Михаил_ wrote:
... the world is not what many think it is and therefore to draw conclusions from the "if - then" is a profound mistake. Methods of influence and control in this world and the real balance of the forces you do not know, and the fact that the public is just theatre.
Of course, the world is not what we think of him, but he didn't have what we know about him. If we watch the movie (6.30-8.00 minutes) that can be found
hereevery atheist will exclaim: "long live Darwin! He's right and again right." In the sense that science has dug up that proved through genetics that we babesanal - relatives.

But if you watch another movie that you can find
herethen, after carefully examining the facts, that there is given little thought over them, we can say that it is not so simple as it seems (or they say) even some scholars from this second film. But in any case we can say safely settled in that
"the world is one". And therefore we thank him opened the relations that make it
single.
Михаил_ wrote:for the layman, t/e/ for us, the idea of a subthreshold signal interested in overcoming their own thresholds - HARMFUL. In other words, not useful.
I would rephrase that we have the
desire to overcome these "walls" the obstacle of rapids. And on account of harmful and useful, then there is grandmother to two so far have said.
Михаил_ wrote:But a similar technique can be used to himself to remove just the bounding box. That filter myself on the subject of "this can't be, because it can never be"- as implemented by the society and the world-picture (for lack of experience of flexible interactions with the add-on). Because of this, people have tantrums happen when the real manifestations of their own capabilities (I described an example about a coin teleport from the girls in practice, Denisova), or any manifestations happen only in the heat of passion and hard stress, when the limitations of the world picture is not working. In my opinion this is the only place where you can and sometimes delicately and very carefully to get without affecting other aspects. Well, almost the only one.
It only seems to us that hysteria is the result only of these filters and bans. And what is their meaning? A little hint this could be the observation that some take religion and system improvement, we can see that each of them have bans.
And the word You have interesting, Michael: "climb". Well, seems to be in someone else's garden for apples.

I read the topic that You here give the link and I had a certain understanding. Let us part I'll try to provide.
If we take Your "climb", the most common it can be issued as "action". I.e., we if take a good think about it, can "meddle" in the "corridors" of the world in several ways. First let it be - let us call them pagan - power. We just Prem and all because we wanted something, which means it needs to reach. Gently or not - this is the third case. Second - Taoist - path of harmony and non-action. Well and the third may be a Christian - the path of prayer (to the higher self beings), prayers and patience. This, of course, all conditional names. But if you look closely, you can find something that they do not overlap and differ.
Immediately you may remark some. Well, I did, in the context of this conversation, "climb" into my own subconscious and not someone else's. Violence against others that I do not produce. What are the questions?!! Let's go further.
Михаил_ wrote:We tried the impact on the cellular level of the body (on the basis of a certain understanding that there is broken) and I can say that the effect is quite observable, t/e/ it is. Not fantastic, and without some kind of super-transcendent manifestations, but it is slightly noticeable and cumulative.
Well the cellular level lives the
usual life. And he knows no scruples, no morality, only laws of nature. Somewhere something like that. But cells, like everything else in this world, open to the world. Therefore changes may be the reason that we do not assume.
Let's turn to the good in terms of well-documented, examples. Nothing prevents us to refer to an interesting book by Christakis N. Fowler, D. "one Connected network". Here is what I came up with these two researchers from Harvard. Each of us is surrounded by people with whom we communicate constantly and often: family members, friends, colleagues. This is the first round. They also have their circle of good friends, but we take only those with whom we are in close communication. This is our second round. Similarly, it is possible to allocate the third number of people in a network of close acquaintances. So it turned out that it was open for network communication of one small American town of Framingham that the probability to change (someone earlier, someone later) health status (in this case to lose weight or put on weight), together with the people of the 1st round is around 50 %, with people of the 2nd round - 20%, with the people of the 3rd round - 10%. Similarly (approximately, if you go by numbers) with alcoholism, drug addiction, Smoking habit, back pain (lower back) and various other manifestations of our way of life. We are connected with other people, because we are open to the world. It is clear that this is all statistics, odds. But the chance is unknown pattern. By the way, that's why, presumably, those who wanted to improve themselves or dedicate themselves to God, they went to the hermit. And the last one. These relationships could be skipping one chain. Ie between me and the person second round. This means that to reduce these patterns to a simple imitation and copying does not work.
Now you can go back to our "climbing" in your subconscious. We need to chase a "wave" through all the circles of our explicit and implicit communication of influence to change something. And this is, I'll tell You quite may like violence against other people.

After all, we have some clever or direct (power) to convince and "subconscious" all of our friends and quite unfamiliar to us. I took the word "subconscious" in quotes because it's already lost its meaning. Have Jung with his collective unconscious!

However it is already "junk"!
Михаил_ wrote:Thus, if we assume ( and rightly so) that some functions can be controlled "from above" and that something does not work just because the General framework commanded that "nissassa", it is possible to make some gentle but effective adjustments to these mechanisms. However, I believe that the intervention itself is always more environmentally friendly than someone and less affects the "protective barriers" of such interventions.
In any case, you should describe the environmental friendliness of the procedure (what everything is in harmony and interacts with the rest of the autopilot - good).
Hope I've tweaked Your understanding of this very "nissassa". But at the expense of the sustainability check, please, if you can, share with all the people infoy - You promised your method to influence the subconscious mind to explain in detail. After all, there occurs (or can occur now to some, like me) a lot of questions with further plans to implement these approaches to change itself.
Oh Yes! There is no "autopilot". There are "chairs" of the world who are all busy,

and there dvijenie some "chairs" between (relative) of other "chairs".

<