Why I Don’t Believe in History

I should point out (as I have before) that, if this post seems a bit mish-mosh, it’s (mostly) by design.
When I was younger (well, from what my mind tells me was when I was younger), I had this theory I called the “Soap Opera Theory of the Soul.” This was when I was around 7 or so and had been having frequent OOBEs, and, not really having the luxury of age and resources to research the phenomenon, I tried to find a way to articulate it to people who wanted to dismiss what they assumed was the hyper-imagination of a child who spent Way Too Much Time reading bizarre books, writing crazy stories, and watching The Twilight Zone. In doing so, it got me thinking to how normal experiences were somewhat similar to an OOBE, and how that could be compared and contrasted to something everyone could relate to. So, my rantings went somewhat like this (to anyone I could cajole into listening): In a soap opera, whenever they had a flashback scene, they’d replay a previous clip but apply a stylistic/visual cue so you’d know it was supposed to be a memory (i.e., fuzzy borders, brighter light, that sort of thing). But what they’d show would of course merely be the recording of an old episode showing what happened in the past, as shown from the vantage point of the camera. Well, our own memories work like that (without the special effects); we don’t see past events from a first-person angle, we see them as a viewer, watching ourselves slightly outside of ourselves. I speculated that this viewpoint was from what people liked to consider a ‘soul,’ a piece of us that resides partly within us but partly outside of the physical self. Okay, so you can imagine what a fun child I was. And while it’s a very simplistic concept, it does have some substance behind it. The main difference between a standard memory and an OOBE is that the ‘camera’ can be anywhere, even if the physical portion is supposed to be somewhere else. It’s also possible to tune them to present and future events, but sometimes this leads to an overall disconnect with time, getting out of sync with the linear portions of it.
In my youth, I usually thought of myself as an ‘Observer’ – I am of the type that can watch, analyze, and digest information to make observations and predict outcomes, to see past what is placed here as smoke and mirrors. I could adapt and blend as needed, could learn and process information rapidly, and developed an incredible network of associates (all of that still holds true). In honing those abilities I tried to gain a better control of my precog, but it wasn’t really controllable (I can only narrow it down to paths and outcomes). I saw a lot of people trying to focus in on deciphering datasets and patterns, but I thought of most of that as additional diversions. I watched as people sat around and argued about left versus right, green versus green, and wandered down the rabbit holes of Needing to Be Correct. Nowadays I watch the same conversations, the same information being spiraled, but online. It’s the same diversion, the same rhetoric. Insecure. Pointless. And the reason for that is pretty simple; it’s the same programmed loop. The same background noise.
So, moving to now. I still like to create extremely simplistic names/relations for my theories; it’s the only way I can explain them to most people without a) the conversation turning into a pissing contest of $3 vocab words where people are more concerned with trying to out-clever or out-quote the other than they are with gaining and sharing insight, or b) trying to articulate concepts and things that I fully understand in my mind, but that are combinations of sounds, colors, smells, shapes, and things that I can’t put into words. Usually when I try to explain these things people feel compelled to cut me off while I’m mentally translating and try to finish my explanations like it’s Charades, which is frustrating and annoying. I have no desire to talk to people who are more interested in hearing their own voice, who are just waiting for me to shut up so that they can speak versus trying to listen and understand what I’m saying, who lack the intelligence to think to ask (clarifying or establishing) questions and become engaged in conversation and instead jump to conclusions.
So. When I tell people that the environment that we experience is actually a virtual training sim, it usually requires a bit of analogy to avoid getting all science mumbo-jumbo on them, and feeling a need to explain the science or rationalize the theory is exactly missing the point anyways. So for the past several years I’ve tried to put my explanation of this into the base context of being in a video game, with certain caveats. First of all, the environment is created, constructed, developed, designed – for a reason. Yes, there is a ‘meaning to life’ of sorts. But the objectives behind a game (even one where you’re supposed to be ‘learning’) are very different than they’d be in this environment, and it of course differs with whatever role you are in. Some of the characters here are ‘real’ while others are AI constructs. There are a lot of filler characters in the environment that create diversions to throw the principles off track and/or to add substance. The alpha characters may feel a ‘greater’ purpose and/or a ‘need’ to matter, to create, to Be Important that drives them (but so do many of the non-alphas, as another diversion/inclusion device). So, we are in a game, to oversimplify, and some of us are the only prime/alpha identities that exist within it. That doesn’t mean that we should treat it as a game or that there aren’t consequences; if anything, it’s that there are potentially great consequences. We are confined to this subset of reality for a reason. And a shift is coming soon; not a doomsday sort of shift, but a game-changer.
Now, in a manufactured environment, there are objects; trees, houses, media, things that would presumably have needed time to have been created. But there was no history within the environment past the programming that created it; it merely was developed to create the illusion of history to give the objects and characters context. So, since we are in a virtual environment, what we perceive as ‘history’ is simply what’s been constructed to establish our ‘reality.’ It could have been programmed yesterday, but the main thing is that the ‘when’ is irrelevant. Ultimately, it’s just there to provide clues for us now, as well as to throw in a lot of distractors to challenge us. It’s the same as writing a story and making up characters and settings and such; the past events are invented as needed, and the more detailed they are, the more believable and authentic they seem; but ultimately, including them is either necessary for the plot or merely uses up space to attempt to enhance the experience.
But any real thought about history and it all starts to seem a bit silly and convenient. And even my own personal past has that element to it in spades. How many ‘coincidences’ there have been when I stop and really look at them. How every Saint Patrick’s Day was a pivoting point. How many paths would have led to the same outcome. And most of all, how many clues have been staring me – and us all – in the face this whole time, waiting for us to get to a point where they could be understood. But this era is the first and only time where all of the pieces have been there, waiting to be found. Everything points where it needs to; and now it’s simply a matter of the alphas finding one another to create the kindred network, to get the pieces they need.
I usually avoid getting into conversations with people about this sort of thing for several reasons. First of all, some people are programmed to debate tirelessly on minutia; they don’t argue because they are interested in the topic, they argue because they want to spew out something, and have a need to feel comfortable in their hivemind beliefs, need everyone to think and feel and want the same things they do. Inevitably it’s pointed out that the (admittedly glossy and dumbed down) stuff I posted above has been said before, and articulated better, and blah blah. It’s kind of hard to bite my lip at that anymore and not roll my eyes at the stupidity of such a statement. Of course it’s been said before, and better, and will continue to be said. That’s practically the point. Because there is a finite amount of information that’s been programmed into this environment, it’s important for us to reach the milestones and touchpoints of information that we need, so they need to be placed in more than one area, in more than one medium. And since many of us are on the same wavelength as it were, each set or group of people on the same ‘dial’ will by design have and share many of the same or similar visions. That’s why it’s so common to encounter people who get ‘brilliant’ ideas only to discover that hundreds and thousands of others had the same thought. It’s like a programming fail-safe to make sure that the data gets through. The goal, quite simply, isn’t to be the most original or clever or powerful, as we only have the confines of our individual programming to control much of that. The goal is to find the network, to join together so that all of the individual components can create the greater whole.
And lastly, there’s the ones who think that they’re unique; but whom I’ve met so many variant clones of that they’re somewhat draining and surreal for me to converse with. I don’t mean that as elitism in any way; it’s just that I’m not programmed to function well with people who are not within my bandwidth. I have no need to limit myself to exposure only to people ‘like’ me, but there is definitely something invigorating in conversing with someone who is able to grok things, and it helps to reaffirm being on the right path towards the goal.