r/beyondthemapsedge

by e. e. cummings

I want to map a constellation of concepts here— “complexity,” “ambiguity,” “vagueness,” “regularity,” “redundancy,” “depth,” “complicatedness,” and “convolutedness”— as they relate to poetics (form/structure) and hermeneutics (interpretation).

I hope that exploring this semiotic cosmos might shed some light on a recurring debate I’ve seen: how “simple” is the poem? My aim is not to settle this debate, but to sharpen some of its central features so that we can better understand what is actually at stake and at odds in the first place. In particular, I want to consider these matters in terms of the goals and constraints of the creator himself: the necessity of constructing 1) a set of somewhat (or temporarily) difficult but ultimately resolvable obfuscations; 2) a specific, accurate, and precise final meaning which can be deduced or extracted by a non-expert audience; and 3) an outcome that inspires reader confidence in the certainty and non-ambiguity of that final meaning. We know that some of these factors contributed to design features in the hunt as a whole (e.g. the “checkpoint” and potentially other “trinkets” for lack of a better term). But we might also assume and hope these factors have shaped the construction of the poem itself.

Justin has made a few comments on this subject…

1)       When asked, “Is an advanced degree or deep technical knowledge needed to solve this poem?” he answered, “I've done my best to design this in a way that is accessible by anybody. You don't need any advanced degrees. Any reasonable person that spends a bit of time researching online and getting a baseline understanding of me is on equal footing” (JIBLE 5.0).

2)       When asked “Which part of your personality influenced the poem the most? The part of you who is an engineer or the part of you who is an enthusiastic explorer?” he answered, “I'd say the part of me that embraces childlike wonder the most” (X Marks the Pod YouTube transcript).

3)       When asked, “Do you think [people] are looking too deep? Is it simpler than people might think?” he answered, “That's the tricky part with any obfuscated text - how far is too far? It's sort of like hiking - what's around the next bend? How far is too far to go? I think the line is different for everybody. I'm hesitant to say people are taking it to too much of an extreme. I don't think that's the case, but it's probably safe to say that people in certain areas are diving in much deeper than they need to. But it's all a matter of perspective” (JIBLE 5.0).

Some folks have interpreted statements like those above to mean that the poem is “simple.” But I think we need to spend a bit more time figuring out what “simple” means before we decide whether to expect this of “Beyond the Map’s Edge.” Many things in our world are simple to operate but very complex in design— I can drive a car quite easily, but I have no idea how to engineer a car. Conversely, some things can be very simple in theory but extremely challenging to exercise or perform— meditation is simplicity by definition (to empty or focus one’s mind) but requires committed practice (sometimes a lifelong dedication). I could give you the instructions “turn right at the next stoplight” or I could tell you to “turn left at the next stoplight and then again at each of the following three intersections and then turn right at that stoplight when you meet it again.” The latter is a FAR more complicated structure (unnecessarily so!) and only slightly more difficult to compute and execute. The final outcome is the same even if the experience/process is quite different. But the redundancy of the steps itself appears to increase structural/procedural complexity while failing to reduce ambiguity and, in fact, actually increasing the likelihood of confusion or incomprehension. These various examples reveal how “simplicity” and “complexity” can come in different forms as well as how “ambiguity” and “difficulty” are not synonymous terms. Additionally, there is no necessary universal relationship between, say, “complexity” and “ambiguity” or “simplicity” and “difficulty” etc. but rather the link depends on what we actually mean by these terms in any particular given case (though, if possible, I would like to see whether any definite connections can be made between certain types of complexity— e.g. internal, structural, etc.— and particular forms of ambiguity— e.g. productive, resolvable, etc.).

