PAUL: What is the function of Substance? RAJ: Its function is congruency, integrity, confluency, and inseparable Oneness, the inviolable substantiality of Infinity, of Reality. It is the constituting indivisibility of Conscious Being. It is the Absolute Law of the intelligent, harmonious blending of the infinite manifestations which constitute the experience of being as Conscious Being. Substance is Omnipotence. There is nothing passive, whatsoever, about it. It is the adhesion, cohesion, and attraction which constitute the immutable orderliness of the Totality of Being.

Leave the “split experience” of Reality/unreality alone, as illustrated in the tares and the wheat parable.3 Let them appear to exist side by side. Let them appear to cause different consciousnesses. As long as there are two, you are not caught—deluded—into the three-dimensional-only frame of reference. This dual experience of consciousness is an affirmation or proof of your having crossed the change line. You are not in three-dimensional territory, although you can still see it and feel it. Take my word for it. Now, turn your back on the old territory and begin to look into the depths of your Being as Fourth-dimensional Man. As I said, once you cross the change line, clarification spontaneously begins to occur, and occur more rapidly. This is inevitable.

Emotional responses have very little to do with Reality. In either case, Reality is unfolding Itself perfectly. The only thing that happens when you are feeling good is that it’s easier to take than when you are feeling bad.

You are also aware that when the perception of the Reality of your Being is clear enough, it is easier to give up the false sense of individuality for the true experience of Identity. You can, indeed, anticipate a divine adventure, even though it will involve some labor. Do not expect this to occur overnight, Paul. As a matter of fact, this process began the first night we began our conversations. Be patient and stick with it, and be ready to put your shoulder to the wheel.

You will never be able to experience the infinitude of your Being clearly if you think that there are nooks or crannies—or “levels of belief”—in which the omnipresent Love which constitutes your Being is somehow not present. You must come to the realization that all of you truly is always available to you, no matter how things seem to be. Right now, I am aware that you are feeling as though you are somehow beyond the range of the direct perception and experience of the Reality of your Being as Love. It simply is not true.

There is no reason for you to feel that you must be able to understand the new view before you see it. There is no way for Revelation to mean the revealing of what you already know, except in the Absolute sense. Your Being has always moved beyond your present concepts of Reality, and you have always recognized it as a sudden influx of inspiration and understanding which went beyond what you had previously been aware of. You have simply never been aware of the process before, only the result. This time you are aware of the process—of the breakdown of the old concepts and the appearing of the Revelation. In actuality, the whole process of breakdown and the new view is the One, Total Function of Being called Revelation. It is happening in slow motion, so to speak, and you are having the opportunity to observe the process. You are, indeed, the Answer. I would stick with this Fact as constantly as you are able, even if it appears not to be so, and not to be evident. You are going to stick with something, and it might as well be the Fact.

Paul, the three-dimensional frame of reference is very much like the image on a motion picture screen. Where it appears to be full of meaning it, nevertheless, remains an image no more than a fraction of a millimeter thick on the surface of the screen. The meaning is not in the image at all, but is supplied within the awareness of the observer. If the observer dislikes something appearing on the screen, it is foolish for him to attempt to change the image in any way, because the meanings which he would like to alter are within him. What is faulty with that illustration is that, in a theatre, there is a projector—separate from the screen and the observer—which is projecting the picture on the screen. In Reality there is not a third aspect called a “projector,” which places the image on another aspect called a “screen.” In Reality, all three aspects are constituted of the one conscious experience of Being.

There’s a certain anxiety in the VR community that surfaces in many conference panels and interviews with industry leaders: plenty of veterans are worried that this latest flowering of the technology will end with the same commercial disappointment that we saw in previous decades.

problems that are real

Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions- they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins.

And besides, what about these linguistic conventions themselves? Are they perhaps products of knowledge, that is, of the sense of truth? Are designations congruent with things? Is language the adequate expression of all realities?

"If a workman were sure to dream for twelve straight hours every night that he was king," said Pascal, "I believe that he would be just as happy as a king who dreamt for twelve hours every night that he was a workman.

it is we who impress ourselves in this way. In conjunction with this, it of course follows that the artistic process of metaphor formation with which every sensation begins in us already presupposes these forms and thus occurs within them. The only way in which the possibility of subsequently constructing a new conceptual edifice from metaphors themselves can be explained is by the firm persistence of these original forms That is to say, this conceptual edifice is an imitation of temporal, spatial, and numerical relationships in the domain of metaphor.

And besides, what about these linguistic conventions themselves? Are they perhaps products of knowledge, that is, of the sense of truth? Are designations congruent with things? I