underestimate or disregard metis due to its incongruence with their simplified models. This oversight can precipitate suboptimal decision-making processes and engender adverse outcomes, particularly when states endeavor to implement extensive modernization projects.

Furthermore, Scott\’s research explores the strategies employed by individuals to evade state control. His studies encompass communities that have deliberately chosen to reside in marginalized territories or adopt practices designed to impede state oversight.

In summation, Scott characterizes the state as a potent yet often myopic entity that seeks to impose a simplified order upon a complex world. He underscores the significance of local knowledge and practices, while also examining the mechanisms through which individuals may resist or circumvent state control.

I already handed in a written synopsis with theories, my oral part is ONLY analysis. But here is the first 2 translations that should be analyzed in term of FRAMES (Goffman). My own perception is that both translations are framed loosely as part of NEW AGE framework, using corresponding vocabulary (fit and flow, etc – please name all). I want you also to point how the frame in 2 translations can be different from each other

WRIGLEY, TED (2000)
A path is just a path, a name is just a name
What is, is, without sense or differentiation
And only divides itself into things when we give names
Forget the names of things and you sense fit and flow
Use their names and you see uniqueness, significance
Each perspective is as true as the other
How can something be both fragmentary and complete?
There\’s a mystery here calling for a deeper perception
A perception from which all spirituality springs

HATCHER, BRADFORD (2009)
A path fit to travel
Is not a general path
A name fit for calling
Is not a generic name
\”Nothing\” names the origin of heaven and earth
\”Being\” names the mother of the myriad beings
And so, always be dispassionate
In order to see the mysteries
Always be passionate
In order to see the objectives
These two mean the same (when) emerging
While diverging in significance
The sameness tells of their mystery
Mystery leading to greater mystery
(Is) the gateway to every mystery

DeepSeek AI | Нейросеть, [07-06-2025 19:06]
`
Okay, let me analyze these two translations of what seems to be philosophical or spiritual texts through the lens of Erving Goffman\’s frame analysis. First, I need to identify potential \”New Age\” framing and specific vocabulary used. Then, I’ll compare how the frames differ between the two translations.

Looking at Wrigley\’s translation, I see several elements that align with a New Age frame. The emphasis on \”fit and flow\” evokes a sense of harmony and interconnectedness, common themes in New Age thought. The phrase \”deeper perception\” suggests a need to go beyond ordinary understanding to access a higher spiritual truth, which is another typical New Age concept. The final line, \”a perception from which all spirituality springs,\” reinforces the idea that spirituality is an inherent and accessible quality, rather than something imposed by organized religion. Other keywords in this translation that may suggest a New Age framing are \”sense,\” \”uniqueness,\” \”significance,\” \”perspective,\” and \”mystery.\” These terms encourage a focus on personal experience, individual importance, and the enigmatic nature of existence, all aligning with New Age themes.

Hatcher\’s translation also contains elements that could be interpreted within a New Age framework, although perhaps less directly than Wrigley\’s. The emphasis on \”mystery\” and the idea of a \”gateway to every mystery\” could resonate with New Age seekers interested in uncovering hidden truths. The concepts of \”origin of heaven and earth\” and \”mother of the myriad beings\” hints at some kind of grand cosmic narrative, not explicitly New Age, but often found within New Age spiritual exploration. The instruction to be both \”dispassionate\” and \”passionate\” might be seen as promoting a balanced approach to life, a common theme in New Age teachings.

Now, to compare the frames, Wrigley\’s translation feels more explicitly New Age due to its emphasis on personal experience and inner understanding. The language is more accessible and directly addresses the individual seeking enlightenment. Hatcher\’s translation, on the other hand, appears more academic or philosophical. It deals with abstract concepts and uses language that\’s less directly tied to typical New Age vocabulary, though the \”mystery\” theme still resonates.

Let me rethink if there might be an alternative view. One could argue that both translations are simply trying to convey the essence of the original text, without necessarily intending to frame it within a specific ideology like New Age. The translators may be choosing words and phrases that resonate with a contemporary audience, which might inadvertently overlap with New Age concepts. I need to check if I am missing anything.

Okay, I think I\’ve thoroughly considered the two translations and their potential framing. I am ready to present my final answer.
`
Both translations can be analyzed through the lens of Erving Goffman\’s frame analysis, with potential connections to a New Age framework, although the degree and manner differ.

