How to manifest your dream life
Finding purpose within a mental world
If you could manually alter the narrative of your life, what would you change?
Many people believe, wholeheartedly, that they can influence reality simply by modifying their inner state.
It’s called manifestation and it’s plausibly the hottest modern self-help trend that is not directly backed by a modicum of published science.
Within the established community, there exist multiple—at times contradictory—variations regarding the fundamental nature of this practice, some of which lack a backbone of critical contemplation.
I trust Nero—a bright young man dedicated to studying esoteric, religious and spiritual texts—to deliver robust interpretations of previously construed ideologies.
He succeeds in synthesizing a multitude of obscure conceptions while infusing into them his own brand, including practical frameworks and a wry sense of humor.
I hold some gripes with his approach, however; namely, he projects his garnered knowledge rather dogmatically, convinced entirely of its correctness despite operating within an adolescent field that is, in many ways, yet shrouded in mystery.1
Spiritual theory is notoriously difficult to validate and legitimize, particularly while scientism reigns dominant, to varying degrees, amidst our culture’s intellectual elite.
To speak with surety on the mechanics of mental manifestation—at this point in history’s unfolding—is, although understandably tempting, an act of undue boldness.
For example, many popularized communicators will often speak of concepts in quantum mechanics without realizing that the physics community itself has not yet reached common consensus regarding what they reveal about the true metaphysical nature of reality.
Generally speaking, a significant number of humanity’s ideations—whether abstract or experimental—have yet to be properly integrated within the larger epistemic foundation.2
When investigating theoretical frontiers, one must maintain a vigorous air of open-mindedness.
To be keenly aware of the standing depths of human ignorance—such as in the case of spiritualism—is to remain empowered under the deafening shadow of the unknown.
Despite any shortcomings, Nero typically provides coherent and consistent information; his framework—which serves as a useful reference point—is summarized below.3
Nero’s framework for manifestation
Define your desired reality: construct a clear and concise vision
Consider this reality to exist in the form of potential
Align your identity with the essence of your desired reality
Identity: emotions, attention, beliefs, conviction and thoughts
In other words, become the person who would exist within desired reality
Develop complete non-attachment with respect to seeing reality change
Evade emotional dependence upon seeing your life change
Tap into a divine source—God, heaven, or the “highest” state of consciousness
Connect with an unknowable, infinite source of potentiality
Perform necessary actions whilst maintaining a resonant psycho-emotional state
Much of this model is relatively similar to aspects of 12-step recovery programs, whereby addicts seek salvation by surrendering to a higher power and forgoing unfavorable character traits.4
Explicitly missing, however, is the all-important element of service: carrying forth one’s worldly endeavors not only in pursuit of personal successes, but in striving to enhance the lives of those less equipped in assisting themselves and of future populations.5
I contend that this void is one of the most substantive issues within the larger manifestation community—as philosopher Bernardo Kastrup once discussed, for individuals to seek strictly to enhance, using mental manipulation, their own livelihoods while neglecting wider eco-systemic responsibilities is a travesty.6
Kastrup’s analytic idealism—wherein mental processes are considered to be ontologically primitive—does not exclude the possibility for externally-expressed influence of individuated consciousness.7
Physicalism, on the other hand, unequivocally nullifies the plausibility of such causal interactions.8
Although my own comprehension is yet evolving, I can presently speculate as to the implications evoked—with respect to the essence of mental manifestation—from salient aspects of a rather large collection of atypical experiential data.
Based on what I have witnessed, the 3D universe as we know it—illusory as it may be, relative to an objective reality—is seemingly a complex, self-optimizing system.
The world around us is alive and interchangeable, driven not only by local causality but by some invisible force of synchronistic orientation.9
Certain occurrences transcend coincidence—for example, meeting the precisely ideal person for a given circumstance, encountering an exactly-needed resource to lure you down a prosperous intellectual rabbit hole, or hearing a song that triggers within you some emotional energy which desires intensely to be released.
Another exemplar is as follows: when one finds themselves submerged in some nightmarish scenario, the trajectory along which they find salvation is often revealed incrementally, systematically, such that they not only escape, eventually, but they are instilled with novel wisdoms, thus attaining a refined state of awareness which carries forward into subsequent misadventures.
Going forward, we will define the God-system as that which encapsulates all that truly is—whatever that may, in fact, be.
Correspondingly, the dynamic, sensational environment known as 3D reality and the sentient beings which inhabit it are, respectively, the expression and exploration of the God-system consciousness.10
Assuming that this universal system does indeed strive toward optimization—using, perhaps, a network of non-linear objective functions—we can infer that human life is inherently meaningful.
If it weren’t, there would be no underlying motivation for the God-system to enact internal differentiation.
One explanation is the idea of a soul or higher self—an entity, intimately connected to the human experience, which garners benefit from the progressions, adaptations and proliferations of spacetime-inhabiting consciousness.
The agglomeration of all souls, then, could be thought of as the brain of the God-system.
Regarding manifestation, all of this suggests that alignment with the agenda of a transcendent, universal life-flow is a recipe for materializing that which one desires.
The dominant problem thus becomes one of understanding the nuanced context and needs of a broader organism which surrounds and encompasses all of us.
Viewing one’s life as a small yet important component of an intricate, intertwining, amorphous lifeform, existence takes on an additional, critical layer of meaning.
Ask yourself: how may I transform my time on earth such that I impose the maximal level of enhancement to an overarching purpose beyond, at least in its entirety, my conception?
