How did the Free Spirit Theory come to be?

While writing the Free Spirit Theory and its subsections was a very creative process, I haven’t taken creative licenses to the truth. The only rule in the Free Spirit Theory is that I have to believe it to be true.

The Universe follows certain rules. Rules of nature, rules of physics, etc. Still, we know, I know from personal experience that there is a spirit in this mass of things, a way to consciously connect to everyone else even when separated and isolated from them. There are undeniably “supernatural” elements to our existence. Still, two assumptions that cancel each other out cannot be true at the same time (without a very good explanation, at least, but I try to avoid duct tape -explanations like both science and religion has always done: “If there was a good God, why would he allow this?” “Well, God works in mysterious ways.” “Well, there is that small problem in the Big Bang theory, that there’s simply not enough stuff in the Universe to account for all the matter…” “Well, the Universe works in mysterious ways.” “Well, if Twin Flames were a split from the same soul, how does it make sense we are all splits from God itself?” “Oh well, you know… First we were split into individuals and then further to Twin Flames…” “Oh, OK, so if you cut a cake for enough times, the pieces will develop their own traits and know which of the two halves right next to them are their twin piece?” “Oh, well, this is too difficult for me to understand.” Gotcha. I agree.)

So, two truths that contradict each other cannot be true. Either one is false, or both assumptions have an error in them. Even when things cannot be scientifically proven, they can be logically concluded if one gives it a bit of thought and considers enough factors.

Psycho-spiritual theory combined with a philosophical moral code.

So while I set out to understand Twin Flames, a concept explaining profound “love at first sight” experience that a lot of people have had. It interested me, as I had experienced that and found that I didn’t know how to handle it at all. All my conventional relationship advice was useless. I was as clueless as I was at 12, at 21. Still, I knew very clearly that this relationship was eternal. When I described it, I used phrases that I only ever found repeated in Twin Flame texts: “I could see into his mind” and “he’s me in a male body.” Also, “we’ve been together before”, which links it to the soulmate category in Twin Flame concept, as they believe the sense of belonging with this person is explained by a split soul rather than familiarity through incarnations, considering we do remember our spouses and all, but don’t feel that kind of instant love toward them, necessarily. I have a better explanation: Sometimes, we marry the wrong people, and more often so, when our spouses are chosen for as by our parents. (Although, Dog Type Thinker thinkers would really benefit from their parents choosing for them, as long as they choose wisely and leave other people’s Twin Flames/True Emotion Mirrors alone.)

Anyway, simply to explain my Twin Flame connection, I had to go all the way to the dawn of time to figure out why we’re even here. That’s where the realization hit: If there’s nothing in the Universe, why does it matter what we create? If I am self-aware, I’ll have to make something… Otherwise, I’m just sitting there in the vast universe of nothingness with nothing in nothing. OF COURSE, I’ll create something if it’s possible, and possibly it was. (I’m not saying I am the creator; I’m just saying that I understand whomever or whatever it was. I will later say that I believe there was more than one creator and that the Big Bang theory may not be accurate, but that debate will need some scientists in my camp. I have an idea, but not enough facts to go by.)

Therefore, the very makings of life dictate why or how we fall in love. Let’s just say I left no stone unturned.

How, why, and what are the rules of this game?

Then, if we assume that we started out with no plan, guidebook, or blueprint… What then? It seems to me, with ample evidence, that we all get everything we want 100% of the time – delivery times vary. They vary a lot. Sometimes, you’re just not answering your phone or the door; sometimes, you cannot be bothered to get up the couch to get the delivery. “Action required,” right? You do have to punch in the right codes for your delivery to be complete. If you don’t want it or are too lazy or self-conceited to do the required work, the delivery guy is not going to push through your doors to give it to you, right? And you’ll be sitting there on your sofa, fuming about how you never get what you want because you can’t be bothered to take action. The delivery times will be horribly long for lazy people.

