DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 David Mills Dec. 13, 2017

DIMENSIONALITY 9 – Ragnarök Pt. 2 Hi, everybody at home. I was just asking if people are starting to notice this distinction, which is something you can always do. Our mind is going to make us feel bad in its own subconscious and mechanical way if it concludes that we’re stuck. Trying to make that not happen is not the way to go about it. Perhaps there is a different way somehow to look at things. Why I concluded not to try to overcome that idea directly of being stuck in some way and still not feeling bad is because we are not ever actually stuck. It would be an inherent contradiction to start by believing that we are stuck and wanting to feel good anyway, even though we’re actually stuck. The reality is that since we’re not stuck, we’re seeing that our mind is processing something falsely. Instead, if we experience a negative emotion, it’s a red flag that the whole goal situation and achievement and progress situation is framed wrongly, and we’re meandering back into the incorrect default way of processing goals.

2 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 Another thing I’ll reiterate and explain from different angles today are those places to look for certainty, importance and meta-frames. I also want to reiterate and make sure that we get the idea of revealing goals rather than setting them. If we’re setting them, what’s really going on is our default process is working. It’s really just associative. If a goal is associated with progress in the mind, we want to potentially re-examine our goals. You don’t have to re-examine them all at once, but in a matter of importance or for things that you’re in the middle of working on, take a look. For example, try to understand this concept about failure conditions. A colleague was asking me about moving forward with some software he was working on, and seeing that more widely. One thing he would want to do is take a look at how that fits into his overall plans, taking more of a look at a final ends goal and going from there, and then see whether it is really necessary this year or what it’s going to do. It very well may be, but then also getting a sense of what that even means, getting it more specific in terms of a revealed way of how that’s going to be a building block for the future, and what is he trying to accomplish with it. If you follow what I mean, releasing software and making money with it and helping people with it isn’t an ends goal, right? It’s not the end of all things if he does that, because he won’t be done. So then how does that fit in with what he’s trying to do overall? Maybe that fits in mainly with making money. Of course, when you’re making money you can be helping people, but generally, when we’re making money, helping people might be a boundary. It’s like if you’re driving somewhere, you don’t drive off the road. When you drive, half of your motivation is not to stay on the road and the other half is to get where you’re going. The whole thing is trying to get where you’re going. But a boundary is that you’re trying to stay between the lines or on the road. So in terms of helping people when you’re making money, it may be applicable to you to represent it right. Part of removing failure conditions is that the better you represent things in your mind with the kind of illustration you use, the better. Representing helping people when you’re making money is something that comes up again and again, so thinking of it and representing it that way can be helpful. It’s not like you’re half motivated by helping people and half by doing your business and making money. You might be fully doing what you’re doing in order to make money, which is valid, just like you might fully be driving somewhere to get to that destination, but there are all kinds of boundaries. You don’t want to run over anybody, you don’t want to get hurt, you don’t want to destroy property, and you don’t want to drive off the road, but those things shouldn’t be confused with what you’re trying to build. Boundaries are not the same as what you’re building. They are boundaries as you’re building the particular thing, or they might always be boundaries, like the property rights thing, which gives an overall boundary. My point is that it’s useful to point out about boundaries. The other part of the context is that you want to understand more and more what it is to have a goal revealed. I don’t mean “revealed” like a revelation when you pray about

David Mills 3 it and feel like God talked to you. I’m not making fun of that, but I don’t mean that. What I mean is that “revealed” logically means revealed and accurate thinking. Logic is not the perfect term, but it’s accurately thinking it through. To know why you want a building block, you have to have a sense of what the overall building that you’re trying to build looks like; or for a stepping-stone, where are you stepping to? It’s very easy to meander into goals that will make us feel better about ourselves. Either you’re already fully familiar with, or you want to get more and more familiar with recognizing the default process that has all its own set of ingredients where it’s based around what? – What are the ingredients for the default process of goals? Julie: Have found so much peace & joy with the notion of revealing goals & having won, enjoying the win forever - rather than the prevalent 'wisdom' regarding always setting yourself bigger & better goals... David: Right, exactly. If you fundamentally represent yourself as someone who is never going to be able to rest and is always running, then there’s no point to anything. Building blocks are relevant because you’re building a building, but then the building itself, metaphorically speaking, is relevant because you can rest and enjoy it. The more permanent that is the better, and why wouldn’t it be permanent? If you could enjoy something, why couldn’t you perhaps enjoy it forever? And if you couldn’t, maybe you could build something that you could at least theoretically enjoy forever, or until circumstances radically change. What are the ingredients of the default process? First, the basic engine for our minds subconsciously has to do with association. There might be other words that are equally

valid, but possibly not. Thinking in terms of your mind or your brain, there might be other dimensions or parts or aspects of your mind that aren’t physically your brain, but even when considering the mind as separate from the brain, there’s still a way that associations are such a part of the non-conscious, mechanical process of it all. When you have that as part of your representation of the mind and how it

works, then there’s the idea of progress. But what is progress? – It’s things that are associated with progress.

4 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 The default process is often represented in terms of navigation, which is like playing the game, “Marco Polo.” You close your eyes in the pool and you hear how close somebody is or where they’re located when you say, “Marco…?” and they say, “…Polo!” It’s all about getting hotter and colder. What’s manifested in that kind of model is that people feel like they want that to be closer. All of these models are actually similar in that they conflate, which means that they blur together seeming progress with actual progress. Association is substituted for actual knowing. If something is associated with progress, then that to people’s minds intuitively is the same as actual progress. So to the brain it seems that the associated and the actual are all blended together as one. Truth to the brain is that which is associated and neurologically connected up to the idea of “true.” There’s the idea of “fitting” as well, and it’s relative; they happen together – association and fitting. You realize that something can “fit” without matching. You can have a vision of a romantic partner you want, and you can meet someone who “fits” your checklist, and, of course, that person could make you happy and be “the one. It’s the same thing with a job, with a potential client, or in a meeting with a potential client. It could be the case that you have all these things you want and it fits exactly with what you thought was going to work, but then it doesn’t actually work. So something can fit without matching what you ultimately want. Certain things could fit, like a key can fit into a keyhole, but you can have anything you want on the end of a key assuming that was what you wanted. It only takes a small part of something to fit into something else. There could be a whole bunch of other stuff that’s different. So by default, the big error that leads to so many problems, so much inefficiency, so much bad feeling, and basically all the problems that we see is rooted in blurring together seeming progress and that which is associated with progress, and treating that as the same thing as actual progress. Don’t people do that? When they say, “Oh, I made progress,” they have just one word – “progress,” but that word means “seeming” and “associated with” and “actual.” There’s no distinction between what seems like progress and what is actually progress in practice and in real life. There might be moments when someone differentiates, but most of their life when they’re acting and thinking and living, there’s no distinction. They just assume that what seems like progress is the same as actual progress. Goodness to your brain is that which is associated with progress. Seeming progress, actual progress and goodness are all the same thing in practice. They’re treated the same and they function in the same way. They’re functionally similar in the brain because it works associatively. In order to associate something with something else, what do they need to be? – In one matter of speaking, they need to be “things.” To your brain, what is a “thing”? – It’s a cluster. It’s like a bunch of things that light up. Think of all the different inputs and aspects of a person who you’re friends with: there’s

David Mills 5 their body, their mind, their different behaviors, and the different experiences of that person. In order to use associative thinking, your brain has to take all of that and make it into one “thing” and you give it a name, like the person’s name that you know. It’s like they are one thing. Your brain creates that; it fabricates that it’s one thing. In the same way, people can make statements like, “Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor.” Well, there’s a lot to Japan. There’s the land that is also physically changing electron by electron. There are people, and the people are always moving, and then there are different people at different times; people are born and people die. Japan isn’t one “thing,” but your mind has the ability to fabricate “thingness,” not exactly out of thin air, but out of no foundation. There is no actual “thing” that is Japan that attacked a “thing” that is America or Pearl Harbor. As soon as you try to pin it down, or say, “Wait, that’s it,” then it moves, or it’s not capturing everything about it. It’s the same with a friend of yours or any person or yourself. It’s moving and there are so many different inputs you’ve gotten from that supposed thing. So in order to work in the way it does, your mind actually fabricates things. I use this concept to advantage in marketing and conversion, because people will buy more of something if you can make it a “thing.” The mind will make a thing out of something that has a few different attributes. It’s a vague way of saying it, but it’s linguistically correct when people say, “Oh, it’s a thing.” When I first heard that I was a little confused, but then I realized it points to something when they say, “It’s a thing.” That means it’s not just one event that is one-dimensional in people’s minds. A thing is something that people are talking about, that multiple people see and refer to. Once a few different people start talking about it in different ways, it takes on a life of its own or a reality of its own. There’s a difference when we’re promoting something. When is it a “thing”? When we took on the ASM promotion, we attached an entire event to it. You could say we added something to it, but it was more than that. There were a bunch of angles to it and we gave it a name. If it’s, “Oh, ASM is selling something” that’s like a phrase; it’s not a thing yet, it’s just, “Oh, they have a product.” You can give the product a name like ASM (an Amazon program that other people run, if you haven’t heard of it), but having different people talk about it, giving the whole promotion, giving it a name and riding the wave makes it into something that takes on its own reality, and then it sells better. When I talk about selling, marketing or conversion it’s not a matter of manipulation; it’s a matter of always trying to put your best foot forward. You either promote something that you think is reasonable to promote or you don’t. That’s where the moral decision comes in. You represent it fairly and correctly, or you mislead people. That’s again where the ethical consideration comes from. But once you decide to market and promote something, you presumably want to do a good job rather than a bad job, and that’s where this idea comes in of how the mind makes something a “thing,” or it doesn’t. I could give more examples of that and I will in the future if people ask.

6 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 I’m talking around this topic of looking at the default way that the mind looks at progress and goals. First of all, it has a model that shows up in different ways, but they all boil down to the same thing. If you’re getting “hotter or colder” that means there’s a “thing,” a goal – which is why this “thing” thing keeps coming up. Your mind makes a goal into a thing that you’re trying to either bring into existence or you’re trying to navigate your way to, or you’re trying to go where you’re hotter or closer to it or to where it’s closer to happening rather than farther away. If you look at a lot of these goals it can dissolve, or you can get the “thing” less vague and more clear on what you actually want. When something’s a “thing,” your mind feels like it wants it and it feels like goodness resides in that thing. I have an illustration that comes to mind that appears fairly often in fantasy-type books that give us the idea of going about goals effectively or ineffectively. There might be a village where there are a couple of guys who both want a particular girl. I’m not talking about how to get the girl right now, but let’s say that one guy gets the girl and she likes that guy. Let’s say the other guy feels really bad and upset and maybe gets violent or turns evil. That simple illustration can get us to start to ask questions or analyze the fundamental difference between attending to removing failure conditions until you win versus the default process that currently is normal. We don’t want it to remain normal, but it’s the default process of how people go about things. The same default process could have had that second guy who doesn’t get the girl to have a successful reaction. What would a successful reaction be? If his overall frame happened to be a worldview that allowed him to navigate to something that was good for him and the world, then he could do it, such as thinking, “Oh, maybe there’s another girl for me, and I’m glad that they are happy.” If he had an overall abundant mindset it would work without changing his default. But if not, by default, without that mindset to help him and without a particularly terrific frame, then by default, the feeling he would associate with that girl is goodness, and a lot of it, powerfully. Then he would feel like that goodness was taken away. There was this goal and he wanted his expectations in life to match a certain picture, because it became a “thing” – having the girl. So the girl herself becomes a “thing,” which can have unfortunate consequences if we’re not able to think outside of making people and events into things. I’m going to keep giving you a different way to look at it, to see how our mind does this by default. So if the guy makes the girl into a thing, and then makes having her and a relationship with her or marrying her into a thing, then he wants that thing to be manifested or to navigate to it or to get closer to it. If he feels helpless if it’s “taken away” from him, then he could feel angry. We can test the idea of removing failure conditions with this simple illustration regardless of his frame. Again, he would need to have had a very good frame going into

David Mills 7 it if he was locked into the typical way of achieving goals. He’d really need to have had an abundant frame. However, the right way of going about success should work regardless of your current frames and regardless of where you’re starting. Not just starting where your resources are, but starting in terms of your overall context and understanding of the world, where you’d be thinking about goals revealing themselves. Part of what I want you always to have at your fingertips so you don’t have to figure it out every time, is to go back to the original phrase here, “ONLY!!! Remove failure conditions until you win.” I’m going to give you an additional thought here; it’s either new or clarifying a certain angle on something I’ve said before. Instead of thinking of winning as getting or building a “thing,” we want to think in terms of thresholds. A “thing” can be taken away from you or be smashed. It’s fragile in a certain way, and getting to it is also fragile. You feel like you have to match that thing to be happy, to achieve your goal or to win. If winning is getting a thing or achieving a thing, instead we want to think of it as getting over a threshold. You don’t need to match anything, unless you reframe or clarify matching as you are matching the state of getting over a threshold. Then matching becomes an irrelevant point. When I think of thresholds, I think of a physical thing you’re jumping over or climbing over when you get up enough momentum. You have to get over something using a car and a ramp, or you’re kicking a ball through a goal post for a field goal, and you have to exceed a threshold in those cases. It’s not really matching; you’re getting over a threshold. “Why does that matter?” might be a question. How does that help us? First of all, when you’re exceeding a threshold, it’s more obvious that there isn’t a thing there for goodness to sit inside of that we think we need to grab and hold, and then we’ll have goodness. You want to understand goodness in two ways that are correct. They both work together.