Once synchronized with the God-system—oriented such that localized forward movement equates with globally-sustained betterment—favorable outcomes begin to be realized effortlessly.
Achieving alignment is not a straightforward process—in my experience, what I wish to occur is often not what will actually expand my eventual usefulness, as becomes strikingly clear in retrospective contemplation.
There exists a delicate balance of counteracting forces at play within the interplay of life’s many dynamisms.
Details of the God-system’s architecture are not at all obvious; as such, one must listen and watch carefully to absorb and digest the subtleties which drive onwards a positive unfurling of a grand schema.
This is the art of manifestation—becoming acquainted and attuned with something far greater than any singular egoic consciousness.
The psychedelic experience teaches us that an interweaving structure unites us profoundly and infallibly.
Conforming to the directionality of this cohesive tendency, we find that the opportunities we’ve been seeking were within reach all along.
Opposing the streaming energetic pull of life’s preordained proclivities—like laboring to resist the downward motion of a cascading waterfall—causes immense suffering.
Another way is possible—in deriving our existential experience from service, unity and surrender, we can establish a permanent home within the fabric of a universal vitality.
To be fair, Nero is not alone in being guilty of this fallacy. It is almost certainly a cultural problem—we are programmed in a way that dissuades us from questioning our beliefs, even when they are divergent from mainstream thought, as in the case of Nero’s. With respect to manifestation, there is a big difference between having experiences which support the concept’s validity and knowing what caused them—a subtlety that is largely lost within the current spiritual zeitgeist.
Consider the notion of quantum entanglement as empirically validated by Aspect, Clauser and Zeilinger (recognized by a Nobel Prize in 2022): one can find countless different interpretations as to what exactly can be inferred—regarding the underlying nature of reality—as a result of these observations. The mathematics and empirical observations are irrefutable; however, what they mean is an entirely unique beast.
For the record, I have a great deal of respect for Nero and would place him in the upper echelon of active spiritual theorists. He has taught me a lot about existing formulations of manifestation theory, and his nuanced understanding of religious scriptures as they relate to obscure conceptions is admirable. Undoubtedly, he will outgrow any academic imperfections and emerge as a well-rounded intellectual.
Recovery programs are, in many ways, designed to be a form of reality manifestation. For example, there are a set of promises which are read during most meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous. The general premise is that, if you work through the steps and practice the program’s principles, fortuitous things—such as financial stability, freedom and serenity—will come forth into your life.
In fairness, Nero does discuss a concept he calls the law of circulation—whereby one receives, in life, to the same degree that they give—but service, in general, is not considered to be a central requisite in manifesting one’s desired outcomes.
I failed to find the exact podcast in which Kastrup discussed this; however, I will update this footnote if I do.
Analytic idealism posits a universal mind-field within which individuated conscious entities form owing to a mechanism akin to “alters'“ arising under dissociative identity disorder in human minds. As such, there exists a boundary—which is, in itself, a mental structure—that separates singular minds from the broader field. Considering this configuration, the plausibility of mental manifestation becomes evident: interactions across an alter boundary, stemming from within a dissociated mind, somehow effect changes in the adjacent region of the broader field. Kastrup has discussed his doubts regarding manifestation; however, his understanding of, for example, Nero’s model is incomplete—he assumes that changes are believed to occur due to one’s thoughts, when, in fact, one’s subconscious identity plays a far more potent causal role. In this way, analytic idealism may indeed align reasonably well with Nero’s model of manifestation. For reference, see this podcast wherein Kastrup briefly discusses manifestation.
The reason for this is clear: under a physicalist metaphysics, consciousness is thought to arise strictly from neuronal activity in the brain, and the 3D world is assumed to be static, material, and merely witnessed by sentient beings. Therefore, if consciousness were entirely localized within the confines of a brain, there would be no possibility for conscious activity to causally influence the 3D world.
This particular dichotomy—opposing forces of local causality and synchronicity—was posited through a conjoined academic discovery between physicist Wolfgang Pauli and psychologist Carl Jung.
This idea is similar to Donald Hoffman’s interface theory of perception wherein human consciousness is modeled as an interface for some underlying objective reality which transcends geometric spacetime.
"Consider the notion of quantum entanglement as empirically validated by Aspect, Clauser and Zeilinger (recognized by a Nobel Prize in 2022): one can find countless different interpretations as to what exactly can be inferred—regarding the underlying nature of reality—as a result of these observations. The mathematics and empirical observations are irrefutable; however, what they mean is an entirely unique beast."
This is a thing for me. I strongly prefer to go out of my way to admit when I am speculating. This comes up a lot when people engage in cutting-edge topics, I have found, leading to a lot of confusion.
What I strive for, often, is what I call the minimal inference. If I understand entanglement correctly, it is commonly understood to mean that we can affect outcomes non-locally, through our observation. What gets less press, is the idea that our reality is subject to the same effect from the proverbial 'other side.'
When we talk about quantum entanglement, we often frame it through a deeply human lens: we observe, and things happen elsewhere. The narrative tends to center us as the agents of change—as if the quantum universe is waiting for our input like a cosmic customer service rep. What gets less airtime is the possibility that entanglement is not a one-way effect but a mutual influence—a *two-way street* of reality, where we may be observed or affected from the “other side” of the entangled connection. Our models tend to assume we’re the ones doing the poking, rarely asking whether we’re also being poked. This oversight might not be due to a lack of data, but a lack of perspective.