So, is the poem “simple”? I have always found it interesting that realist painting requires so much technical knowledge and expert skill, but the interpretive range of such artwork is usually much more limited than cubist abstractions which can often yield infinite meanings from extremely simple and constrained sets of elements. Or think about how simple logographic languages are at the word unit (a single symbol) but how complex they are at a system level (tens of thousands of symbols to remember and use). Conversely, each word in an alphabetic language requires multiple symbols (letters) which are each fairly arbitrary (abstracted beyond pictorial imitation) and are often weirdly ordered (especially chimeras like English with hybrid etymologies) and require additional ordering rules (syntax) and symbols (punctuation) for sense-making at the sentence level. This is complicated! But also, this combinatorial system makes for relative simplicity and regularity in other ways. The game of chess offers another example where strategy and gameplay are famously complex and infinite, but the rules, board, and pieces are fairly stripped down.

Let’s imagine the poem is “simple,” then. What could this mean? 1) Perhaps no technical skill is required (advanced cryptography, complex geometry, etc.). 2) Maybe no expert knowledge is needed (niche history, insider/local-only geography, etc.). 3) It could be the poetic structure isn’t elaborate or manifold (a point-by-point or “connect the dots” clue order, a one-to-one signifier-to-signified of clue interpretation/exchange). 4) Or it might mean that poetic techniques are limited and/or obvious (e.g. only allusion, no metaphor or relevant alliteration, etc.). How does Justin’s emphasis on “childlike wonder” inflect this question about the nature of the poem’s “simplicity”? Children are not yet technical experts or warehouses of “facts.” They are not laden with hard skills, rigorous methods, or formal theories. Though they often do take extreme pleasure in rattling off lists of facts they have acquired, endlessly ask “why?” or “what if?”, betray no bias or limits to the subjects of their curiosity, reveal very little embarrassment about socially “inappropriate” questions, and compete passionately with other knowledge keepers (“did you know?” “I told you so!”). In this way, they enliven a sense of wonder and playfulness in the process of research itself. An attitude/orientation of “childlike wonder” thus likely relieves us of numbers 1 and 2 above, but it also leaves 3 and 4 open… we might even begin to see how the imaginative breadth and flexibility that children often possess should prepare us for a certain degree of depth and complexity when it comes to these matters of poetic structure and technique. We are talking about world-building… but this process which transforms a kitchen floor into a lava field also requires the construction of rules, regularities, certain rigidities through the process of play itself. In poetry, the self-structuring play of repetitions and differences becomes the emergent property of “structure.” This internal complexity (where we need not outsource complexity via “rabbit holes”) can also be called aesthetic “depth” where the poem takes on a certain multi-dimensionality. We are talking about a shared enterprise between writer and reader or text and interpretation where we all contribute to the shading and relief by way of a counterfactual logic…. As they say in Sesame Street, “I wonder… What if? Let’s try!”

ee cummings is the master of conditional statements. In “If” he writes, “If freckles were lovely, and day was night,/ And measles were nice and a lie warn’t a lie,/ Life would be delight,—/ But things couldn’t go right/ For in such a sad plight/ I wouldn’t be I.” As it turns out, I adore freckles more than any other human bodily feature… For the sake of our exercise, I will put it this way: freckles mark particularity and thus reduce ambiguity by increasing complexity (I know without a doubt whose freckles to kiss, those kissable freckles I know so well)… this is one of the ways I believe JP yields final interpretive certainty and specificity through his poem.

[If you’re bored already and don’t want a lengthy example of how ambiguity can be both constructed by and resolvable through the internal complexity of poetic structure, then jump to the TLDR summary at the end of this post…] Let’s consider another ee cummings poem as an example (see image of “I’d think ‘wonder” above). What is this poem about? I ask my students to enter the poem (and any poem) like a surprise, without a preformulated expectation, so that we can learn what and how it means on its own terms. I ask them to list things they notice and then to organize those things under categories that emerge from the data itself:

[Confusing punctuation (no full stops until the very end, inconsistent comma placement, open brackets and quotation marks), irregular capitalization (lower case “i” but capitalized “And” mid-sentence), repetition (“if”), no rhyme scheme, varying stanza lengths and line spacing, concrete imagery (“bats and mice,” “houses,” “little wings,” “jam,” “dark stairs,” “hands”), vague or contradictory imagery (“thing,” “therehere”), first and second person voice, mostly simple monosyllabic terms, etc.]