8 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 But first, I’m going to clarify an old term. Instead of “consciousness field,” I’m going to

say “consciousness screen.” I used to say “field,” but I noticed when I was reading “Think and Grow Rich” that Napoleon Hill uses the phrase “consciousness field” in a totally different way to refer to something that is clearly non-conscious where you’re tapping into a consciousness field of information. Obviously the field of information you’re tapping into is not in and of itself a conscious being. A critical distinction, a critical

piece of understanding the world and existence and who you are, and therefore, how to be happy, how to make progress and make money and have good relationships, is that you absolutely need to have this distinction or you’re going to be constantly crippled; you’re missing a critical piece of what’s going on. It was this distinction that hugely opened the door for me about twenty years ago, which is the idea that we are putting a name to it and treating it as everything that we’re consciously aware of. I called it a “field” and that might have confused some people, or might not have. I described it in the same way as I’m doing now. Your consciousness screen is what you currently feel like you’re seeing – not the things you’re seeing themselves, but what you might think of as a visual image that is in your consciousness screen, whatever you’re literally directly conscious of – your seeing, your hearing, your thinking. If it’s a memory and you’re currently aware of that memory, whatever it is that you’re currently aware of, whatever form it takes, that would be the definition that I’m making here; it would be part of your consciousness screen. So if you’re currently aware that you’re looking at a tree, whatever it is you’re actually experiencing and seeing, then what you’re seeing is part of your consciousness screen. If you’re looking at the moon, the moon might be about 240,000 miles away, but it’s also right there in your consciousness screen. It’s not that it’s close or far in your consciousness screen, it’s in your consciousness screen if you’re currently seeing it. And not the whole moon, but the image you are seeing is in your consciousness screen. That is everything you have direct access to; the starting point of your knowledge is your consciousness screen. Without being able to realize that it exists and have a name for it and have it be a concept that you can work with, then you can’t understand the rest of the world. I’ve talked about it previously in “Alchemy.” I’m not

David Mills 9 going to elaborate on it greatly here but I’ll use it to some degree, and then either in past material or future material I can cover it more. Goodness and the experience of it only exists as part of your consciousness screen, other people’s consciousness screen, and God’s consciousness screen. That’s the only place that goodness can reside, just like the only place that a visual image can reside is not on your retinas, or certainly not in your brain – they’re just electrical impulses. There can be things going on your retina, but the visual image of what you’re conscious of can only exist in a consciousness screen. Things that are inherently consciousness experiences can only reside in a consciousness screen of a conscious being; a being meaning something that has a consciousness screen. That’s my full definition of a being – it is something experiencing a consciousness screen. A being can have other qualities; we clearly have some sort of power or free will. A big question then is, “How exactly does that work?” That’s one of the critical questions, and they all get answered together in my model of the world, including “How do we fundamentally exercise our power of free will?” It comes down to this answer. It’s all the same question, “How do we make decisions? How do we know what’s true?” It’s all the same basic question, and the answer is also related. So goodness resides there, but then there’s the question of, “So goodness only resides in my consciousness screen, but I still need to know, what is the precursor to it? What is the reason for it?” If goodness happens for no reason whatsoever, then everything is basically meaningless. If there’s no reason for anything in our consciousness screen, then everything breaks down, but that’s not the case; that’s absurd. You can work it out for yourself if you want to delve into it a bit more. If you have trouble working it out for yourself you can ask me in the future when I have more question-and-answer webinars. What’s the reason for goodness? What are the real conditions that cause it? I’m going to give you something now that hopefully you can grasp onto given that background, that the reason for goodness comes from an intersection. Another word we can use that’s a bit complicated is “waves,” which captures it in a useful way to the extent that you can picture it. There’s a way that two waves interact and form an interference pattern from the interaction of the two waves. They form a pattern, and that’s how CDs are made. From what I understand, you can encode an almost unlimited amount of information in a very small space by adding waves. From the resulting pattern that the wave creates you can put another wave into it and it becomes more complex. It doesn’t really get bigger, but there’s more complexity in one space and more of an interference pattern, and if you shine the right kind of reverse wave into it, you get information back out. I think that’s actually how memory works, even though I only understand it on a simple level, but that’s all we need for normal life. It’s kind of deep, but simple, and you can understand this idea soon, if not this second, then within a few minutes or days.

10 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 You can understand the idea of goodness coming from an intersection, rather than residing in an object or a person. Let’s be a bit simplistic in a way that will be useful. You can imagine that you’re interacting with someone else, even all the way till you’re married to them. It’s not that being married to them in and of itself is a “thing” that’s good. What is good are the intersections day by day, and moment by moment that you create with that person, or that get created. You don’t specifically create them, but you do what you do, which leads to conditions that create these moments and situations of intersection. You don’t have to only think of intersections as moments. An intersection could be that you make a household or a family together or raise a child overall as an intersection. You go see a movie and that’s not one moment; it might be an hour and a half or two hours, but if it’s a good intersection then you both enjoy the fact that you’re doing it together. Thinking of it this way is unbelievably useful because it also means that you don’t need to try to force intersections that aren’t going to lead to goodness. People often think that a relationship is about one person doing something the other person wants and they don’t really enjoy it very much, then the next day the other person does something they don’t like very much because the other person likes it. I seek out intersections that we both tend to like. When you really like or love somebody, then it’s much more likely that a relatively mundane or an otherwise mediocre event might be particularly enjoyable. But if it’s not, despite the fact that I love my wife, then I usually don’t do it. We both have this sense, so it’s easy, and in practice it works tremendously well. We have plenty of intersections and they’re all nice, unless we have an accidental mistake, but overall, when things are very nice, then little issues dissolve out quickly. The same thing works in business. I can contrast this way of thinking with the way people often interact in relationships, including business relationships, relations with a customer or business partners. It’s of immense day-to-day practical value to me, plus it illustrates the overall concept that we’re talking about, the distinction between the default process of trying to decide goals and progress toward them and how you feel versus the idea of removing failure conditions. Normally what people do is they imagine a thing they want like an event or what someone should do, or they imagine a thing and they think how people fit in to it. “If this person does this then my goal will move closer or be achieved.” People compound that error by thinking that goodness resides in this goal, this thing that you make or achieve, or in a person who pays you money or signs the dotted line and becomes your client, and that goodness resides in that thing. If you think that goodness resides in a relationship as a whole, I’m saying that is not the case. It isn’t that goodness resides in my marriage; I’m saying that goodness resides

David Mills 11 in specific intersections, specific waveforms that are created by her, if you imagine her as a wave and me as a wave. There’s a certain overall framework in which a person operates. People don’t radically change moment by moment, but they change, they feel differently, there are different things they may want on a particular day or in a particular moment. You can think of it as the waveform changing individually, not just the intersection, but often with people, it varies within a rigidly defined range. That’s why you can pick a partner in the first place, where there will be a number of intersections that are nice and lead to goodness. There are also going to be other times when intersecting won’t do that. Maybe I want to do one thing and my wife wants to do something different. It might be that we can do both of those things in the same room and like the fact that we’re in the same room both doing separate things. Or it might be that’s not the case and we need to be in different rooms because of the nature of the activity, or if we’re in the same room that will somehow hurt the activities. Maybe we’re both playing sound that would interfere, or maybe one of us would want to talk to the other in a way that the waveform isn’t a very good intersection. So again, I don’t think of it that goodness resides in the relationship or in the fact that I’m married to my wife or in the fact that I’m partnered with Mike Long or my other partners. What people do is think, “Okay, this is a good partnership,” but then separately they’ll think, “I want this thing or this event.” By default, they’ll want a certain event to happen or a certain milestone, but the milestone is a “thing” or something they want to have happen. They want the world to match their expectations. They want to navigate to it or manifest it, and they feel good if they feel like they’re getting closer to it. They’ll think, “I want my partner to do this in order to help make this thing happen that I want, and since the thing I want is good…” People don’t think of it philosophically. It’s the default process I’m describing. It took me awhile to figure all this out, so value it. I’m not just saying something flippant off the top of my head; it took a lot of work to figure out what the default process was. People will think by default that if something is good, therefore, an action by their business partner or romantic partner that furthers that thing is also good. By default, they’ll associate that. And if the person doesn’t do it, then they might feel frustrated or angry. Not always, because sometimes you say, “Okay, I guess they didn’t want to do it.” But the default is that we’ll feel a bit of annoyance or a bit of a ding or maybe a lot of annoyance or frustration. In those cases, we might interact with that other person in a way that doesn’t help us overall. We might not react at all, but we’ll store something in our minds that will be an issue.

12 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 What if you look at people, not as “thing,” but as potentials for interacting with your waveform? Their waveforms vary within a range just like my own, and sometimes they are going to be a great interaction pattern or interference pattern. Interference is not a bad word when it comes to the way it refers to the interaction pattern; it would be a synonym. The official term is “interference pattern” – and the resulting waveform is reliably going to result in good. That’s the case with every single person I know when there are times of intersection. With some people it might be once every five years, with some people it might be multiple times a day. With some people it might be multiple times a day for a certain project and then nothing, and then a few years later something else. And if you just look for when there’s a real intersection, then it’s amazing. In general, other people are going to like you for this reason: you have a certain awareness, you’re looking in a way that you’re spotting these things, and you’re interacting with them in a way that is beneficial to them, too. By almost exclusively doing that, you’re not creating bad waveforms with them because you’re paying attention to it. You have an overall worldview and mental model that’s easy to spot. If you’re imagining a romantic partner, it’s easy to poke around and get to know and find things that you both like doing together. It’s easy to avoid things that you both really don’t want, especially if you both have this mental model to a decent degree. Maybe they won’t have it fully, but maybe they will. It’s not that complicated, and they’re not pressuring you to make waveforms that you don’t really want with them. Since you care about someone and love them or like them, it’s going to naturally make things that would otherwise be neutral into positives, so it all works out very nicely. I look for these interacting resulting nice waveforms. I don’t just do it with people, I do it with activities, and I’m just trying to get over a threshold by removing failure conditions. Another major point I want to get to is removing failure conditions or attending to failure conditions, and of course, that includes harnessing success conditions, which leads me to another point, so let me make sure I wrap up this one. Again, I look at winning as getting over a threshold, and I’m trying to create conditions. Once you’ve started understanding failure conditions, you can almost remove failure or success and just look to create or cultivate conditions or unblock success conditions until you win. You just keep adding in these good conditions or subtracting bad conditions, or allowing good ones to simply flow until you exceed a threshold, and now no one is getting in your way. It removes the whole idea of using people; it removes the question of, “Oh, do you only call me when you want something?” Instead, I look to understand, and this naturally leads to a more clear benefit of understanding people. If you’re looking at someone as a “thing,” you don’t really understand the person; it’s more like you’re