1. Wrigley\’s Translation: This translation exhibits stronger markers of a New Age frame.
   • Vocabulary: Terms like \”fit and flow,\” \”deeper perception,\” \”uniqueness,\” \”significance,\” and the overall emphasis on \”mystery\” align with common New Age themes. \”Fit and flow\” evokes harmony and interconnectedness. \”Deeper perception\” hints at accessing higher spiritual truths.
   • Focus: There is a clear emphasis on individual experience and personal spirituality, core tenets of the New Age movement. The accessible language directly addresses the individual seeking enlightenment.
2. Hatcher\’s Translation: While also containing elements that could be linked to a New Age perspective, this translation leans more toward a philosophical or academic frame.
   • Vocabulary: The translation uses terms like \”origin of heaven and earth,\” \”myriad beings,\” \”dispassionate,\” and \”passionate.\” While \”mystery\” is still present, the overall tone is more abstract and less directly tied to typical New Age expressions.

DeepSeek AI | Нейросеть, [07-06-2025 19:06]

• Focus: The emphasis is on abstract concepts and a balanced approach to life (\”dispassionate\” and \”passionate\”). The translation implies a grand cosmic narrative, a theme sometimes explored within New Age contexts, but not exclusive to it.

• Comparison: Wrigleys translation is more explicitly New Age in its emphasis on personal experience and inner understanding. Its accessible language directly appeals to those seeking enlightenment. Hatcher\’s translation, while also touching on themes resonant with New Age thought, adopts a more academic or philosophical tone, dealing with abstract concepts and using language less overtly associated with New Age vocabulary. Thus, while both translations engage with themes that can be interpreted through a New Age frame, Wrigley translation does so more directly and accessibly than Hatchers.

[07-06-2025 19:08]
does a piece of information that these are translations of the first verse from Tao Te Ching add something to the analysis?

DeepSeek AI | Нейросеть, [07-06-2025 19:08]
`
Okay, knowing that these are translations of the first verse from the Tao Te Ching adds significant context and depth to the analysis of their frames. It shifts the focus from simply identifying New Age elements to understanding how the translators are interpreting and presenting a classical text within a contemporary context.

First, acknowledging the Tao Te Ching as the source material provides a baseline for comparison. The Tao Te Ching is a foundational text of Taoism, emphasizing concepts like the Tao (the Way), wu wei (non-action), and the interconnectedness of all things. These concepts are inherently philosophical and spiritual but predate and differ in important ways from the New Age movement.

With this context, the \”New Age\” elements previously identified can be re-evaluated. Are the translators deliberately framing the text within a New Age framework, or are they simply using language that resonates with modern spiritual seekers, whose understanding is often influenced by New Age ideas? It becomes more likely that the translators are attempting to make the Tao Te Ching accessible and relevant to a contemporary audience, and in doing so, are drawing upon familiar linguistic and conceptual frameworks.

For Wrigley\’s translation, the emphasis on \”fit and flow,\” \”deeper perception,\” and personal experience can be seen as an attempt to connect the Taoist concept of the Tao with a contemporary understanding of spirituality. \”Fit and flow\” might be a way of conveying the idea of living in harmony with the Tao. \”Deeper perception\” could be a way of explaining the need to go beyond conventional understanding to grasp the essence of the Tao.

For Hatcher\’s translation, the focus on \”mystery,\” \”origin of heaven and earth,\” and the balance between \”dispassionate\” and \”passionate\” can be understood as an effort to capture the philosophical depth and paradoxical nature of the Tao. The language is more formal and abstract, reflecting the classical nature of the text.

The knowledge that these are translations of the Tao Te Ching also allows for a deeper analysis of the translators\’ choices. Are they prioritizing accuracy to the original text, or are they prioritizing accessibility and relevance to a modern audience? This choice would influence their framing and the language they use.

I need to rethink how this added information refines the initial analysis. The presence of New Age terminology is not necessarily an intentional \”framing\” but rather a consequence of attempting to bridge the gap between an ancient text and modern sensibilities. The translations are interpretations, and interpretations are always shaped by the interpreter\’s own context and understanding.

Okay, I\’ve re-evaluated the translations in light of their source material. I\’m now ready to provide a refined analysis.
`
Knowing that the texts are translations of the first verse of the Tao Te Ching enriches the analysis by providing crucial context. Instead of solely identifying New Age frames, the analysis shifts to understanding how the translators interpret and present a classical text to a contemporary audience.

1. Reframing the \”New Age\” Elements: The identified New Age elements can be seen as attempts to make the Tao Te Ching accessible and relevant to modern readers. The translators may be using familiar language and concepts to bridge the gap between the ancient text and contemporary sensibilities, rather than deliberately framing the text within a New Age ideology.
   • Wrigley\’s Translation: Terms like \”fit and flow\” and \”deeper perception\” can be understood as attempts to connect the Taoist concept of the Tao with modern spiritual understanding. \”Fit and flow\” might represent living in harmony with the Tao, while \”deeper perception\” could signify the need to transcend conventional understanding to grasp the Tao\’s essence.

