Assuming that you now see through a lens of ‘I am a lucky person’, what would that imply? @Wonders is right in that all subs give you a degree of luck because Luck really isn’t luck, but an identity and bold strategic action when opportunities arise. Plus a few other things like gratitude.
1 Like
Would Limitless Raikov be the most helpful if I want to learn to think like a famous person just by reading his books or his autobiography or his memoirs? I can’t possibly observe Einstein or Newton in action since they are dead people, but if this could let me get into their minds, it would be fantastic.
3 Likes
After reading you and @Wonders ’ replies, I think (don’t know how @SaintSpring interprets Luck) we have different expectations or embodiment of luck.
True luck to me is out of our control. It is not expanding our horizon, be prepared so that whatever and whenever opportunities come up we can seize them. The most obvious example is lottery, many go out and buy a ticket but only one wins; it happens in a way unrelated to strategy or statistic, e.g. one buys many tickets yet still lost when another buys one but wins.
Luck can be something as simple as finding a parking spot in a very busy parking lot without trying (e.g. doesn’t plan on visiting the parking lot during off hours), or when being delayed in traffic on the way to airport yet still make it to the flight somehow even though we miss the boarding time.
3 Likes
What’s this
It’s a thing that uses the idea of how people “encode” their own personal timeline, how memories get stored in relation to one another, to help make shifts.
Google Tad James or Everett James. He’s a big name in Timeline stuff.
1 Like
Well, for such case my answer would be a bit more spiritual/esoteric: karma
I say this having experienced events as such, arriving at events in the nick of time, along with other syncronicities like meeting with the mayor and discussing projects for the city while going to buy milk.
though we should most likely detach from outcomes as there is no sure-fire way to have a parking spot ready every single time, I don’t believe that we have absolutely no control over it.
My experience is that keeping an open mind, being grateful, being confident, and doing good, help with luck of the environment and event kind.
(though, if spiritual traditions regarding karma are right, multiple events are programmed for us to live from before our birth; and such events and tribulations are there for our own growth and thus cannot be avoided, only pushed back if possible at all)
in any case, I guess the answer will highly vary depending on one’s definition of luck, and only Fire would have a real say on whether it may help with luck in such or such situation.
1 Like
That’s definitely part of it, probability means we can’t hit a home run every time.
However, since everyone has an RAS, we look for what we believe to be true out in the world. If you believe you’re an unlucky person, then you’ll completely miss that money on the floor but if you believe you are a lucky person, then you’ll spot it before anyone and grab it with a seeming coincidence, or at least more than you’d miss that opportunity. It’s still probability, but you are unconsciously increasing your chances drastically because of the filters in which you view yourself and what you get or what you receive in life. Same with love. It’s just a notion that people want to believe about luck, that it’s mystical because it seems cool and mysterious.
At the end of the day, life isn’t as random, if you listen to these subliminals and get results from them, then you already kind of operate under that assumption.
2 Likes
R. G. Collingwood, the historian and philosopher, actually emphasized that a good historian must at least attempt to retrace the thoughts of those he is studying, reconstructing the mental processes behind the written text. Sort of re-enacting history in your own mind. Of course, the question is how to separate your own culturally conditioned biases from what might have actually been thought, but Collingwood certainly already gave this some thought. Look it up.
2 Likes
Selecting the Ideal Mental Construct
Who inspires you the most in the domain of your chosen skill? This module helps you find the perfect role model to emulate internally – not by fame or flash, but by personal resonance. You’ll be guided to intuitively choose a “mental mentor” whose values, style, and success ignite something in you. It could be a legendary musician, a brilliant scientist, a sports icon, or even someone you personally know. What matters is that their example awakens your own drive and sense of possibility. With Limitless: RAIKOV, you won’t just pick a random figure; you’ll zero in on someone who makes you think, “Yes, that’s how I want to be.” This ensures that when you later embody their traits, it feels natural and motivating. Essentially, you’re selecting an ideal future version of you to serve as a guidepost. Once chosen, this mental construct becomes a powerful lens through which your mind can focus on excellence.
It mentions daily listening in the copy. Is this valid, cause I want to listen daily if so @AnswerGroup
1 Like
Woah!!! 
In Raikov’s experiments, individuals “embodied” the person they were modeling, viewing the world through their eyes. Often times this meant their peculiarities as well. Now, Limitless: Raikov can’t be 1 to 1 replicate of Raikov’s experiments - nor do we want it to be, as this is a subliminal title and thus a very different form of technology.
It also gives us a certain degree of flexibility in how we can drive the process. I say all this so that you can see the differences in the inspiration and what we have created. Overall I would say yes, however this would be up to conscious guidance - and what’s more important, due to the way our technology works, you’d have significantly more control over what to keep or to discard - not quite the same as Raikov’s experiments.
As for spiritual formation, that’s a whole different avenue. Improving your skills and those leading to greater spiritual growth? Absolutely. Experiencing the state and mental viewpoints of a model? Yes, sure. Raikov causing spiritual growth by itself? Less likely.
This would be good, yes.
The Q module is significantly less expansive, but would be perfect if you just want a splash of Raikov style effects.
What would happen is just a custom fully focused on Raikov style effects.
No, this would be perfect for rapid skill acquisition.
Honestly, you’d have to try and test.
Potentially. Try it and see how it goes.
Yes, absolutely. This is an excellent use case.
All yes.
Absolutely.
That’s a tough one. I’d say potentially, though I’d also say you’d get more mileage from working directly on yourself. A lot of it is about the subconscious makeup of each individual, their openness, compatibility with the title, willingness to experiment, etc., and I sincerely doubt you can change your own structures into someone else’s deep subconscious structures (nor if you would even want to). From Raikov’s experiments, individuals were never really “gone” - they were always able to be brought back into their normal selves - which means their deeper subconscious structures never left.
So you’d likely get some of the other stuff, like openness and willingness to experiment, but you can’t escape the deeper subconscious work that you have to do.
Potentially. Most likely personality and characteristics, skills likely less so. But go ahead and try.
Depends what you want more. Overall intelligence improvement or highly focused skill development/characteristics development.
As much as possible preferably. It’s akin to taking action in Raikov’s case. It’ll be much easier to model someone with constant input, more and more material - but in some cases of Raikov’s experiment, the individuals didn’t require constant input, and instead their subconscious changed to whatever the image of the model was. For example Rahmaninov - they know he is a great musician with some quirks, and that is enough.
Still, I would never recommend relying on that, as that was inspiration and this is a subliminal title, and instead would give myself the most material and input as possible.
You can’t escape taking action, and trying to will just lead to subpar results.
Yes.
Will work great.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Absolutely.
If you wanted to, you could, but tiny microloops. That line is more to illustrate the difference and ease versus the more traditional experience of Raikov’s experiments - not an official recommendation. The official recommendation you all know already, so please follow that.
Might edit that later so as to not cause confusion in users.
10 Likes
Does it help stacking with an archetype sub like wanted black or emperor or khan?