David Mills 13 associating stuff with a person. Again, I don’t have a deep understanding of waves, and I’m not a mathematician who does wave function equations. But with that mental model of looking for better intersecting waveforms, there’s a way that it leads to understanding someone in a nice, productive, useful way when you’re looking to have good wave intersections with somebody that’s helping them win and helping you win. And it removes the whole question of whether you’re just using them or calling on them when you want them. They won’t feel that way and so it won’t come up. The point I’m getting to here is quite an important ingredient that is an easy thing to not realize. Once you have it and as we start to talk about it, it will clear up either a potential misconception or remove a failure condition for you for understanding the core idea of removing failure conditions until you win. As often is the case, I’ve talked about this before, but in light of this new idea, I’m revisiting it in a new way. Is stillness the default? – And the answer is no, just so we don’t get confused. Let’s ask this question for a moment, and you’ll understand what I mean, and then we’ll ask, “What if it was?” I have a great illustration for this. How does it work if you’re a healer? -- either an official doctor or any other type of effective healer of any sort, maybe with acupuncture or herbs or a clinic that helps people relax or whatever. Let’s stipulate that whatever it is, it’s part of what sometimes or often works for people, although I’m not asserting what does or doesn’t work. If you’re a healer, what is your core foundational model for healing? Is the body an inner thing that you have to “fix” like a car where you just replace a part that isn’t working or maybe unclog an engine, but basically, it’s still? In this case by contrast, the car engine does not heal itself at all. So you just fully replace broken parts with working parts. You have to do it all. If you’re fixing a car, the overall idea of removing failure conditions would apply in a sense – you just literally remove something that doesn’t work and put in something that does. But let’s forget about the car for a moment. With healing a body, what’s the basic model? With healing a body, the idea is that the body rebuilds itself, and if it wouldn’t do that, then pretty much no form of medicine would work, neither getting someone to not be stressed, getting the right nutrition, nor

14 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 going in and cutting something out that’s interfering with the body healing itself or working well. I think most healing models that are effective do take this into account, but if a supposed healing technique didn’t take this into account, it probably wouldn’t be very effective. Generally, a body heals itself. A body is in motion; it’s not still or inert. You don’t just replace parts and have it work by putting a bunch of working parts together. What you do is you look to create the conditions for it to work properly again to heal itself. The idea is that it has the working parts in most cases. If we try, we could come up with some exceptions where we actually mechanically build a piece that it needs and put it in mechanically, and then the rest of it works, which doesn’t ruin our illustration; it may or may not be relevant. It’s only an analogy and analogies are not exactly the same thing as the thing you’re talking about. Analogies will almost always or always break down at a certain point. By looking at the general sense of bodies healing themselves, if you remove the things that are preventing health, or if you create conditions for it to work better rebuilding itself or healing itself, then the important thing is that stillness is not the default; it’s in motion. The overall healing philosophy by default is that the body will heal itself, and then you’re looking to either add things in or take things out or create the context. If you have a meditation clinic in the mountains where there are more negative ions, then you’re adding certain conditions and taking certain stressful conditions out. You’re adding and subtracting things in order to have the overall conditions be such that it exceeds a threshold of health. Health is a good example of this threshold idea. Health is not about perfection. In order to be even perfectly healthy, it doesn’t have to match one perfect thing. You’re trying to get over a certain threshold. You could say that a perfectly healthy body would be one that was functioning without degrading, But that doesn’t match any one particular thing. It’s just over a certain threshold. The new or newish thing that I want to put on the front of your screen and have clear for you is that if you’re dealing with an overall situation where the default is that nothing is moving, then that takes different strategies. The overall way you treat that, or your overall strategy is going to be different than with something that is naturally in motion. What we’re dealing with in life fundamentally – and this is where the consciousness screen comes back in – is if we realize and understand that there’s a consciousness screen, then we realize who we really are, which is a critical part of ultimately understanding this idea of failure conditions. Not knowing who you are is a failure condition that you want to remove for understanding the original concept about removing failure conditions. There’s an implied “you” here. “You” remove failure conditions until you win, so “Who is you?”

David Mills 15 would be a failure condition for understanding this. So understanding “you” as a conscious being, and then from the perspective of you as a conscious being, understand that the world that you’re dealing with is in motion. You only need to somehow either harness or direct it or keep it from going in the wrong place so the motion goes in the right place. You don’t need to create motion from stillness. It’s going to move. – And why does that matter? It helps us to see that removing failure conditions really is profound because if something is still by default, then one of the failure conditions is that it remains still. The first failure condition would be that the default is stillness, so you would need to get things moving. However, in life, we don’t have to get things moving. Something similar to this is that you always have a certain amount of focus; you’re not going to have more or less focus consciously. In a certain sense, even the subconscious has something analogous to focus, so there’s going to be a certain amount of it in some way. If subconsciously your mind is all over the place with priorities, it’s not as good as if it has one overall thing that subconsciously you feel is a priority and you’re going to do whatever it takes. If something is moving, then you really only need to make sure it doesn’t fail, including that the overall frame doesn’t restrict it from getting over the threshold. A car can drive forever on an island, but if it needs to get to somewhere that is not on that island, then it’s not going to get there. Another thing that is important to realize about the world and existence overall is that it is state dependent. The next moment is clearly based partly on the previous moment. That has to be the case in a world where there are reasons, and you couldn’t have the world without reasons. It’s not controversial to say that the next moment is going to be partly based on this moment, obviously; otherwise everything would be totally disconnected and chaotic. Nothing would have any connection to anything else. We’re dealing with an existence that is state dependent, meaning the previous moment matters, which also means that the previous moment sets a certain type of frame on things. Sometimes people accidentally think that given an unlimited amount of time, they’ll achieve anything in the universe or that anything becomes possible. That’s actually false in a state dependent existence like we have. It’s illustrated with a simple illustration that a car can drive for an unlimited amount of time on an island and never get to a continent across an ocean. It doesn’t matter how much time it has, it will never get there because of the state dependence, the frame dependence. What is true when you have both motion and state dependence is that if you attend to frames and you attend to failure conditions, then you’ll get to where you want to go if the frame allows it. But of course, we also live in a world where we can sometimes make a good guess of what a success condition will be and narrow down our search.

16 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 The idea of stillness as a default thing will come up, and we can see how it comes up with medicine. It comes up when people talk about motivation. It’s a matter of undoing a combination lock or unblocking, and when it’s unblocked it will look like you connect up a chain of events; or, you can think of it like connecting to a battery. When a goal reveals itself to you that means it is really going to help you and so the

motivation is going to be there. Another important concept that I touched on before, but I want to make sure that we have at the tip of our mind when it comes up, is that since we’re in motion, motivation is not the central problem. What is related to motivation that is a potential major issue is importance. Both as a deep and as a very practical matter, one of the places to look if a

goal has revealed itself to you is accurate thinking. I don’t mean

that a goal reveals itself like a revelation or a feeling – your feelings come from associations to start with, and they’re not entirely trustworthy. So as a practical matter, if there’s something you want to achieve and it looks like motivation is an issue or it looks like you’re running in place or treading water or it’s just not happening, then certainly you want to try to get closer to an integrated sense. Integrated means subconscious, conscious, and also different moments of the day. Your so-called conscious mind can feel like something is very important in the morning and not feel like it’s important in the evening, so “integrated” is a better term that captures it better. You want to have it intellectually and emotionally where you feel it in a more integrated way. Feeling is part of mental integration. If you don’t feel something, then it’s obviously not integrated throughout your mind. Practically speaking, so much of what gets decided, so much of what you do and what your mind and body do and think is determined outside of your conscious awareness and control. You (meaning yourself, and don’t worry about the distinction for a moment) can only consciously fix, focus on, navigate, and maneuver a little bit of what is going on at the time. You can pay attention to a certain amount, but there is a lot that is already determined by the previous moment that you’re not consciously deciding right now. As an example, you are conscious of where you’re sitting and that you’re on the webinar, but there are certainly times when you’re into what I’m saying and you’re not

David Mills 17 thinking about whether or not to be on the webinar. So if you have any objections, you can think about this separately and it will turn out to be true. So much of what you do and think at all times in a practical way is determined outside of what you’re consciously paying attention to, and therefore outside of your immediate control. It might be ultimately in your control over time, like choosing to be on the webinar. It might at some point come to your attention of whether you want to remain on it. If you’re at a job, a lot of times you’re not thinking about whether you want to stay in a job or whether you want to complete a task. You’re just into it, which is helpful. It’s not helpful to only be thinking since you literally can’t pay attention to all the possible frames and options and parameters. It’s not even close to possible, which is yet another proof of why that in the moment almost everything is outside of your control that you’re supposedly doing. It’s within the control of part of your subconscious mind, or some of it is controlled by certain associations and things going on in your mind with whatever your mind is contributing to, but that’s not in your conscious control, so it might as well be out of your control for the moment. I’m saying that to explain how you feel and also that you feel have a feel for it. When I say that you feel, it’s like if you’re a running back in football or a tennis pro or a piano player, or literally everything is an example of this, that if you have a feel for what you’re doing, it’s a feeling of mastery. Not a feeling that you’re a master, but an actual feeling that a master would have doing whatever activity they do. You couldn’t perform the activity at a mastery level unless you intuitively and subconsciously had integrated it in a mental way and felt it, like a running back would feel where to go. I don’t consciously figure out and think of all the ideas that I’m sharing with you in the moment, which would be impossible. Nearly all of what is going on has to do with previous work, preparation, realizations and connections. Much of what I say is determined subconsciously in the moment. I don’t consciously think of every potential sentence I could say and pick the one based on all the potential results and outcomes; it’s my “feel” nearly always, and that’s how life is. We need to have that be part of our model of success and embrace it, and since that’s the case, we do need our subconscious feelings, something that’s mechanical, and something that’s outside of what you can get right consciously. You can only know consciously. I’m specifically saying not to have your feelings determine the outside frame. You want to figure out overall frames of life that are correct, such as abundance, who you are, that God exists, and what the overall win looks like, and then from there what goodness is, and a lot of things I specifically talk about that are related, and whatever is actually an outer frame. You need to embrace and work with and harness the fact that most everything that’s going to go on for you in every moment is going to be determined outside of your control.

18 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 You gain overall control in your life by getting the foundational outer and deeper frames right, and work inward from there, and then all the wiggle room and all that’s done subconsciously is within a smaller area of error, or you are just over a threshold where none of it is error. There can be a lot of movement in different ways that you don’t control and none of it can be an error if it’s over a threshold, or within a frame, within which there isn’t necessarily any error. Let’s say you create an environment for a six-month-old baby that’s very safe, then there’s no right or wrong answer to what they might play with or explore because it’s an overall frame within which every option is good. You don’t know which option the baby might pick, but they’re all fine and helpful. We both want to understand and practice the idea that we want to get the overall frame right, and then we build and work from there as a general strategy. When you know specific minor things that are true, that’s fine, too. But as an overall strategy, we want to get the outer frames right, which means the more important ones, because they typically have more of an impact. Then we want our feelings to catch up. We want these correct frames to get integrated where we feel them. It’s the same thing with mastery of a particular activity, we want to create the conditions for mastery, which means that in an integrated way, we feel what’s right and it’s connected up. Then we want to get to where we can trust those feelings; and still, when there are red flags we know to look where the issue is. A red flag might be if we feel bad, or if we’re seemingly stuck, then that means we typically need to take a look at our context and some of the frames that we’re in. To choose a simple illustration, if you’ve been searching and searching in one room for your glasses and you don’t find them, then you’re seemingly stuck using the strategy of searching by trial and error in that room. Once you feel like you’re seemingly stuck, then you can do a quick check, and you probably want to take a look at the frame. “Maybe I need to switch rooms,” and if they’re in none of the rooms, then “Maybe I need to get new glasses. They’re nowhere in my house.” To recap here, we want to have the correct understanding of mental integration, which includes, “Do we trust our feelings or not?” I’ve heard this sentiment from people in various ways: “Well, if I can’t trust my feeling about this, then I’m screwed. Don’t tell me I can’t trust my basic sense of what’s right or what’s correct about this – then I don’t know what I can do.” We can expand this idea of “I can’t trust my feelings” to a more pervasive idea that comes up in all kinds of practical ways once you look for it, which is, “But if I can’t trust this source, then what do I do? I’m lost.” As part of our understanding of the core success methodology, we need to have an overall understanding of success where we’re not stuck if a source isn’t perfect. As an example, Christians tend to believe and affirm that if the Bible isn’t perfect, inerrant and taken as a whole, then they’re stuck. What are they supposed to do at that point? They say, “You can’t pick and choose certain things.” I agree, it doesn’t make any sense to