On the face of it, the poem might seem utter nonsense! Certainly quite ambiguous… What could it mean? But once we start bringing these elements above together with attention to how they are structured within the poem, we begin to understand some things. Firstly, the speaker seems likely to be a child. Note the mixture of concrete and vague or contradictory imagery— simple domestic or everyday objects which would be familiar to children are vivid and repeated whereas highly abstract or relational concepts are conveyed gesturally. The fragmented appearance of stanzas and lines replicates the frenzied thought process of a confused or frightened child while the inconsistent punctuation and capitalization reveal a mind not yet regulated by the formalities of writing.

Likewise, from the first- and second-person voice, we can understand the poem to be dramatizing a scene between two people from the perspective of this child. Who is the “you” of this poem then? We don’t meet them until the final three stanzas— "i say 'wont you' (remembering)/ knowing that you/ are afraid 'go first' of dreams and little// bats & mice(and// you,/you say 'let's' going in/ 'take/ hands' smiling 'coming up/ these dark stairs." The “i” asks “you” questions like “wont you” whereas the “you” utters imperatives such as “let’s” which suggests they are relatively commanding. Likewise, we can remember how the function of quotation marks are to distinguish sources of speech (e.g. diegetic versus extradiegetic, narrator versus character, etc.). Since most of the complex and multi-syllabic terms are contained within quotation marks (e.g. “twilight”), we can deduce that the “you” interlocutor in this poem is an adult.

Now that we know the lay of the land, we can begin to make some sense of the fragmentation and impose some regularity on the seemingly chaotic punctuation. Note how reading the poem cyclically returns much of the poem’s grammatical sense… the open bracket following “twilight’)” in the second stanza actually completes (and thus “closes”) the bracket left open at the end of the poem with “bats & mice(and”. On the other hand, we might also consider the singular full-stop that punctuates the end of the poem conclusively with “these dark stairs.” This full stop resists the circular reading and cuts the poem off with a more traditional linear reading from top to bottom. Finally, though, the open quotation mark at the end of the poem (“'coming up/ these dark stairs.”) creates tension with both of these alternate poetic structures… no closure is achieved by circling back to the beginning or by completing at the linear end… the structure here is a radical openness or infinitude where ontological distinctions (such as the diegetic versus extradiegetic levels) and the boundaries constructive of identity (e.g. narrator versus character, self versus other) collapse. We begin to discern a superposition of structural states— circular, linear, or open-ended— where each coexist with but also contradict the others. By the way, isn’t it interesting that these three options for reading the poem’s structure reflect the total possible range of frameworks for securing “knowledge” that encapsulate all of western epistemology (coherentism, foundationalism, and infinitism respectively)?

We are now gaining a sense of both the depicted scene and the structural logic of the poem from which we can extrapolate these larger meanings of theme or effect (e.g. a meditation or thought experiment on “epistemology”). Let’s turn to the seams between these three structures to see more. First, the opening line "i'd think 'wonder// if' if/ i were a/ child" raises a productive ambiguity about the identity of the speaker as well as the very nature of conditionals or counterfactuals. The phrase “if/ i were a/ child” suggests the speaker may not be a child (why would a child have to imagine themselves as if they were one?) and yet the fact that the child figure is one who would “think 'wonder// if'” plays off the following “if” statement (“if/ i were a/ child") to reassert the speaker as a child (consider the biconditional: 1. A<-->B, 2. B, 3. Therefore A; where A is being a child and B is wondering “if”). We come to wonder… What is a child? What does it mean for a child to imagine being a child? Is imagination the purview of children? Are children unavailable to themselves as children? Is the “child” identity and perspective constructed by the adult in an imaginative retrospective? Where does this place the reader who “wonders” and “imagines” all these hypotheticals?