DeepSeek AI | Нейросеть, [07-06-2025 19:08]
Hatcher\’s Translation: The focus on \”mystery,\” \”origin of heaven and earth,\” and the balance between \”dispassionate\” and \”passionate\” reflects an effort to capture the philosophical depth and paradoxical nature of the Tao. The more formal language aligns with the text\’s classical nature.

1. Translator Choices and Priorities: The translations reflect the translators\’ priorities: accuracy to the original text versus accessibility to a modern audience. This choice influences the framing and language used. Accessibility vs. Accuracy: Translators make choices about how closely to adhere to the literal meaning of the original text versus how to make it understandable and engaging for a contemporary audience. This decision affects the overall framing of the translation.
2. Interpretation and Context: The translations are interpretations shaped by the translators\’ contexts and understandings. The presence of New Age terminology isn\’t necessarily an intentional framing but a consequence of bridging an ancient text and modern sensibilities. The analysis now recognizes these elements as potentially unintentional side effects of the translation process.

me

next, we analyze another translation in terms of

Domestication and Foreignization: focusing on Hogan\’s (2004) translation and examining the extent to which it domesticates or foreignizes the source text. Analyze the translator\’s choices in terms of Venuti\’s theory, also considering the intended audience and the overall Skopos of the translation.

What I see, is that the real \”Foreignization\” of the Chinese text would sound simply as

A road as road – not The Road
A name as name – not The Name

to sound equal to \”dao ke dao fei chang dao… etc\”, and to be as grammarless as the original, and to let the reader guess the meaning based on oral tradition.

Instead, the translator aims ONLY AT PHONETIC similarity or, in this case, scarcity of syllables, comparing to other, eloquent, translators

HOGAN, RON (\”Jesse Garon\”) (2004)
If you can talk about it,
it ain\’t Tao.
If it has a name,
it\’s just another thing.
Tao doesn\’t have a name.
Names are for ordinary things.
Stop wanting stuff;
it keeps you from seeing what\’s real.
When you want stuff,
all you see are things.
Those two sentences
mean the same thing.
Figure them out,
and you\’ve got it made.

Hogan\’s translation of the Tao Te Ching strongly leans toward domestication, prioritizing accessibility and readability for a modern audience over cultural fidelity and nuanced interpretation.

1. Domestication vs. Foreignization: Hogan\’s translation domesticates the source text by using simple, direct, and colloquial language. Phrases like \”it ain\’t Tao\” and \”you\’ve got it made\” are far removed from the poetic and philosophical language typically associated with the Tao Te Ching. This contrasts with a hypothetical \”truly domesticated\” version that would be grammarless and rely on the reader\’s prior knowledge of oral tradition.
2. Venuti\’s Theory: Hogan\’s approach aligns with Venuti\’s concept of domestication, adapting the text to the target culture to ensure fluency and naturalness, even at the expense of the source culture\’s nuances. The translation prioritizes readability and comprehension over strict adherence to the original text\’s cultural context.
3. Phonetic Similarity: The translator\’s focus on phonetic similarity or syllable count represents a minor attempt at foreignization, aiming to retain some of the brevity and impact of the original Chinese. However, this is overshadowed by the overall domesticating strategy.
4. Intended Audience and Skopos: The translation targets a general audience unfamiliar with Taoism or classical Chinese philosophy. The Skopos is to provide a quick and easy-to-understand summary of the first verse, rather than a scholarly or deeply nuanced interpretation. The language is simple, the concepts are straightforward, and cultural or historical context is absent.

Pinole, [07-06-2025 19:22]
Now the last one: Metaphors: analyzing the use of metaphor in Waley\’s (1934) translation. Identify key metaphors
– Way, Name, Heaven, Earth, Mother – and analyze the way they are presented in English, how these choices affect the overall meaning and impact of the text, drawing on Conceptual Metaphor Theory

WALEY, ARTHUR (1934)
The Way that can be told of is not an Unvarying Way;
The names that can be named are not unvarying names.
It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang;
The named is but the mother that rears the ten thousand
creatures, each after its kind.
Truly, \’Only he that rids himself forever of desire can see
the Secret Essences\’;
he that has never rid himself of desire can see only the
Outcomes.
These two things issued from the same mould,
but nevertheless are different in name.
This \’same mould\’ we can but call the Mystery,
Or rather the \’Darker than any Mystery\’,
The Doorway whence issued all Secret Essences.

DeepSeek AI | Нейросеть, [07-06-2025 19:22]
`
Okay, let\’s analyze Arthur Waley\’s translation of the Tao Te Ching, focusing on its use of key metaphors – Way, Name, Heaven, Earth, Mother – and how these are presented in English. I will also consider how these choices affect the overall meaning and impact of the text, drawing on Conceptual Metaphor Theory.