David Mills 19 pick and choose, but in any case, if you’re stuck with a source, the problem is that we’re back to the waveform thing. The trouble is that a source is interacting with your mind in this illustration of the Bible, or we could use a zillion illustrations – Greg Morrison, OMG and it’s teaching, or me as teaching you, or your own feelings or thoughts. Scientists have shown that there is an area that lights up in the brain when people feel that God is speaking to them. When people feel there’s a deep inner voice that’s perfect, there are certain neurons that light up. I think a lot of people secretly have a sense that, “There’s a certain communication that I receive that’s very private and spiritual, and I know it’s right when I hear that voice.” Well, that’s a source, too. This source is interacting with your mind, and there’s a resulting waveform, and here’s the issue -- What we want to do when we have the waveform illustration is ask, “Which of it is perfect? Is it the original source?” In most or all cases, we don’t know if it’s perfect in the first place. We’re conflating the waveform that results in your mind interacting with that source. Even if Greg is right about everything to do with SEO, or if I’m right about the critical things I’m telling you about success, you can still misinterpret it, and people often do. They’ll get a bit of a wrong idea from what I’m saying. It doesn’t mean they’re doing something wrong as a being, and it doesn’t mean that I’m doing something wrong. It’s just that when I speak, what you get is a resulting waveform; it’s an intersection between your mind and whatever I originally intended. And there’s a cascade of waveforms. There might be what I supposedly intend, there’s what I figured out that’s in my mind and it comes out in the moment, partly subconsciously, and then it interacts with your mind, and then there’s also your memory when you think of it later. It’s almost like a game of “telephone” with the waves where you get an interference pattern, and that becomes a memory, then you recall it and that’s a new interference pattern, and so forth. If I have one idea in my mind, then by the time I say it, it’s interacting with language, then it interacts with your mind interpreting it, and so you have this cascading series of waveforms. It’s like the “telephone” game where meaning gets changed as people supposedly relay the same message to one person after another, and it gets more twisted. You want to have an overall strategy in life where you’re not dependent on sources to give you perfect resulting waveforms once your mind attends to them. You can also allow for the waveform to be useful and essentially perfect or over a threshold for what you need to win. In other words, when Greg Morrison teaches you something, what you understand him to be saying might be functionally perfect. He might have gotten it right, and by the time you understood it, you might have gotten it right as well in the sense that when you go to use it, it’s going to work just fine. So I’m not saying one way or the other whether the Bible is true or not, I’m saying that we need to stop conflating one of the waves that ends up forming the waveform with

20 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 the resulting intersection. I’ve expressed it before that “X times Y” is not the same as “X.” It’s “Z.” Of course, if either X or Y didn’t modify the other, if either one of them was a “1” and mathematically didn’t modify the other, then yes, then “X times 1 = X.” Sometimes in philosophies there’s the idea that our mind needs to be a still pool that doesn’t change the meaning of things, but the problem is, how’s that supposed to happen? What if you read the Bible in French and you don’t speak French? Is your mind going to be a still pool that doesn’t mess with the meaning and you get the pure meaning of the Bible in a language you don’t speak? Or when I say the Bible, it could be Greg Morrison; it could be me speaking in a language you don’t understand. So the idea of your mind being a still pool – there might be an aspect of it that’s helpful, and certainly, if we can come at a situation without additional bias, then that’s helpful. But any time we have to interpret something, which is pretty much all the time, then that’s part of it, too; you can’t just be an inert thing if you’re interpreting. There might be more about it that I’ll figure out over time that will shed more light on it. But I do want to stress that there’s a way that people treat sources where it’s a failure condition. It’s like they need to confirm or feel like the source is always right, or else they’re adrift at sea. The minute the source disappoints them, or at least their perception or interpretation of the source disappoints them, they feel lost, including with your own mind. It’s very important that you don’t create that situation. A lot of you to some degree might still feel like there’s a certain part of your mind that speaks the truth, and that if you feel a certain way about something that it is right. You feel like it’s important to not let go of that because if you do, then what do you have? And you don’t need that. You can have your feelings follow from what you determine to be true. Hanging on to false certainty might be the most fundamental failure condition and the biggest block between you and I having full communication or me helping you best. A false sense of importance will keep you from even sticking with me. I say, “Believe me enough to stick with me.” So people who don’t listen to this webinar are certain about the lack of importance of what I’m saying, so they don’t listen to the webinar. Certainty, importance and a confidence in context or already being right are all intimately related and you cannot separate them. It still boils down to any one of these three because they’re all so inter-related that any one of them leads to the others – importance, certainty and context or frames. So when you get any one of them right you get them all right, or if you get any one of them wrong then you get them all wrong. That means you could pick one, like certainty, and if you let go of needing false certainty, you’re ultimately going to be and remain unblocked and you’re going to keep making real progress. The one thing that can fundamentally get in the way of your progress is a false certainty, like when your brain fabricates certainty about all kinds of stuff and you have these barriers, “Well, I’m not going to touch that,” or “That’s offensive,” or “Well, that’s

David Mills 21 just true.” You don’t even realize that you’re affirming that you either take the importance or the lack of importance of something for granted. You’ll feel like, “Oh, that’s not important,” or “I don’t understand, so It’s probably not important,” and you won’t even realize that you’re affirming certainty in that case. But even if you don’t realize it, whenever you have an affirmation about importance that you either by neglect or consciously on purpose affirm, “Oh, that’s not important,” or “That’s important,” you are also making a certainty claim. How do you have accurate thoughts? – Unless you arrived at that affirmation through the proper method of accuracy, how do you know that it’s true? Let’s not forget our fundamental core. Here’s a new way of answering it for you. How do you know if something is true? Remove any of the failure conditions; remove any conditions of uncertainty. This is even better than telling you to disprove the opposite. Disproving the opposite is one way you can get to the win, but you have to get to a threshold of clarity where it can’t be wrong for whatever reason. It’s so clear that there’s no way it’s wrong. So once you’re over a certain threshold of clarity, the way you get to truth is you remove failure conditions. False certainty and being content with a BS method of certainty is the starting failure condition, the most fundamental failure condition. To let go of that, let go of knowing anything for a moment until you find something that you know. You can start with, “I know that I have a consciousness screen.” You can know that you neither know nothing, nor are you aware of everything. You’re not omniscient either. It’s pretty obvious. You can ask a question that you don’t know the answer to, and that proves you’re not omniscient. You can know that there’s a variable amount of goodness that you can experience. Nothing would have any meaning unless there’s a variable amount of goodness you can experience. You can realize that your consciousness screen and how it’s configured right now must be that way for a reason. There must also be something that exists that’s capable of making consciousness screens and changing them since you have one and it changes, and you can build from there. “Okay, who am I? At least I must be something that is able to be aware of consciousness screens. What’s my overall goal or purpose? Well, I’d like to have goodness, sure, but there’s also badness, which is actually different from goodness.” You might think that badness and goodness are the same thing but they’re not, or else there would be no way to tell the difference between good and bad, which we can. I don’t mean we can tell the difference between what leads to good or bad, but we can certainly tell if we feel good or bad. Again, nothing would have any meaning if we could not. You wouldn’t even understand what I was talking about at all, so they’re definitely different. Maybe bad is just the relative lack of good, but then that doesn’t add up.

22 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 You could imagine that you feel good, but you could feel even better. Let’s say that on Monday you feel quite good. On Tuesday you feel even better. Then on Wednesday you feel as good as you did on Monday, but not as good as Tuesday. There doesn’t have to be any bad in all that. Bad isn’t just relative to less good, there’s a real feeling of actual bad that we can feel, and it’s different than goodness. I can get into that more in the future, but those are some examples of things you can know and you can keep on going. You can say, “I know that the following seems to be true: I I want to make such-and-such amount of money,” so let’s say that’s the case if it’s true. You can know all kinds of “if/then” statements with perfect clarity. “If I make $5,000 a month, that’s less than $10,000 a month. It’s not necessarily worse, but if I say that it’s better to make $10,000 than $5,000, or it’s worse to make $5,000, does that mean I have to feel bad? – No.” So once again we see that you can feel good. That doesn’t help you make it, but you can think, “Well, okay, is it more likely eyeballing it? Is it more likely if I contact people in some way and talk to them about making money, and if I learn from people who are making money and I get around them and hear some of their strategies, is it more likely to help me make money? Does that seem more likely? – Yes.” There’s a way that there’s a threshold of clarity with that. It would be absurd for me to say that I don’t have a threshold of clarity in answering that statement that it would be more beneficial to get around people who are making money and who are over a certain threshold of money that I want to get over. You could say, “Well, maybe there’s something I’ll realize that’s wrong about that, but for now it seems very clear, so I’ll act on that. Maybe then I’ll discover more about how to be even more perfectly certain that if I eyeball something in that way that it’s correct and that it is more reasonable to get around people who are making some money than to not get around them at all if I want to make money. What would be the method that I could know that’s correct, if it is?” And there’s a question – now it’s a great question. Write it down in your notebook and start looking at the individual words in that statement, and that’s how you develop your understanding. I could talk and talk and talk, but by doing that for yourself, you’ll have more of a framework, more questions, and it’ll help you. Even subconsciously you’ll be more prepared. Let me wrap up here with something I was going to start with and I didn’t. This will be fun and simple and useful and I think you’ll enjoy it. It’s a simple illustration about money. Let’s forget about monthly income for a moment; I use that a lot. Let’s use three million dollars as the amount you want to accumulate and own between your house, your retirement and cash or cash-like instruments. Let me ask you this:

David Mills 23 When you’re trying to achieve success getting over whatever thresholds you want, on your way to doing that, do you think it will be a linear accumulation of opportunities and moments? – Or are there going to be particular moments, opportunities, or intersection moments with people that are going to be out of proportion in terms of how much of an impact they have? In other words, in the next 300 days, on each of those days are you going to encounter the same amount of opportunity each day? – Or is it more likely or even certain that there will be waves that you can catch? On one day, you might run into a person and it will be great for you. Are you going to run into exactly one person like that every day? – Or is it more likely there will be a different number of those people, including zero people that you’ll run into on different days? Maybe there will be one person all year that is a particularly big wave intersection for you in particular. They might not even look like a “whale” or be massively wealthy or a person who is going to carry you over the finish line all by himself. It could be somebody like Mike Long is for me. He wasn’t a multi-millionaire when I met him. He had an ability and talent that I noticed, plus we had a personal interaction where we liked each other. You know how with some people you can get around them and communicate with them enough where you can find the intersections, but with some people you can’t. Some people won’t even talk to you. But some people you like and interact with easily and have a decent intuitive understanding of each other. That frame of being able to interact and intuitively understand a person to a decent degree, and talk with them and they want to talk with you, obviously that means you are going to be able to find intersections better, combined with whether there actually are intersections. When I met Mike he had demonstrated a talent – not on purpose, he didn’t show off in front of me – just by us talking a little bit. I can describe it and it will help the illustration. He had a game store in Harrisonburg where the university was that he went to. It’s a very small town, so a game store there normally would have just a few people in it. But Mike would get a lot of people in there, probably ten times the amount you’d normally expect. They would be there constantly on days when he would organize events, and it was very disproportionate clearly because of Mike. He had done that in other ways as well. When he was in high school working at Fuddruckers making sundaes, he’d have a

24 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 big crowd around him and a big line for sundaes that wouldn’t have existed without him. It was clearly because of something he was doing. That was something that I realized intuitively that I could work with that was helpful for me, and it was completely not something that I did. It was a piece I was missing. At the time I was playing Magic and doing my solo speed-reading thing. I wasn’t looking to partner for a big business or anything, but just in general to be friends with him. But there was the advantage, the talent that he created, the intersection, plus the ability to interact in a friendly way that could lead to finding opportunities to use both that talent and the mutual like of each other. So we could look at Mike overall then from my perspective as a wave, and how often do I meet someone like that? Not too often. In a different way, finding and meeting Greg was like a wave. Was there a Greg every single day? Probably not, unless I’m particularly blind. The point here then is that there are very disproportionate opportunities that can come along sometimes. If that’s the case, then how do we harness that? When I talked about stillness versus motion, if we have waves versus a constant stream of opportunity, then it’s actually another point in favor. What is our core distinction? – It’s distinguishing between the default way of going about goals where you’re trying to get closer to a goal that’s a “thing” and you feel bad about being stuck, versus removing failure conditions, which allows you to feel progress and never be stuck and make actual progress that also feels like progress. Which one of those is going to be better in a world where opportunity is not linear? -- It’s not constant, it’s qualitative rather than quantitative. It’s not like one flat line; there are waves that come in. There might be two big waves a year, or one wave. Heck, with romantic relationships, it might be one wave every ten years; one particularly great opportunity for you. Remember this is about intersection. This isn’t about a person who is inherently a “thing” that’s a huge wave. The opportunities are relative to you and your situation, and It’s the intersection that’s going to create those moments. Anyhow, we can go back to the simplistic view of these waves that come up only every once in a while. If that’s the case, should we be looking for waking up each morning and wanting to see progress? Or, wouldn’t someone who is removing failure conditions be a model that naturally leads us to understanding, conditions and preparedness that lead to the right overall frame? What’s a failure condition if there are waves? – It’s not having the right success receptors out. We certainly want to be able to notice the wave when it comes and have a receptor out for it, but then also be prepared to go with it, harness it, or ride it. The trouble with “harness” or “ride” is that it doesn’t work well if a person is one of the things in a wave, so our metaphors start to mix in bad ways.