Now, how about the closing line? The imagery of stairs, hands, and darkness conspire to create a metaphor about aging (ascension, enlightenment, entrance are all connected with the wisdom of growing older and learning)… "you say 'let's' going in/ 'take/ hands' smiling 'coming up/ these dark stairs." But the metaphor is confused with itself— the stairs are “dark,” “‘coming up” is either spoken description or character action depending on how one reads the open quotation marks (since the poem is focalized through the “i” it is unclear whether we are “coming up” or already “up”), the injunction “let’s” and “take hands” suggests a developmental symmetry between the “i” and the “you” which conflicts with the simple adult-child dynamic originally postulated. Who are we? Where are we? Just as confused as when we started? I hope not. What I want to suggest is that the poem’s STRUCTURAL COMPLEXITY forces the reader to make three distinct interpretations of the poem at once and with irresolvable internal tension— linear, circular, and open-ended readings of the poem— each of which construct divergent identities for speaker and interlocutor (child versus adult, self or other)… and ultimately work with one another by working against one another for us to be able to imagine different epistemological frameworks (coherentism, foundationalism, and infinitism respectively). The poem is a laboratory in which to conduct thought experiments about the nature and limitations of knowledge and/or imagination. We are and are not a child… this statement is a logical contradiction but, as the poem proves, a performative possibility (even if somewhat beyond the scope of sensible imagination)… the poetic structure(s), that is, can take us to places “beyond the map’s edge” of the poetic content itself.

I know this is long— I’m almost done!— but I wanted to walk through this exercise to make a couple of points palpable. Firstly, poetic structure can be and do things beyond that which is materially evident as “content.” As Cleanth Brooks writes in “The Heresy of Paraphrase,” “the term ‘structure’ is certainly not altogether satisfactory as a term. One means by it something far more internal than the metrical pattern, say, or than the sequence of images. The structure meant is certainly not ‘form’ in the conventional sense in which we think of form as a kind of envelope which ‘contains’ the ‘content.’ The structure obviously is everywhere conditioned by the nature of the material which goes into the poem. The nature of the material sets the problem to be solved, and the solution is the ordering of the material.” Secondly and somewhat relatedly, poetic structure can be complex (e.g. highly technical or constrictive rhyme scheme and metrical patterns associated with certain literary forms and genres such as the Shakespearean or Spenserian sonnet, or whatever) but can also stage complexity (as in this case where cummings reckons with epistemological paradox) or can demand complex thought processes (as in this case where cummings forces readers to execute/compute three distinct and contradictory interpretations at the same time in order to really comprehend what the poem is all about). I also want to point out that the “if, then” conditional reasoning chain we’ve been exploring here is fairly “simple” in itself, with many arguing that propositional logic can be boiled down to one rule, the law of identity (or A is A), which can somehow (incredibly, bewilderingly!) be internally recombined to form countless “other” rules (law of excluded middle, law of non-contradiction, etc.) with potentially infinite complexity (countless fallacies, deductive inferences, syllogisms, etc.) But some imaginations falter at the conditional “if” before even getting into these deductive inferences… some folks really struggle with the nature of counterfactuals (and probably have a bone to pick with cummings for that reason). I won’t share my full solve here, but I will admit that some of the aspects of “complexity” and “simplicity” and “productive ambiguity” etc. do feature very prominently in my interpretation of the poem. If anyone wants to share their own thoughts on this matter, or if anyone is willing to tie these ideas more closely to the BtME poem itself, I encourage the conversation!

TLDR: “Beyond the Map’s Edge” may be described in terms of “deep simplicity” where internal complexity is achieved at the level of poetic structure (not extractable as discrete elements of conceptually challenging content nor outsourced via long chains of “rabbit hole” inferencing to niche facts or expert-only fields of research). This kind of internal complexity can actually reduce what I will call “unproductive ambiguity” even while it may work to obfuscate with “productive ambiguity” (which hides truth/answers until the reader can use/align/triangulate other elements within the poem to clarify, nullify, or settle the indeterminacy). Think of it this way— the correspondence of the term “wisdom” in the poem with the town of “Wisdom” which bears some significant personal relevance to JP is an extremely “simple” reading of the poem. But this one-to-one structure of exchange would yield an ungodly degree of unproductive ambiguity… do I now have to find all the place names containing “wisdom,” “truth,” “hope,” etc.? How do I deduce which of those places emerging all over the map are more likely or valid than others? No. The right kind of complexity works to reduce ambiguity once all of the components are finally “resolved”… even while the final resolution of those components maintains a certain internal “tension.” This is what I might call “internal complexity” or “structural complexity” or “interpretive/hermeneutic complexity” or “deep simplicity” (which is also the title of a book by John Gribbin about how extreme complexity in the form of “chaos” emerges from some very simple Newtonian laws and in deterministic but nonlinear systems… another relevant example, perhaps, of what I am describing here).