In addition, as there are no existing rules, except for that single one: Everyone will always get what they want, but not necessarily when they want it, and from anyone they might want it from, we can all pretty much make up our own rules. There are some very good practices. I could find two very different types of thinkers that emphasize different things to each other and their balanced combination. When these types of thinkers push and pull on the same rope, we get this compromise solution that doesn’t truly work for anybody. The balanced thinker in between has basically taken their hands of the rope and navigates effortlessly between different types of thinkers. It is very rare that anyone has completely figured this out, but I’ve found some pretty nifty solutions people use to achieve this personal freedom and the self-confidence we all wish to possess. I am still quite strongly a “Cat Type Thinker thinker,” but I’ve learned a lot of practices from the Dog Type Thinker camp that I am going to make into a personal habit: a level of selfishness is a good example. While the Dog Type Thinker thinkers are pretty solely acting out of self-interest, the Cat Type Thinker thinkers must respond to that with what I call moral selfishness. Moral selfishness encourages you to examine every request, especially if it requires self-sacrifice under this question: Does agreeing to this request enable the other party to remain selfish while I have to self-sacrifice, or is their request fair? If it requires my self-sacrifice, is it for the greater good that I agree with, or is it for the personal gain of this one individual alone?

Basically, I went on a spiritual strike; You can no longer pay me with love and appreciation alone, followed by a crap ton of expectations and requests making me a slave rather than a leader.

I was given access to people’s emotional being.

The practical process that I used to create this theory is far from scientific. In my view, it has achieved things that psychology could never, in a thousand years, conclude. First of all, we don’t have the tools for it. There was many instances when I had to practically drag the answer out of very confused individuals whose language wasn’t developed enough to express nuance in an emotion. Now… I sound like a 50’s psychologist speaking about a lobotomy patient in this way, so I want to emphasize that I speak of people who seem outwardly VERY together and capable. There’s nothing wrong with these people as per current-day psychology goes. That is not to say we’re all insane; this is to say psychology misses things that spirit won’t.

Let’s take the word “love,” for instance. There was a time when a former friend of mine approached me, scolding me for having abandoned her. I know the word she was looking for was “love,” but as spirit sometimes translates things to give you the more accurate expression, her words came out as: “But I OWN you!” If she had been talking to a psychologist, she would have complained how she feels bad that she loves me, and the psychologist would have missed the real point: She thinks love is ownership.

Very often, I ran into situations where we were all using the same phrases expecting an entirely different reaction or interpretation to these phrases. These situations were not as much the inability to know the difference between two very similar emotions (in women, fear and sexual arousal are sometimes confused for the same thing, interestingly enough) but rather a difference in thinker types. When one always aims for unity and co-dependence, and the other aims for independence and freedom, there are going to be different interpretations of things, such as what is love, again? Is love nurturing your independence, or is it the action of nurturing our co-dependence? I am not surprised if you now gasp (feeling downright fury) at one or the other suggestion.

I wrote it all down as it occurred to me.

I wrote down EVERYTHING I observed, several blog posts a day, highly detailed, highly irrelevant most of the time, but I wrote it all down. Some of it repetitive, as the same issues keep popping back up over and over, with a slight nuance difference, bringing it to the point that when last night I went to bed, I did a “funny walk” to amuse my spirit companions, then realized that OMG, this is Dog Type Thinker thinker walk: if they’d be in a fantasy movie and there’d be this character, they would go along with everyone to save humanity from destruction, but they really don’t see how it’s their problem; so they drag their feet and beg for permission to go back to Shire. So, I can now tell a person’s thinker type by some of their walks. 😀

In these writings, certain patterns emerge, and points get repeated. It’s too much to be offered for reading material, but I put most of it onto Sebastyne.com/Read, which gives you a random post with a random image with no weighing whatsoever. I’m adding to the archive constantly. It’s like reading tarot, basically, but there are instructions on the front page. You don’t need to be a psychic when you start; you will be one in no time.