David Mills 25 To catch the wave as our core methodology in Ragnarök is perfect for a world in which there are massively disproportionate waves that can come by. And we don’t want to think of a wave as objective. It’s objectively true that once it interacts with you as a wave, the waveform and the interaction it creates is terrific. But in another sense, objective and subjective don’t apply, but it’s a waveform not in and of itself. Often what people do in the normal model is they’re always trying to get around big gatekeepers. Instead, I want you to have a different mental model. I want you to think of it as you’re not going to catch a person as a wave interaction unless you’re equal to them in a certain way. You might be saying, “David, life isn’t about superiority.” Of course, when I say something that can be interpreted in different ways, then obviously you interpret it in light of other things you know to be true. I’m not talking about morally equal or equal in some kind of status, although, that can be relevant. Regarding status, I try to not have it be an issue. So when necessary and relevant, I try to appear to be of equal status so it doesn’t keep me from being a “person” in the first place; it doesn’t cause me to be dismissed to the extent that that’s relevant. When that’s relevant, then keep in mind that appearing to be of equal status is useful, and I affirm that; I don’t pooh-pooh that or disagree with that. But what people feel intuitively is, “I’d make so much progress if I could joint venture. I’m so excited that I have an opportunity to get around this person who is so successful.” There may be something helpful about that, but I think it’s probably much more likely if you appear somewhat equal. Suppose you do things right and successfully over the next 20 years. Looking back, I would guess that most of your success came from catching the waves that you had made yourself equal to, rather than grabbing onto the coattails of someone who is way above you in some sense. Just practically, strategically and realistically speaking, it’s probably going to be a strategy that’s going to pay off for you much more often as far as I can tell. I’m not claiming to know that perfectly at this moment, but with my experience in what I do know, you would probably agree. One big hint is to spend the time in the interim between the waves getting prepared by building yourself up. That’s the “one man gang” part of OMG. Of course we believe in joint ventures and working with people, but you want to raise yourself up to be ready for the person that comes by. You don’t need to raise yourself up so that the top guy in the industry wants to joint venture with you; that’s not what I’m saying. Just raise yourself up enough so that you’ll be able to catch the good intersections that come. You’ll at least be on par with people who are going to be a good intersection. If you’re too low, so to speak, if you’re too crappy in what you’re trying to do, then most or all of the good intersections won’t intersect with you of the ones who would have intersected with you if you had been prepared.

26 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 You could ask, “David, what if I’m a novice? Do I get together with another novice and intersect that way?” That might work and it’s totally reasonable. On the other hand, at that point it might be more efficient to be solo for some amount of time until you build yourself up. I don’t have this perfectly figured out, but going by experience, I would build myself up in a solo way to a certain degree first. It’s hard to say. If you get with a novice who is really looking for mastery, then you might be in great shape. The main thing would be that you don’t want to latch on to someone who is a novice if they’re not really going somewhere because they don’t have a useful success methodology. With waves, if you are ready for them by being prepared in various ways, including overall frames and specific skills, then the more you build yourself up, the more you’re going to naturally intersect well with people who are also more built up in a particular area of life. Now you know to look for the waves and you also know to look for the intersection, and you’ll be in incredibly good shape. That one way of looking at life and succeeding right there should be easy to understand and of immense practical value. Think of it in terms of waves and think of it also in terms of wave intersections. Build yourself up by being prepared overall with meta-frames and be specifically prepared in that area of life for when waves do come, which might be a person or an opportunity. When the Stompernet opportunity came up they first brought in Mike, and then he brought me in to participate in a 10 million dollar day launch where there was over a thousand programs of over a year of commitment to pay $10,000. It’s not that everyone stuck with the commitment, but it was a big success at the time. When that came by I was ready and I treated it very seriously. I really focused and made it a priority. If you don’t have the overall frame that allows you to see waves as waves, then every day you’ll intuitively feel the wrong frame. What people will do when a wave comes by – and this is easy to see with dating – is that someone whom a person is really attracted to will come around and affirm, “Oh, you’re great” and express interest, then some people will think that’s going to happen every day, so they don’t treat it seriously. It’s a common thing if you both want to feel like you are great, which many people accidentally do by default. If you don’t realize about waves and If your mind doesn’t have that integrated as an overall worldview that you’re hardly aware but it’s there, then a wave comes by and a person uses it to get cocky and arrogant and they screw it all up. People do this a lot. So you very specifically don’t want to do that, and I’ll show you how to set things up so you won’t look to just prove that you’re great. Waves aren’t there to make you feel great and get cocky and treat the wave like crap, when it might be an opportunity. I’ve seen people do this so much because they assume that the same wave is going to come around again tomorrow, so who cares? – No. So that’s something of practical value that I’ll leave you with that’s easy to understand and apply.

David Mills 27 You’ll probably want to listen to this webinar again on the replay. To recap, one benefit of talking this way is that a false sense of structure or closure is counter-productive. Overall, I had a number of points I wanted to get to, which I did, that will all further triangulate in on helping to see distinctly the default method that I talked about in terms of either navigating, or hotter-colder, or manifesting where everything is about getting closer or farther. Making a goal into a “thing” is one part of that. Sometimes there’s a feeling of pushing that people do in a wrong way. If you feel like things are “still” by default, then you feel like you need to “push” the world and other people. If Chance speaks and reads so many languages at such a young age, people wonder, “Oh, you must have pushed him.” – But no, my model was not that he was “still” by default. Instead, I operated on him, so to speak, like a good doctor where all I had to do was create the conditions because he was already in motion. A young child doesn’t want to stare at the wall; they want to learn stuff, explore stuff and do stuff. They also want to interact with people. They love attention, and they also like to do what they want, so you have someone pay attention to them doing what they want and doing what they want to learn while that person is speaking a foreign language or showing them flash cards with written words. Children can learn to read from their mother in many cases, or also in his case his father, but either one because a parent is huge to them and feels very important. If that person spends five or fifteen minutes a day showing flash cards and saying the words in different languages, or a person plays with them and gives them attention doing what they want while only speaking a foreign language, then they learn it. I view it that he is in motion. Do you see how that led to such a different conclusion? We went through a number of people for Spanish and Chinese because we weren’t fluent in those, or I’m not fluent. Olya, my wife, did most of this; I didn’t do much. Without realizing it, there are worldviews that a child is still and has to be pushed, so for a child to learn a language, they give them lessons. You need to “teach” them. But where does that come from? – It comes from an assumption of stillness, but that’s false. When I didn’t assume that Chance was inherently still but that he was in motion, then all I had to do was create conditions where the motion would go in the right way. He’s never been pushed at all and wasn’t punished. If you feel that you have to push and struggle in life, that’s coming from an intuitive, invisible assumption of stillness, but that’s not how the world is. You are a being and the world is in motion outside of you. Your mind is in motion; your mind isn’t still by default. I’m sure you know that when you try to fall asleep at night. So don’t act as if it is still, it doesn’t have to be pushed. Pushing can be counterproductive and create a force in the opposite direction.

28 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 If you push a kid to learn something it could backfire or you could break something. You could seemingly achieve the result you want, but now it’s broken – the motion is broken. So we neither pushed him nor broke him at all, and it will pay off later. When a child is five, it’s very tempting to want to “break” him in certain ways. “Do this because I’m your parent.” That’s helpful in the short-term and some people feel that they like it and they’re making “progress.” Their kid is more compliant, and they even call it “respect.” But being broken to authority is not respect; it’s being broken. Since it’s so normal people don’t see it as such, but we’ll see as he gets older how it all pans out, and I think it will pan out very well. That’s why I talked about stillness, because it’s such an important background concept. It’s not the same thing at all, but it’s a bit analogous to having an abundant mindset instead of a scarcity mindset. It’s the kind of thing that is invisible to people but it has a massive impact on what they feel is the right way to go about things. It’s the same thing if you mistakenly think that your mind, your body, yourself, other people and the world at large is still by default. They are not still; therefore, frames matter more than trying to push in the moment. There might be times when you push here and there, but overall, you first look to have the right context. We talked about stillness and about making things into a “thing” instead of viewing in terms of thresholds. You can fill in some illustrations yourself and work on your own scenarios. You can know that if you start to feel pissed off, frustrated, angry or scared, you can see if my “prophecy” is true. See if your mind made your goal into a “thing” that you’re trying to match, where you intuitively feel like goodness resides in that thing, and you’re scared you won’t get that goodness, or that badness resides in a thing. Badness results in a belief in something that doesn’t exist, which is being stuck. It only exists like a “married bachelor” or a “cold fire.” You can think you’re picturing it, but you can’t actually. There’s no such thing as being stuck. There is such a thing as falsely thinking you’re stuck, and therefore, being circularly stuck until you realize it’s an illusion. It would be like you’re surrounded by illusionary walls and I tell you there’s no such thing as a “wall.” If you felt they were real then they would function as if they were real, but they would still be illusions, and that’s how being stuck is – it’s an illusion. Therefore, bad only results in believing in an inherent contradiction about being stuck. It doesn’t exist. In order to never feel bad, you would need that understanding integrated through your whole mind of how it’s an illusion. You don’t have to feel frustrated or stuck about anything. You could say, “Darn it, I don’t believe in being stuck, but sometimes I feel bad.” This idea will become integrated over time. You’re going to get consequences from the way your mind actually is configured right now, and the integration will happen over time. It’s not a sign that something’s wrong just because your expectations don’t match the “thing” that you think you want. You’re only looking to get over a threshold and you’re not stuck. When you’re over it, you’re