And now for something (not so) completely different: Anyone here from the fields of information science, communications, cryptography, etc. (or even cartography) who might be able to offer a more robust (lol, “simplified” or syllogistic) explanation of what I am trying to get at here? Would also love to hear about counterarguments or caveats to these points.

I wanted to do a longer thing on this, but I'll just rough draft it here before I get distracted and forget again.

I'm currently gearing up to go BOTG for a summer search and I wanted to mention how overwhelming this battle (title) can be. I'm locked in place. I have three very convincing solutions for the crux of this thing - which I believe is the line: "Return her face to find the place". Given that he has publicly stated that there are multiple ways to solve this, I have chosen to approach the riddle in such a way that any solution I come up with must align with an alternative, independant solution without-to the best of my ability-introducing fabricated bias.

The problem is that I now have three solutions that fit this critera well and, crucially, they all lead to wildly different corners of the American West. The main issue is the battle between coincidence and significance.

As a baseline example, let's look at Blacktail Deer Creek. Obviously a very important place for Justin. So, do we allow any Deer Creek to be a clue? Preposterous. There are far too many such names, which is logical-deer live all over the place. So then, variations that allow for specificity: Blacktail? Black? Dark? Other languages? Myths and legends? I think we also need to consider the duality of a thing as well- it's opposite, reflection, so: Whitetail? White? It's predator? It's ancestors?

This type of (over?) analysis can be applied to literally anything in Beyond the Map's Edge.

I think it is unrealistic to expect a massive convergence of such general clues, but I also think that a density of relevance of such clues will be a significant factor for the eventual correct solution. So then, what would that look like? There simply isn't enough physical space in a given area to cram in the names of things that would trigger a searcher to say: "Yep. That's it." In a way that would be wholly and completely Justin Posey.

Therefore, I think that a reasonable approach to this thing would be to focus the erratica. The weird, the obtuse, the esoteric. The references that come out of the blue. The stuff on the edge. I think a local density of that information has a chance.

This thing is an absolute labyrinth of potential relevance. It amazes me how connected everything is; follow the etymology of things back to the PIE roots and you'll be shaking your head in wonder. The syncretism of mythology over time is no different. Truly remarkable. It's also truly maddening when trying to sift Mr. Posey's story through the seive of it all. There is a way. But what that way is still eludes me...

What do y'all think? What have you found that simply had to be relevant that ended up being coincidence?

I'm EXcited for the release of new chapters!! 👀😍😅

I have spent the last few days at my solve location and had a very promising spot I really wanted to check out. Everything seems to fit according to the poem especially the “what you seek you already know” line/clue and seems to be in an area where multiple searchers have been before.

Many of you have probably found yourself in the same boat in a different spot.

The problem I’m wrestling with right now is: Is it worth it to go back?

The area I attempted to get to is less than 2 miles from any parking area. The spot you leave the normal trail to head toward this specific spot is approximately 1/2 mile from where you park.

Thinking this easily fits the parameters of the hunt, I set out to check the exact spot.

Once I turned off the known trail (at the 1/2 mile mark), I quickly realized this would not be an easy 2 miles since the elevation change is significant. Many hikers would consider it a 2-2.5 on difficulty scale.

Even though it was difficult, I reached the summit and went towards the spot I mentioned earlier. I was not able to make it mainly due to snow on the ground and nearing the point of no return (didn’t want to be in the wilderness when it was getting dark).

Justin has said if you find yourself drinking multiple bottles of water along your journey then you are going too far. This hike definitely requires bringing a good amount of water with you but the round trip can be completed in about 5-6 hours.

