The Infinite Probable YOUs and MEs
By Kristen Fox
We each create those experiences which match our own vibration. So, what happens when “other people” are thrown into the equation. Are we suddenly creating their experiences as well as our own?
Here are some principles that will help clarify the overall concept:
- We each create our own reality through the law of attraction.
- Compromise is not necessary for harmony.
- We each create our own unique space continuums.
- We exist in infinite probable variations and in each moment choose which probability we experience NOW.
Now let’s fit them all together.
First of all, thinking in terms of separation or “other” people is a perspective that identifies us as our egos, as our physical focus. In truth, although we may look separate and are individuated in physical reality, we are all connected, we are each perfect expressions of All That Is. As we no longer associate ourselves solely with our egos, the term co-creation becomes a misnomer. Even if we’re using the term co-creation to express cooperation between our ego selves and our “Expanded” selves, it is still coming from the perspective of separation. We might as well replace co-creation with “I create with myself.” And in order to understand how we can EACH create what we want, without conflict or compromise, we must move past the usual idea of “co”-creation.
We each exist beyond the definitions of physical reality. In fact, our “lives” are basically expressions of our energy translated into physical terms, thus not only creating our own experiences, but our own experiences of “others”, “mass events”, or “the world.” And in physical reality, we each literally create our own space continuums in which to HAVE these experiences. Physical reality, space and time, isn’t as solid or defined as we may have thought.
We choose what we want to create by resonating with a certain idea or vibration. In creating a mate, for instance, we will attract a person that vibrates in harmony with ourselves – it can be no other way. That mate will “stay” as long as we both still vibrate in alignment, whether it is a vibrational agreement based in codependency (mutual belief in victims/perpetrators, for instance) or in conscious choice of desired characteristics.
Now, what if we’ve attracted that desired mate and one day decide, for instance, that we want more attention? If there are not a lot of emotional attachments to getting loving attention (such as self-worth issues) then it’s a simple matter of deciding that we now receive a quite sufficient amount of it, of choosing our new experience or probability. Have we then controlled another person? Have we taken away their ability to choose their own actions and beliefs?
Nope! This is where the idea of infinite probabilities and infinite probable selves comes in. We have chosen a certain vibration that gets translated into physical terms as “I receive ample attention” and then allowed physical reality to reflect that back to us. The key here is to decide what kind of EXPERIENCE we want and then allow physical reality to bring it to us in the most harmonious way possible, which may or may NOT be aligned with how we THINK things will come about. Notice that our hypothetical person stated that they wanted to feel more loving attention and NOT that they wanted their mate to pay more attention to them – perhaps the mate actually ended up being the reflection of this new choice, perhaps a friend, perhaps the person ended up appreciating themselves more instead. We can each have exactly what we want if we decide in essence what it is we want and allow the free-flow of probabilities to find the best and most harmonious vibrational match for us. It’s a step back into the conceptual.
Every time we make a decision, whether it’s a decision to stay the same or to make even the tinyest change, we are altering our vibration and drawing new probable expressions, probable events, probable people, and probable objects into our own space continuums. We do it CONSTANTLY, even thought the illusion that time is continuous and linear would have us think otherwise.
We’ve all experienced telling stories with friends and family only to have different versions of the events come up – we’ve discovered we’ve chosen different probabilities. Usually, we either agree to disagree or someone ends up deciding that they must have been mistaken. This infers that we can’t trust our own experiences and must look to the masses or the agreed upon “facts” in order to ascertain what “really happened.” When the “fact” is that it ALL happened, just as each person experienced it, in their own probability, and their own space continuum, according to their own choice, their own vibration.
And of course, this does NOT mean that the people we interact with in physical reality aren’t REAL. You are a probable self of the self you were a moment ago and are as real as the last one. Or the next one. Or the ones to either side… even though we’re not used to thinking of ourselves in terms of infinite combinations. And your mate, although you are free to experience any probable reflection or interaction or expression (vibrational alignment) with that mate, is as real as you are.
You and your mate (or child, or friend, etc.) may choose to experience a similar probability, then different probabilities, and then come back into alignment again on the next one. This movement through probabilities and experience and creation is all based on the choices that we make, by what we choose to resonate with, by what we focus on.
And even though we’re all actually a lot less physical and solid and “permanent” than we are used to believing, there’s absolutely nothing to worry about… you’re not going to get “lost in probabilities.” The concept of infinite probable and “real” expressions of the people you interact with seems a bit daunting, much less the realization that you can redefine yourself in any moment. Where the intellect may get a little confused, the heart will lead the way. Trust yourself and step into the infinite limitlessness of it all!
[Originally published in The Edge, May 1999.]