David Mills 29 over it, and until you are, there’s no rush. Rushing is a failure condition. So you just seek to add success conditions and remove failure conditions until you win. I also pointed out that there are three inter-related concepts that you can’t extricate from each other, which are certainty, importance and frames. Another closely related word for “frame” is “reality.” Your mind fabricates all three: certainty, importance and reality. It does that so you can function in some way by default. Another way of saying it is, “Your mind is in motion,” and that’s not bad. The fact that your mind has a default is not bad. What’s bad is thinking that the motion is all-correct all by itself. Your mind is not fully correct by default, but it’s not set up wrong, it’s in motion; it’s a source. Without your mind already being in motion, you wouldn’t be able to do anything and the world wouldn’t work. So it’s good that your mind is in motion, but it’s not in the right motion all the time yet, and that’s where you come in. It’s not going to happen all at once; it will get integrated over time. You don’t win in the next second after you start using the proper methodology. You remove failure conditions and you just keep doing it till you win. But as Julie C. pointed out, it’s a wonderful feeling of peace and triumph knowing that you’re inevitably going to win. How about this? – You’re either going to be totally terminated as a being, or you’re going to win. There’s no other option. I’ll help you if you need help over time. I’ll keep creating the context myself and so will lots of other people as this spreads in a lot of you already. You want to have the idea that your mind will slowly get integrated with ideas that you figure out, but don’t think you failed to figure something out just because your mind is not neurologically integrated immediately with something you figured out. I don’t have this fully figured out, but I strongly suspect there is something where I understand enough of it that I’m confident to say that when you get over the threshold of certainty with various concepts and things you realize in life there’s something that happens. It’s invisible, and I think you can deduce your way to it. I’m saying something pretty cool as I wrap up here. When you get over a threshold of certainty regarding fundamental truths in life and you remove failure conditions, and you get a certain amount of clarity where you’re certain in a correct and clear way, that’s when there’s a power that happens from doing it that has a strong impact on your own mind. As your own mind gets integrated neurologically to where it gets over a threshold of certainty in terms of integration, then it has a very powerful impact on the world. Even without anything metaphysical, we can certainly tell that, because a feeling of certainty is such a big deal most people. People are very drawn to people who are certain, rightly or wrongly. But when you’re certain and correct and you got there properly, then there is something to it that comes across differently than someone who appears certain because they have the kind of personality where they come across that way. It makes them charismatic, and that’s why people want to follow them. I think you’ll be even more charismatic in that way,

30 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 even if your voice isn’t silky smooth or whatever; you’ll have a certainty that is magnetic, and likely a number of you feel this with me. I didn’t used to be magnetic at all. There came a point in my 20’s when I began to get over thresholds in understanding important things about life where there was a certain charisma I’d never had before, and comparing myself to myself was pretty powerful. Clearly it exists and has grown. It isn’t that people meet me and everyone likes me in the first moment, but there’s a charisma that people see, especially over a bit of time or in circumstances where they can see me in the right context where it’s magnetic. My whole point in saying that about myself is that probably a lot of you have also experienced something similar with people around you, and it will only grow. It’s clearly a real phenomenon that’s easy to understand, that when you have a correct certainty that’s built in the right way it will powerfully integrate through your mind, and then you’ll have an impact on other people, too, because deep down they are fundamentally uncertain. Many times, they don’t feel that way because there’s a defense against feeling uncertain that people have, which of course also prevents them from expanding their frame. However, they will be drawn to you and presumably, that will help you make money in a positive way. That was a pretty good recap there, so that will be that. I’ll do some amount of discussion, and then we’ll be done. Bryce: You mentioned a while ago that you were working on the property rights idea. What did you mean by that? David: The only thing I can think of is that I’m working on spreading it to people to where it becomes normal. That’s what I would like. Most people do not believe in individual property rights intuitively or implicitly. They would affirm it, but then contradict it overall. I want people to see a certain perspective that I’m trying to spread. I’d like people to see government worship as a religion, and by far the primary religion in America. In my view, nearly everyone who says they are a certain official religion in practice primarily worships government and only secondarily are of the religion they affirm. As a simple example of that, if someone believes that extortion is okay, how could Christianity be a religion that is primarily over government? As far as I can tell, you’d have to worship government over being a Christian to think that extortion is okay. I don’t see how Christianity could be more important; you’d have to assign a kind of deity to a governor where they can make extortion okay. Even God can’t make extortion okay. God doesn’t make contradictions. God can’t make a contradiction true because it’s not a thing, it’s not real. There is no such thing, so people believe that government can do something that even God can’t do. Therefore, it must be more important and they must deify government to an even larger extent than

David Mills 31 God Godself. That’s not something I’m necessarily going to develop right now, but I would like to spread it. I do think it’s an overall major failure condition in people’s lives. Religion is very important to your overall view and frames, and there are a whole bunch of assumptions that come with it. Again, I think that government worship is a very detrimental religion for making money and for relating to other people. Bryce: The one thing I love the most is that you mentioned about dissolving a problem into little bite size pieces that allow you to accomplish one at a time. This is exactly what an engineer (successful one) does on a daily basis to not NOT CHANGE THE WORLD but to innovate and improve it/get rid of contradictions and inefficiencies David: You’re talking about the previous webinar and the post you asked about last time. Yes, that’s a good way to look at things. One nice thing about the idea of removing failure conditions is that inherently it makes pretty much anything bite-sized, and in addition to bite-sized, realizing that you can go either direction in terms of frames. When you’re trying to make money you can either get granular and try to do specific recipe day-to-day things that help you make money, or if you seem to be stuck that way, then you can start to look at frames. One practical way to look at frames that I haven’t mentioned much, and if I have people probably dismissed it, is a highly useful way to think and explore that will help you find which frames you might be assuming, but that aren’t helping you. You can write down a statement or a question, and it can be as general or as simple as you want, like “I want to know how to make money.” Write it down with a pen in a notebook, and then you literally take a look at each word. I – want – to – make – more – money, and for each of those words you look to see if you fully understand them. The first word is “I.” There’s one – boom! I’ve helped you understand who you are as a conscious being with a consciousness screen, but still, it can hit you and you can think freshly about the question for yourself. My help in answering it might then accelerate you figuring it out for yourself or integrating it for yourself. You might even be able to recall some things I’ve said that might not be integrated yet in your mind. This idea of integrating something in your mind is part of the model that is important and that answers a lot of questions or gives a frame to answer a lot of questions that people have about things. Like about motivation they’ll say, “I think this, but I don’t do it.” It’s a matter of integrating it. You can think of integrating an idea or a belief or integrating a sense of importance about a particular threshold or goal as getting over a threshold. What do you do then? – Try to remove failure conditions and add success conditions to integrate it throughout your mind. Let me give you a recipe that may be useful about what I do when I want to succeed at something. Recipes can work or not work depending on your overall frames and context. It’s almost irrelevant whether you do one of the two following things first. You

32 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 either poke around and try to succeed with it all by yourself right off the bat, which typically won’t get you very far, but it will give you a sense of what certain terms mean or you’ll get mental pictures. If you just start playing a video game, you’ll at least get a sense of what the interface looks like. If you’re ranking a website, you can try to rank it for a little while. I wouldn’t try to rank a site for months, but try to rank one yourself even for one day and it’ll start to give you a sense of what you don’t know, what questions to ask and what information is out there. You could either do that or immediately jump to a recipe of someone who seems to be successful. Of course, they might not be that successful; they might be successful relative to norms that could be very low in that field, or they might be lying. But most of the time, someone will have some success that you can reasonably eyeball accurately to get a recipe or to get advice. I like to use the word “recipe” because it gives a good representation of what I’m talking about. Try it. I don’t expect it to work or not; I just try it and it gives me more information. I’ll either already win from that recipe, or I won’t, but that will allow me to examine assumptions or try to see where the bottlenecks are. I might see if there are any bottlenecks to the recipe or any kind of obvious frames or other things I can adjust within the recipe that will get me where I want to go, and it might get me there. But if there’s a sense that I just can’t win, then I know that there’s an overall frame that’s off and something is wrong there. That might apply if you’re trying to do some kind of paid advertising type of business. You might think, “Darn it, I applied the recipe, I used some of my own innovation, I tried to break some bottlenecks and it’s still not very profitable.” Then you might want to change the game. If you’re in OMG, it’s probably intuitive and obvious that you were already looking to get organic natural traffic as well. Or examine it, examine assumptions, paradigm shifts, or changing the game – those all refer to similar things. I just gave you a specific way that I might go about examining my frames. As you write down a sentence and start to look at each word, it will lead to more questions. Then when you write down that question, it will have words. You might say, “David, doesn’t that multiply it?” You might feel like that isn’t a good strategy because it’ll start to multiply your confusion, but no, it’s a great strategy. Try it and you’ll see that it’s a very good strategy. In one notebook session, you’ll end up writing a bunch of questions, realizing some things, and opening up other things. I’ve also answered for you a lot of deep, contextual frames about the world and the model for the world. So if you explore in this way where you write down the questions and look at each of the words, which leads to more questions, then you’ll latch on to my answers a lot better and they’ll get integrated better for you. It’s a great technique that I often use. There may be more to my recipe, but that gives you some sense of it.

David Mills 33 Jeff: Hi David. Love the simplicity of this concept. I have been using some of the ideas in TAGR (write down your main goal, repeat it aloud, really feel it, etc...) Can you address the feeling of "being close" to my goals that you said was incorrect and the concept of visualization and seeing/feeling your goals as taught in TAGR. David: Visualization, seeing and feeling helps to integrate. A lot of “Think and Grow Rich” helps you to take a goal that you might feel in one part of your mind, which is intellectual some of the time, and you might affirm it and feel it some of the time, and visualization helps you integrate it and get it into your subconscious. Remember that both your conscious and your subconscious are more than one thing. That’s why “integration” is a nice term because you can think of it as getting more connected up. It’s not like it’s in your subconscious or not, or in your conscious mind or not; it’s integrated to a larger and greater degree. Integration is relatively continuous or quantitative as far as I can tell; however, it can still happen in waves. A certain event may help you feel something in a more integrated way, or a particular session of thinking it through might lead you to a sense of clarity. I suspect that when you hit a certain clarity with a particular concept or goal, then there’s almost a threshold of clarity where bam! – it gets integrated quickly throughout your mind. If that’s the case, it’s like a wave you might catch. You catch a wave by working on being prepared and mastery, lifting yourself up each day. It’s quantitative to build yourself up to catch a wave, and then actual progress might happen in a qualitative way or in a wave kind of way. You should always measure progress by removing failure conditions, not by getting closer to a goal. The minute you slip into “Oh, now I’ve got it, so I’m just going to measure my goal in terms of confirming being close or confirming that my expectations are going to be hit,” that’s when you set yourself up for failure. That’s a failure condition. There’s nothing really helpful about that. If you’re wrong or unlucky then you could set yourself up to be very angry or disappointed in a way that is all counter-productive. You first asked, “Can you address the feeling of being close to my goals that you said was incorrect?” and I addressed that throughout this webinar. You want to look at it as a red flag if you’re thinking about whether you’re close to a goal. If you have committed to something, it should be a red flag if you find yourself thinking about whether you want to be doing it. For example, if you’re wondering whether to stay in your marriage, if there is a very strong reason that changes the game in a fundamental way, then sure; but if nothing happened to do that and you’re questioning it, then you should wonder why. Similarly, feeling close to a goal is part of a default methodology that’s only there to get you going and keep you alive, but it’s all wrong, so it can be confusing if I say that it’s good that it’s there. It’s like energy – It’s great that energy is there in the form of heat. It’s there, but to think that it’s headed in the right direction is all wrong. You want

34 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 to harness it. It’s good in the sense that it’s there for you to work with, but you’ve got to work with it. You don’t check the temperature of your furnace to find out what temperature you want in your house. You harness your furnace to get your house at the temperature you want. You don’t let it determine the temperature; you let it produce heat for the temperature you want. Similarly, the default method of your mind is to see if a goal is close and to do things associated with getting to that goal, and you harness that. This touches on something I know is a bit confusing, but in a good way where we need to go. We need to distinguish this. Your mind is going to do this anyway, but what you don’t want to do is double-down on it. Ultimately, it matters a lot to distinguish between you as a being who is conscious of your consciousness screen and your mind. Here’s a parallel illustration: When you’re watching a movie, you want to get immersed in the movie. That’s not bad, but if you can’t quickly get un-immersed when you need to then it’s bad. It’s not that you don’t want to get into a movie, but you never want to think you’re the main character. To take it to the extreme, if the theater is burning down or if the movie is over, you don’t want to commit suicide, you want to be able to pull yourself out of the movie. Or if your spouse is talking to you during a movie, you don’t want to snap at them, because overall, you don’t want to create bad conditions in your marriage just because you’re immersed for a while in a movie or a game or even in work. It might be fine to be immersed in work, but if it causes you to snap at your spouse, that is not a condition you want to create for yourself ultimately, and so it’s not helpful. You need to be able to dip into associating and disassociating with anything, including your mind, in a useful way. The idea of disassociating and associating, and picking the time for each is an extraordinarily important concept that I think about and have worked on a lot, and there is a lot more I know that’s related. I’ve talked for two hours now and I’ve talked for many webinars in the past, but there’s still a lot more related to the issue of associating and disassociating. Your mind is always going to go by feel in a certain way, which is not bad, but you want it to be contextualized, boundaried, and guided. You don’t want to use the feeling of being close to determine the overall frame of how you operate. You always want to remove failure conditions, because even if you’re close, you’re not yet over the threshold. Even if you seem close, there’s only one thing you want to consciously do, and that is to remove failure conditions on the way. That method is also true of subconsciously removing failure conditions. It’s not a problem that a furnace heats the way it heats and that it heats to a very high temperature. In a gas-burning furnace, that burn from flame would be a certain temperature. I’m not an expert in this field, but presumably, when gas burns it creates a certain temperature that is fairly constant. The parallel truth here is that you don’t try to change the temperature; there’s nothing wrong with the temperature, but you don’t