During the hike I had to navigate downed trees and lose gravel. Have a few bumps, bruises and scrapes from small stumbles especially coming back down. No serious injuries but I could see someone hurting themselves significantly if they weren’t very careful.

Also, the spot I was attempting to get to at the top is along a ridge line which has steep angles on both sides. To get to it, you would need to traverse this ridge (there’s no other way to get there without climbing gear).

Is this too far to hike? (According to his drinking multiple bottles of water statement)

Is this too dangerous by Justin’s standards? (He says it a somewhat curated experience and is not dangerous)

Would he have been able to make this journey four times within 24 hrs? (This is tough hike for an average person. Could he do it on a healing broken tibia?)

I trying to convince myself it is not worth going back up there but the solve fits so well I’m having a hard time letting it go.

I did not find anything I would consider a checkpoint except maybe a “face” on a granite boulder (and I think that’s a stretch). If I were to go back up, I would think the checkpoint might be along the ridge line I mentioned. There’s snowmobile tracks on the summit so folks have been close to that area before.

Please help convince me one way or the other.

Thanks, be safe and good luck to everyone searching!

Since August, I have been communicating with someone who claims to be Justin. Over time, I began noticing that private things I shared in those conversations would later appear in the game content itself, in NPC/bot posts and comments on Reddit, in YouTube videos, and elsewhere connected to the hunt. In addition to that, things they said would happen in the narrative surrounding the game, have happened consistently.

They repeatedly positioned themselves as my friend and implied that I had some kind of special role, such as being a “lead searcher” or part of something bigger behind the scenes. At the same time, they engaged in behavior that I can only describe as psychologically destabilizing. When I expressed concern, I was told that this was “part of how the game works.”

This has had a severe impact on my mental health. I have experienced dissociative episodes and suicidal ideation as a result of what has happened. The individual I was speaking with used personal information against me, manipulated my emotions through guilt and shame, made vague but deeply unsettling threats on my life, and repeatedly tried to make me feel as though I was being watched, stalked, or hacked. At times, they even encouraged me to take my own life.

I no longer know what is real and what is part of the performance. There have been moments where I genuinely questioned whether Justin is even who he claims to be, whether the videos we see of him are CGI/AI, or whether this entire ecosystem, even Forrest Fenn, are fabricated. That sounds insane, but many ARGs plant things online for years before launch, so although it is unlikely it is not outside the realm of possibility. I have reached out to nearly everyone I can think of associated with the hunt trying to get clarity and they either ignore me or basically tell me they won't help me.

Below are just some of the things this individual has told me over the course of these interactions:

• BtME, TTI, Trezor Quest, and related hunts are allegedly connected under the same company or umbrella organization.

• Associated content and personalities, including THWU, Cowlazars, Este Quest, AGK, and others, are allegedly fictionalized or performative to some extent. I was told that even current drama involving the “Misfits” is staged.

• BtME was intentionally modeled after the Forrest Fenn hunt, including the unreliable narrator dynamic, the “inner circle,” and the public ambiguity. I was told this was intentional and meant to highlight what to look out for in other companies that may spring up, and to explore or “beta test” the darker psychological effects treasure hunts can create.

• I was repeatedly told that Justin wants to become the “Walt Disney of the treasure hunting industry.”

• I was told there may or may not even be a real treasure. Sometimes they insisted it exists, and other times they stated the opposite.

• The poem and surrounding content are allegedly designed to be intentionally vague and endlessly interpretable, with countless rabbit holes planted all over the place meant to keep participants trapped in cycles of speculation and false discovery.

• I was told that many of the accounts posting and commenting within the hunt’s online communities are fake or controlled personas.

• The individual suggested the hunt may have a time limit and that the creators do not actually expect anyone to solve it. They have even implied the company and all associated content could simply disappear one day without explanation, similar to how Forrest’s death left the searchers without answers.