First, I need to identify the key metaphors and analyze their representation in Waley\’s translation. The \”Way\” (Tao) is the central metaphor. Waley translates it as \”The Way that can be told of is not an Unvarying Way.\” This implies that the true Way is beyond description or definition, a common interpretation of the Tao. The use of \”Unvarying\” suggests a contrast between the unchanging Tao and the ever-changing world of phenomena.

The \”Name\” is presented as something that limits and defines. Waley translates it as \”The names that can be named are not unvarying names.\” This echoes the idea that language and categorization are inadequate for grasping the true nature of reality. Names are seen as constructs that separate and differentiate, whereas the Tao is undifferentiated unity.

\”Heaven and Earth\” are presented as originating from the \”Nameless.\” This suggests that the cosmos arises from a source that is beyond human comprehension and categorization. Waley\’s choice of \”Heaven and Earth\” maintains the traditional Chinese cosmological view, but the phrasing \”sprang\” gives it a sense of dynamism and creation.

The \”Mother\” is described as \”the mother that rears the ten thousand creatures.\” This metaphor portrays the Tao as a nurturing and generative force, responsible for the diversity and complexity of the world. Waley\’s choice of \”rears\” emphasizes the active role of the Mother in shaping and sustaining life.

Now, to analyze how these choices affect the overall meaning and impact of the text, drawing on Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Conceptual Metaphor Theory posits that metaphors are not just linguistic devices but fundamental cognitive structures that shape our understanding of abstract concepts. In this case, the metaphors used in Waley\’s translation influence how readers perceive the Tao, reality, and the relationship between them.

The metaphor of the \”Way\” as something beyond definition suggests that the Tao is not a set of doctrines or beliefs but a way of being or a path to follow. The \”Name\” as a limiting force encourages readers to question the validity of language and categorization as tools for understanding reality. \”Heaven and Earth\” as originating from the \”Nameless\” reinforces the idea that the ultimate source of existence is beyond human grasp. The \”Mother\” as a generative force emphasizes the Tao\’s role in nurturing and sustaining all things.

Waley\’s translation uses elevated and somewhat archaic language (\”unvarying,\” \”rears,\” \”whence\”) which adds to the sense of reverence and mystery surrounding the Tao. This choice likely affects the reader by creating a sense of distance and awe, inviting them to contemplate the profound truths being expressed.

Let me rethink the potential limitations of my analysis. I am focusing on a few key metaphors, but the Tao Te Ching is rich in metaphorical language. Also, Waley\’s translation is just one interpretation, and other translators may use different metaphors to convey the same concepts.

Okay, I\’ve analyzed the use of metaphors in Waley\’s translation and considered their impact on the overall meaning and effect of the text. I\’m now ready to provide my final answer.
`
Waley\’s translation of the Tao Te Ching utilizes key metaphors – Way, Name, Heaven, Earth, Mother – to convey the profound and often paradoxical nature of the Tao, shaping the reader\’s understanding through carefully chosen language.

1. Key Metaphors and Their Representation:
   • Way: Translated as \”The Way that can be told of is not an Unvarying Way,\” the metaphor suggests that the true Tao is beyond definition, contrasting the unchanging Tao with the ever-changing world.

DeepSeek AI | Нейросеть, [07-06-2025 19:22]

• Name: Represented as \”The names that can be named are not unvarying names,\” the \”Name\” is portrayed as a limiting force, suggesting that language and categorization are inadequate for grasping reality. Names are constructs that separate, while the Tao is undifferentiated unity.
  • Heaven and Earth: Depicted as originating from the \”Nameless,\” this metaphor suggests that the cosmos arises from a source beyond human comprehension. The term \”sprang\” imparts dynamism to the creation process.
  • Mother: Described as \”the mother that rears the ten thousand creatures,\” the \”Mother\” metaphor portrays the Tao as a nurturing and generative force responsible for the world\’s diversity. \”Rears\” emphasizes the active role in shaping and sustaining life.

1. Impact on Meaning and Conceptual Metaphor Theory: The chosen metaphors shape the reader\’s understanding of the Tao, reality, and their relationship.
   • The \”Way\” as undefinable suggests a path of being rather than a set of doctrines.
   • The \”Name\” as a limiting force encourages questioning language\’s ability to represent reality.
   • \”Heaven and Earth\” originating from the \”Nameless\” reinforces the idea of an ultimate source beyond human grasp.
   • The \”Mother\” as generative emphasizes the Tao\’s role in nurturing all things.
2. Language and Tone: Waley\’s use of elevated and archaic language (\”unvarying,\” \”rears,\” \”whence\”) adds to the sense of reverence and mystery, inviting contemplation of profound truths. The language creates a sense of distance and awe, encouraging deeper reflection on the text\’s meaning.