David Mills 35 use that temperature to guide you as to what temperature you want in your room. In a sense, the rest of the heater needs to compensate, balance and adjust to harness that several-hundred-degree temperature that the gas burns at to get your room to the temperature you want. Simplistically, it does that by heating up water and blowing out air. It heats up for a little while until it raises the temperature of the overall room to whatever temperature you set, and then it lets that dissipate. Presumably, it’s colder outside and that will balance things out. If you go back to that illustration, look to understand it better. You’ll come to the truth without me if you go about understanding because the truth is real. You need to harness your mind and things will get more integrated with the overall way of doing things. In the grey area, your mind is going to default to, “Well, if I don’t know what to do, then I’m obviously going to do something that’s going to get me closer to my goal, or not.” In “Dimensionality 2,” I talked about a grey area process and a black-and-white process. You can fully attend to the black-and white-process, and your mind will do the grey area process automatically. It will all work out together if you attend to the black-and-white process. I might think of something more in the future to explain that better, but with what I gave you, I think you can get pretty far. There are some good comments on our Facebook thread about the previous webinar. I mention the previous webinar when I look at these comments because this webinar is about explaining the last webinar. Brian: Hi David, during this week my modes of operation and focus points were a much easier choice. When I found a broken window or failure condition, I worked on fixing it, removing it, changing a condition of it or dropping it entirely. It really was free from struggle, it was an easy choice of peeling the dead skin off the onion. David: Love it – exactly! Metaphorically, he means the broken window theory of crime. Yes, there’s a way of looking at things overall in this way. There’s going to be plenty of grey. You’re not omniscient and there’s going to be plenty of times you don’t know the exact right action to take to accomplish your goals or get over a threshold. In those cases, you can’t even help it, there’s no way out of it, and there’s no reason that you would want out of it. You might as well do, and you will automatically do, what you associate with your best guess. Someone could likewise ask, “All I can do is take my best guess, so what should I do?” I’d say, “Take your best guess. There’s no other thing to do.” But what there is to do is focus on building up the black and white area, which would automatically narrow down the grey area in which you’re making your best guess. To the extent that there is a grey area right now in the moment, you’re going to eyeball it as best you can and make your best guess. Amar: The brain can’t differentiate between what's real and what is imagined.

36 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 David: Right, and the fascinating thing is that it actually fabricates reality. It literally always fabricates reality. I’m not saying that all of your brain is a grey area process, but let me say something that is related, but separate, which is not a continuation of the previous sentence. When there is a grey area, there is no reality and there is no truth. What do I mean by that? What does a tree really look like? There’s no truth to that, do you see? It’s not that the truth is relative, there is no such answer. In one sense it’s a nonsense phrase. Your mind creates a visual image. It isn’t a visual image of the tree, it’s a visual image that helps you deal with the tree, which is one way to put it. There’s no such thing as black and white with certain things. “What exactly is yourself?” may be a question. You can give overall frames of it, but the specific configuration keeps changing. There’s no actual one configuration overall, so that’s another example where there is variation within a frame. When that’s the case, your mind creates a reality, it fabricates a certainty. That’s really cool, actually, once we understand everything around it. The problem is when it rules the frame; it’s not meant to be the ruler. There are all kinds of experiments now where cognitive scientists have proven experimentally that in practice, the grey area process of the mind subconsciously does set the frame. It’s not like there’s a rider on a horse, it’s like there’s a lawyer on an elephant. People’s sub-conscious really sets the frame, and then they justify it within a small range. With my presidents and advisors analogy, the advisors can set the frame. If you were to do experiments on a hundred or a thousand people, your results would demonstrate (which is not the same as proving) almost certainly that the grey area process (although people don’t call it that) and the subconscious mind dictate what’s going on. What people think of as their free will or their conscious justification for things are within a small frame dictated by the sub-conscious. When people give their reasons for making choices, those reasons can be shown not to measure up to the actual reasons. I’ve told you about the experiment done by cognitive scientists in a mall with the four identical pieces of fabric. They asked people which fabric they preferred and they had to pick one. Disproportionally by far, people picked the most recent one or the last one they touched. But when you ask people, “Why did you choose the one you chose?” – obviously the reason those people chose it must have been because it was the most recent one since that was the only factor and nothing else was different. Their choices were not 25% for each of the four pieces of fabric; most people chose the latest one. When you ask those people why, none of them would say, “Because it was the most recent one I tried.” They even further asked them, “Was one of the reasons because it was the most recent fabric you examined?” and they looked at them as if they were crazy, “Of course that wasn’t the reason,” and they would come up with some other justification. It’s an experiment under somewhat

David Mills 37 contrived circumstances, but it’s an example of what I mean. In different ways, experiment after experiment shows similar results. We can also see it in politics. Why was the foreign trip that Trump made perceived as a success or a failure? It depends on what someone’s political bias is, and then they come up with a justification. If they hate Trump, it’s “Oh, he dumped the whole jar of feed into the koi fishpond. That’s why it was a failure.” If they love Trump, then it’s because “Unlike Obama, he didn’t bow to the dictator, so it was a success.” The point is that subconsciously the overall frame determines the answer, and the justification is that they find something within the frame to justify it. That’s how people work by default. We need to reverse that process, of course. To relate it to the idea of what is real and what is imagined, in the grey area there is no fixed reality. I don’t mean that mysteriously, I just mean it simplistically, and it’s true. Our mind fabricates a certainty reality, and that helps us function. We want to harness that rather than have it harness us. Again, it’s not bad. A horse isn’t bad, but if we want to get somewhere, then we want to tell the horse where to go, and not have the horse tell us where to go. It’s another illustration of how people behave in real life: the horse takes a person to a town that the horse chooses, and then the person justifies why he chose the town. “Oh, it’s because I like a small town,” or “I like a big town.” People do the same in real life. Their parents decided what town they grew up in or their religion. Nearly everyone in the world and throughout history has the religion of their parents, but when you ask someone why their religion is what it is, no one except maybe a few people would say, “Only because it’s my parents’ religion,” but they’ll say it’s because of some other reason. Maybe people in some places would say, “It’s the tradition of my ancestors,” but then the religion is hardly their religion. It’s more like parent worship or as I said, government worship. Michael Long: My big mind-blown moment from last week's webinar was when I realized that my brain’s "news" broadcasts to me are incredibly similar to the Fake News like on CNN. It's all about status, not about actually winning and mowing down failure conditions. David: Oh, very interesting. Is that like news broadcasts, or like what feels important and what you feel certain about? -- You noticed that they’re often about what you associate with status and not about what would actually help? That’s really cool. Michael Long: Yeah, and incredibly often it is shouting from my mind about whether "this is the way things should be," but the underlying premise will be that the playing field being measured is about status. For example, “Trump Cuts Taxes!” – Well, that should make people go crazy with happiness, but many people are simply upset at the way Trump makes things "look like" - at least on the fake news front – CNN, etc. Trump is wrong because he looks wrong.

38 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 Faith: Looking forward to revealing goals David: Good, exactly. It’s a big paradigm shift to look to see, “Well, what’s really going to be a building block that I can benefit from long-term or forever?” You might wonder when I say “forever.” At least theoretically, if you’re building something or going after a goal that’s only going to have a short-term impact, you can at least ask yourself, “Is there something I can do that would be a similar goal that would have a longer-term impact or a permanent impact?” And maybe a slightly different or a very different goal that would have the same stepping-stone or building block effect would reveal itself, but that you’re better off with. Again, that applies to money if you come up with a money goal that will be a long-term solution to your money issues, which could even reveal that it’s also probably about spending. There’s an illustration for writing down sentences -- You could write down, “I want to have enough money to buy what I want for the rest of my life.” Let’s say you write that down. Then you would circle “want.” What does it mean to want? Obviously, if you want a rocket ship, then that’s a different thing than if you don’t. You might realize that and say, “Even without fully answering the question of what I want, what I can realize is that the spending side is going to be relevant. I can’t just win with money on the earning side.” I’ve mentioned this before. I’m mentioning it now in the context of writing down the question so that you can realize the different elements to winning when it comes to money. You might come up with a new stepping-stone, and that stepping-stone is different. That new goal is related to your previous goal and accomplishes something similar to what you previously set, but you’ll probably feel that not only will it possibly be a better goal since it’s more defined, but also that you’ll probably be more motivated, and it will be more distinct. Vagueness in terms of the goal or the threshold that you’re trying to get over is a failure condition that you might want to remove. Remember that I said you never have to remove every failure condition, I just said you had to win, which means getting over a threshold. That isn’t perfection. The only way it’s perfection is it’s perfect in getting over the real threshold, whatever that is. Bryce: That anthropomorphizing only causes contradictions/evils like the Japanese camps started by FDR David: Right, you’re referring to when I talked about Japan. That’s correct, and of course, it led specific Japanese people to do evil things to others as well. I’m not trying to idealize the other side either or demonize Americans overmuch. To be clear, whenever I’m very critical of America, I’m not critical of it relative to other countries.

David Mills 39 I’m critical of ideas, and if an idea is incorrect then it’s not sacred, even if it’s American. I don’t hate America relative to other countries. I just don’t like bad ideas to the extent that if there’s a bad idea in my own country that I live in, not that I identify with the government, but it’s closer to home so it’s more relevant. I don’t like bad ideas in my own mind most of all. Amar: Like bitcoin? David: Oh, like bitcoin becoming a “thing”? Any currency reaches a point where it becomes a thing, in a sense. I know I haven’t defined that perfectly. I might look to make that more clear over time. You know what I want to get to? – Overall, I always want to develop these concepts, but I want to start looking at website conversion. I think a number of people want that, and then in doing so, we could look at some meta-ideas and apply them to the overall ideas of sales, conversion and success overall. Amar: So set goals but regardless of the outcome everything is a win....until you actually WIN!? David: If you are removing failure conditions, then yes, that’s a win or it’s progress that you can feel good about. If you say, “David, what if I don’t know if something’s a failure condition?” – Well, then you seek to understand. Believe me, overall you can always increase what you understand in all sorts of ways. When you look at things in terms of building understanding, then taking action can increase your understanding. It’s not that you’re jumping to a conclusion. The red flag is when you’re trying to confirm something. The problem with trying to be closer is it’s a version of trying to confirm that you’re closer, that something is true. You’re not trying to confirm that you’re removing failure conditions; you’re trying to remove failure conditions. When you let go of trying to confirm, then the only thing left is trying to understand. Your mental model for understanding can mean etching out more black and white area. Understanding doesn’t mean that there’s no grey area, it means there’s less grey area. It means that there’s a little bit more black and white, and that’s increasing understanding. Everything you do does that, except if you’re trying to confirm while you’re doing something. Whenever you let go of trying to confirm something is true, when you let go of fabricated certainty, then everything leads you to more data and you’ll learn to differentiate between data and a conclusion. If you do something and it works, or if you try a particular method for ranking a website or making a sale and it works, then you haven’t confirmed something; instead, you’ve just found something that, at least

