<aside>
Reality Myths, definitions to further decipher
Paradoxically for humans, fictions are an essential part of reality. For this reason, knowing how to dispel degenerative ones is essential for well-being and integrity — not only as individuals but collectively.
To influence what is real such that it might be OTHERWISE, we do two things.
These forms of enaction are related. The first has us enacting (moving with impetus) of or for individuals. The later has us enacting in a shared way (entwined pair, group, or collective).
OTHERWISE orientation has consequences that deeply affect the perception (mirroring) of both human awareness and reality modeling. A common way our awareness adapts to unintended or unpleasant modifications of reality (intention used to bring about change we didn’t approve of) - is to retrospectively shrug it off. “If it happened, then it was supposed to [say, by God’s will]” or “let the chips fall where they may [I am not personally responsible when it comes to consequences]”.
Since outcomes are entwined with our narratives about reality, we cannot help but despair since the new condition, however disapproved, is also “reasonable.” In what has been metaphorically swept under the rug we find the following mess.
Not inspiring. At all. In part because reason and logic seem to be the problem. I have no choice but to resort to using fiction to my advantage.
Step back though. To the part where despairing parts become reasonable. The work needed to understand reality myths is to perceive distortions of reality. In addition to outside manipulation, they can derive from being self-defeated by our own well-meaning, reasonable selves. When otherwiseness is grounded in reality, there is no despair only new possibilities. When otherwiseness is ungrounded, it leads to the persist self-doubt — Can I be trusted?
At an existential level that leads to a mirrored experience of doubt in existence itself — Can existence be trusted? That’s where my work comes in.
<aside>
OKIC is not geared toward facilitating individuals with personal “manifesting”, like vision boards etc. A derivative way to think of it then is as a system that orients us to generating, as in undistorting reality or grace-centered manifesting. Reality phenomena will naturally overlap among these approaches, but do not get misled that the purpose of relating meaningfully to the Reality Myths here is intended primarily to inform traditional self-help.
</aside>
We are capable of and do even regularly choose to hand our agency over to fictions. Many times that’s fine because there’s no harm no foul as the fiction represents something real in a meaningful way. Discerning when reasonableness is no longer a sufficient belief is the current crossroads of human awareness and agency. It is time we aim to account for outcomes, both dire and benign, from the potential follies of fictitiously informed enaction.
The structure and patterning of distortions is not random or even unpredictable. The unique position the OKIC Reality Cipher holds is to define how, including logically and even technologically.
The Reality Myths defined in OKIC are important because they set us on the way to grasping how the patterning behind well-meaning fictions-becoming-foibles, for example, happens. At the far end of the extreme, otherwise fictions, even well intentioned ones, become beset (communication shitshow) by dispassion and lack of clarity. This is a result of enacted intentions getting so out of sync with each other that reality feels less grounding than disorienting. The otherwise charming process of imagining a better widget or a better social order takes a dark turn.
To shed light, we start with clarity about these fundamental REALITY MYTHS, a total of two types, specified “First Myths” and “Second Myths”. Portrayed in the figures below on a structure known in finite geometry as a Fano plane. The Second Myths figure is different in that an inscribed equilateral triangle representing in OKIC a centering phenomena such as a timeline has been added.
First Myths
Second Myths