“Part of the problem with the ways we were trained to relate with language and concepts is that although we think they are names and descriptions, what actually happens in this relationship is that we substitute tokenized ‘pointers’ for the things they refer to. This flattens our experience. There are two particularly deadly aspects of this process. One relates to “what the universe is or is for’ and another is what the mind is or is for. Once we begin to see our mind in the ways our cultures and languages imprint upon us, our minds become crippled and like the token descriptions we were given.

For example, one is trained to believe that a mind is a local possession, this concept damages or deprives us of a vast array of actually available abilities and perceptions.

The mind is not located or possessed, and it cannot be isolated in an individual. When we can let go of all these ideas and begin to explore the mind’s potentials without them, we discover that most of what we were trained to think and do is backwards. In other words, our minds are almost entirely unlike what we have been taught about them. The reason we cannot notice this is that we only use them in the ways that were framed to us: as a separate ‘thing’ that is local to the self, and ‘like something I possess or an ability local to me’.

Instead of training us to invent minds, we were trained to use something astonishingly profound in ways that become more and more primitive with every move we make. Though our minds began capable of flight and astonishing experiences of co-being and imagination, over time, as children, we acquired ‘frames’ that told us what minds were, do, are, and can’t be.

The ‘flying’ (or exotic to our ideas) aspects were eventually largely amputated, and the results were crippled by the descriptions and ‘facts’ we learned. Soon, we were simply subject to the self-reducing capacities … not of our minds … but of public descriptions and concepts of them. The resulting disabilities are the effective complement of the broken way we are trained to think about what a mind is, where our minds are, and their capabilities.

A mind is not local to a body, and it has a vast array of senses and abilities, including travel, that most of us are utterly unaware of. But dreaming itself demonstrates this directly. What is ‘your mind’ when you are dreaming, and what is it doing and experiencing?

It actually »invents universes and positions within them.

These facts are neither necessarily religious or metaphysical: they are simply the nature of our minds. There is, then, no need to ‘add special words’ that cause us to conceptualize nonsensical ideas, worlds and explanations.

Now that I have said something about what is wrong, I will point in the other direction. A mind is something akin to a specialized personal ‘access structure” — you can think of the center of a spider-web that is in 4 dimensions (spherical + time). This structure is a living »interface (think of the structure of this word, for it is like the mind’s actual nature) — a point of access to (and presence in) a vast array of networks of minds, forms of minds, and their positions in the past, present and future.

Your mind is not precisely yours, nor is it local to you. It is an interface to a rapidly evolving living network, but it requires training to access it, just as it required training to be deprived of it. Most people are able to learn relatively rapidly how to do this when they are in a truthful and supportive context, or, if they are sober and clearminded in their intention to throw off the fictions that bind us to blindness, and acquire instead the many forms of wings and eyes that are our natural human legacy.”

— an anonymous informant