40 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 under certain circumstances, will work. It’s reasonable to try it again, unless there are clearly different circumstances, which is often the case, and then you can know how to adjust to those new circumstances. You say, “Well, this is different. I’ll use the same script, but I’ll use female pronouns because it’s a woman instead of a man.” If there are obvious things that are different, then you’ll know how you can adjust to them, but otherwise you can do the same thing if you want. You’re not doing the same thing to make the next sale or to rank the next website in order to confirm that you’re awesome or confirm that you’re not helpless or confirm that you really are closer to your goal; that’s wrong. You’re not ever trying to confirm, and whenever you let go of confirming you’ll automatically be seeking to understand. The only thing left is understanding. I think that you’ll either understand more, or you’ll reap another benefit from using the same sales pitch again and having it work, or you will learn more about how it works, or you’ll get more experience or data about it not working and that will lead to more questions, which will lead to more understanding. Think of questions as little magnets that will inevitably lead to answers in the sense that both questions and the subsequent answers lead to understanding. That also means that getting a question automatically leads to understanding, whether or not you define understanding as the question to the answer. If a question attracts answers, then the understanding begins with the question and you automatically win if you have the question. The only thing that gets in the way of having a question based on a new experience is wanting to confirm. Cath: Consciousness Screen – David, are you including thoughts & feelings along with the data coming in via the 5 senses? David: Yes, anything you’re aware of right now internally in your head (of course, that’s a metaphor), internal feelings, anything that you’re aware of as a being; but not anything that’s an input to your brain – that would include all stimuli. Amar: Like free will? You have to be always aware of your consciousness screen and use your free will at every moment...so we are always at a crossroad when making decisions to everything in our lives. David: You’re referring to when I was talking about your power. Your free will and your power are related, and it has to be something simple and unstoppable. I’ve talked about that in the past, but it’s a fascinating concept that not so many people realize. Amar, unless this is a question, when you’re saying that you’re importing some ideas that are from other teachings that are incorrect, or some frames that are incorrect. It isn’t that your statement is incorrect or not, but the frame is incorrect. You don’t have to be aware of your consciousness screen, you literally are aware of your consciousness screen. If I say that during the hour that you’re watching TV you

David Mills 41 have to watch TV; that would be redundant. The redundancy would imply a misunderstanding on my part. So you don’t need to be more aware; you can’t be more aware. You are aware of your consciousness screen. You can’t be more conscious. Anyone who says that, it’s not that they’re wrong, but they mean something different than I do, and they’re also probably wrong because basically, everyone is wrong who hasn’t figured this stuff out. It’s like a combination lock – there are so many pieces that I’ve figured out that I don’t see anyone else figuring out. It’s not a matter of pride. I say that because it’s relevant to you in terms of learning from me and in terms of misinterpreting what I’m saying. I have no problem and would love it if other people knew what I knew, and I’d love it if they would figure out what I have. I just want to win. I don’t need to contribute to the win, I just want the win to happen. I’m fine myself personally, both internally, ego-wise, financially and relationship-wise. There are so many pieces of the puzzle that I don’t see anywhere else, and at least for me they’ve taken a while to figure out. In some way I clearly have a talent related to this, and other people end up being so far from it. They can look like they’re superficially close in certain niches or areas, and they can say things like “You are not your mind.” Some people do say that; I think even Jim Carrey said that. Jennifer sent me that article. It was cool, but they’re not close to the totality of the model that I figured out. I wasn’t as close five years ago to what I have now, or even a year ago. I was a year away by definition and by logic, and there were a whole bunch of things I hadn’t figured out yet. You can’t figure out some without having the other pieces. Absolutely, someone might have figured out all of this and more, but I just can’t find it anywhere. I’m excluding Jesus when I say that; but overall, I just don’t see it. I’ve had a lot of people show me, “Well, this person looks close to what you’re saying,” but they end up not being there. It’s not because I don’t want them to be, but just realistically, they’re not. To use your free will, you need to understand what it is, but something’s going on that people aren’t doing it. If we were already pretty obviously doing what we needed to do, then there wouldn’t be a hint. But there’s a hint that we’re not and that people aren’t. When Amar says, “…so we are always at a crossroad when making decisions to everything in our lives,” yes, I would agree with that. What you’re saying isn’t really wrong, it’s just I’m suspicious of some of the frames. Again, you’re always literally aware of your consciousness screen. We do need to use our free will, but to do that we have to understand it, and there are a bunch of parts to it or building blocks. People don’t get there to understanding it, and there are a lot of misconceptions and wrong frames that people haven’t broken, like when I said, “It would have to be unblockable.” I’m always working on explaining that more. Megan: I like the metaphor using the words “consciousness screen” since I often use your computer game model when thinking about the distinctions between body/physical world from the mind and from aware beings, where the consciousness

42 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 screen is like the interface place where those three things intersect and interact. Is that take on it a correct metaphor or understanding? David: I think pretty much, yes. I’m a bit short on time to get too much into it, but there’s no big red flags there for me at this moment. I might look to do a full-on discussion maybe next time, and see how appealing that is, and then look maybe to get into some website stuff. Great comments. I appreciate you all. Joshua Fletcher: I'm somewhat heartened (opposite of dis-heartened) in that I reached certain understanding of that connection between certainty, confidence and charisma through the method of knowing and “alchemy” and did a quickie podcast about it a last month. I share that because I have come to understand through David's teaching, true understanding. That ability to get to certainty properly has really changed a lot in my life, maybe most notably in that my wife is now studying the Alchemy series herself, which has really helped us have a common language, so to speak, in how we approach our lives, namely how we decide goals. Thank you David. There is a peace that comes with properly knowing. There isn't a need to seek any outside validation in that truth, properly known. There is some connection there with the charisma it seems. David: That’s awesome, Fletch. Yes, you’ve talked about removing the contradictions and dissolving contradictions. That’s wonderful for Natalie; I’m so glad. Adam: I love when you said "get terminated or just win! That's it!" It makes winning the only option. Great framing, David. David: I’m glad you liked that Adam. I agree.

Robert: "… a lawyer on an elephant" LOL! 😂 Love it David: Is it the book, “Subliminal” or another? There are a few books that came out around the same time and around the same research. I talked about “Thinking Fast and Slow” by Kahneman, “Subliminal” by Mlodinow, and “Sway” by Brafman. There’s a book called “Social” by Lieberman that someone here recommended. Bryce: Can we do a rerun of the God “Alchemy” session we had last year? I listen to it when I run and wow things get cleared up. David: Yes, I need to go over the proof of God again in a dedicated bonus webinar at some point, but again, it boils down to there has to be something capable of making and changing consciousness screens that’s separate from an abstract or mechanical reason.

Michel G. For me, any day and every day have the possibilities to change my life Big Time. It happened many times in the past. Life is for me like an invisible road map that

David Mills 43 produces for me exceptional good events, in days I cannot predict! Working steadily at my goals is what produces these magic days. These magic days I cannot afford to miss... David: Yes, or you can catch a wave if you’re referring to that. I’m sure you agree about preparedness. Great frame! Great mental model, Michel. And you would probably agree with working steadily at your goals, you would probably in practice interpret that similarly to creating conditions for your goals being achieved, happening, and being manifested. In one sense, you’ll ultimately win, regardless, but of course, you would rather catch waves than not catch them. Bryce: “Social” by Matt Lieberman was recommended by Tai Lopez to me. It is awesome. Love “The Lost Art of Closing” too. David: Yes, I love “The Lost Art of Closing.” In practice the recipe in “The Lost Art of Closing” matches up pretty well with removing failure conditions. The 10 Commitments do what? -- Remove failure conditions on the way to a sale or to fulfilling the contract in the case of the last commitment. Even his strategies for getting the commitment mostly revolve around removing failure conditions and of course, a part of that is creating success conditions. Diane: Great Session..Deep thinking for me all day tomorrow..thank u David David: That’s how it works, right? These webinars are not for closure, they’re for opening you; although I try to give you a number of points of closure as well so you get something to take home with you and enjoy. Okay, we’ll bring things to a close now. We’re reaching the 3-hour mark. Josh: “No need to push” - this is huge - Thanks David! David: I’m glad that resonated with you about not pushing. I sometimes feel I have a particular clarity on this and sometimes not about when to push and use force. There might be certain specific times for it, but overall, it shouldn’t be your go-to thing. Michael Long: David really reached me on this personal property/government worship thing and it totally transformed me. David: Yes, probably 10 or 15 years ago. Mike B. That power of certainty I've already experienced to some small degree from the immersion into the Law of Implication. It actually seems like problems are much bigger than I realized by going deeply into the context, but I'm better able to deal with them in a positive way...

44 DIMENSIONALITY 9: RAGNARÖK #2 David: There’s something to the power of certainty, but it’s not a power of false certainty. You can get a type of seeming short-term power from getting to fake certainty that people will get use out of and that’s real, too, but it’s like buying something on a credit card. Maintaining false certainty takes the whole confirmation model, which is toxic, so it’s like a local peak you can get stuck on. Again, there is a benefit to a false certainty, but it’s a short-term benefit that comes with a bill attached. But that real certainty you achieve and earn by not confirming the wrong way and by seeking it out through understanding. You get to it by removing black and white until the certainty fills itself in properly, where the grey area is within a range that’s over a threshold or within a bull’s eye or a target. It could still be grey, but it’s within a range so that you automatically win no matter what. For example, if you have a great romantic relationship, you may not know the perfect restaurant to go to on a particular date, but it’ll be a good date and perhaps result in an intimate evening no matter where you go. That’s a simple example of how there could be grey area, but it’s within a range where you hit the target no matter what. You can earn certainty by building the black and white to where even if there is a grey area it’s not relevant to winning anymore. Then there’s that certainty that I think unleashes a type of power. It might be the one power, but then again, that might mean the one power to seek understanding and the certainty is a consequence of that; the release of power is probably a consequence. Remember that our free will needs to be fundamental in a way, but it’s not a consequence, it’s a direct route to things. Bryce: Thank you David Mills and everyone for your help and knowledge. #OMG4Life David: I appreciate that very much. Thank you, Bryce. Nathan: Pure gold. Thanks David. When is LOI Live?

I’m booking my tickets now. � 👍 David: It would be fun to do some live events locally, but it would be longer for this specifically. I might do a year of building up LOI specifically and separate from OMG; not separated necessarily, but distinct from it. It could be synergistic with OMG, but where it’s specifically going after people who might be interested in this instead of recruiting them out of the pool of people going for making money in SEO. To build it up and then do some live events would be great. I appreciate your encouragement with that. Okay, I will wrap things up here. I appreciate your wonderful, insightful, useful, and questioning comments. Julie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mind hurting, so it must have been a good session!

David Mills 45 David: Great! When your mind hurts, the replay is often good. It’ll be like magic to where it’s like bam, bam, bam – a whole bunch of things make sense and are useful. That’s how the mind works when it goes into a state of confusion – you sleep on it, and then you go over it again and it’s amazing how much you get. I suspect this replay is going to be like that because there are a lot of details in it. First those details contribute to the mind making a framework, and then the same exact webinar replayed can then fill in the details in a new way, even the second, third or fourth time. This is probably a webinar like that because there are a lot of details around a core distinction. The webinar last week was all about getting you one breakthrough, one idea that didn’t have to be all filled in with details, but just a core start like a foothold or framework, but this one has a lot of details. Joshua Fletcher: That's been my method, try to catch these live then sleep on it, and then re-listen the next morning. It literally sounds like a new webinar.

David: I appreciate that. And let me thank the people who came on live. I know you’ll do the replay, but it’s really nice for me, and therefore for others, to have a number of people live so we have a vibrant back-and-forth. I’m sure it affects me subconsciously to some degree. I try to have it not have much of an effect, but I’m sure it adds some energy to have people on live. Okay, everyone, have a wonderful day or night and have a wonderful couple of weeks and I’ll be back, I presume. [End of webinar] Facebook comments continue: David Mills: I am going to start using the term “consciousness screen” instead of “field,” because while either one can be misinterpreted, hopefully “screen” will be less so. I also noticed recently that Napoleon Hill used the term “consciousness field” to mean something totally different, something explicitly NONconsious, ironically enough. Nobody has a consciousness screen/field as I mean it, anyway. A being does. A conscious being can be connected with a mind and body. A consciousness screen is not an emergent property of a body or mind, although they can be connected.

-------------------------------

Michael Long: I'm watching for the 2nd time now! One massive mind-blown moment after the next! Jaeson: Wow! Thank you David! I watched Ragnorak 1+2 twice and had a huge huge breakthrough last night and all the pieces came together! My current framework was smashed and now I feel I can navigate goal achieving properly! David: Great news! thanks for letting me know, Jaeson! Have a great night and thank you, all!