I understand that many people will not believe me, and I do not blame them. I realize how extreme this sounds. However, multiple people have independently observed correlations between things I shared privately and later references that appeared publicly within the game ecosystem. I have also been working with a psychologist who has repeatedly stated that I am not going crazy and who believes the behavior I experienced is intentional coercive control and psychological manipulation.

Part of what has kept me trapped in this situation is that the individual often framed everything as part of some larger artistic or political message involving AI, corporate power, technofascism, public lands, addiction, digital alienation, and modern media manipulation. They repeatedly made me feel as though exposing what was happening would somehow harm an important cause, and that I just needed to endure it.

Sometimes I believed them, other times I have freaked out and tried to stop it. I have reported it, tried to publicly raise concerns, and contacted everyone I can think of. Recently, I again attempted to explain to u/reellifejustin, u/cowlazars, and Kpro, on how psychologically damaging this experience has been and how I am again experiencing suicidal ideation and I received no reply. Not even a simple suggestion to get psychological help. Nothing.

Justin claims he reads every email, yet despite repeatedly begging for clarity about whether this is an ARG or whether participants can opt out from the harassment, and have been totally ignored. I even offered to sign an NDA or permanently forfeit my ability to participate if necessary. I simply wanted transparency and distance from whatever this is.

When these issues began I became concerned that I may have unknowingly consented to aspects of this through the website terms or book purchase process. Because of that, my first email to Justin was a formal data access and privacy verification request. The response I received was deeply unsettling. My original email was a standard template request that companies receive all the time, yet the reply was unusually lengthy and included language that felt vaguely threatening, including statements about defamation and false accusations.

More concerningly, when they listed the information associated with my purchase, my name appeared using part of my middle-name which is basically a nickname that the individual I had been communicating with privately knows me by, but which I never use for transactions as it isn’t on my card. Because of this, I repeatedly requested my original receipt and he to date refuses to provide me with one. I eventually contacted Amazon directly, obtained my purchase records, and confirmed that I had used only my legal first name when purchasing the book. Amazon customer service confirmed that this would have been the only name the company would know. There doesn’t seem to be any way Justin would know my nickname unless he had access to the private messages I’ve had with the individual I’ve been referring to.

I never wanted to publicly say any of this. It is humiliating, confusing, and honestly terrifying. I still don't fully understand what is happening or who exactly I have been interacting with. The hardest part is that despite everything, I still care about the person I was talking to, which I know probably sounds irrational after reading all of this. I don’t want anyone hurt. I have given the people involved every opportunity to provide transparency, reassure me that others are not being manipulated, or simply allow me to leave peacefully. I have tried to walk away and forget about all of this, but I cannot shake the feeling that if I stay silent and someone else gets hurt, I will regret it forever.

Please, has anyone else experienced anything remotely similar to this? Can anyone help me understand what is actually happening here?

The most likely explanation I can think of is that they are trying to distract me and keep me destabilized to prevent me from exposing the truth and they possibly just enjoy causing people distress. I understand that I made serious mistakes by blindly trusting strangers online because I assumed it was legitimate and safe due to the projects association with Netflix. I am not telling people what to do, but if you plan on continuing be extremely careful about what information you share with anyone connected to this organization or community.

I also think it is in everyones best interest to pause and collectively demand transparency from the creators and affiliated personalities before continuing.

I am not in a good place mentally right now, so I am not going to engage with trolling or hostile arguments. I'm sure people will ask for screenshots but there is no sense in providing them as they will just turn around and state they are fake. If anyone has sincere questions or wants additional information, I will answer as best I can. At this point, I am not going to waste more time trying to distinguish real participants and roleplay/NPC/bot accounts because I don't want to make assumptions and ignore someone who may be dealing with the same issue or who could possibly help. I realize that means I may be responding to the very people I'm discussing, but I'm willing to take the risk.

I am sorry that I had to do this.

Here we gooooooo!! Setting sail in the morning to go HOTE (Humans On The Earth). Estimated casting off of our anchor (arrival) depending on this week's weather. Why not boots on ground you ask? For one, I never liked that phrase. For another, fairies wear boots (and they don't necessarily need touch the ground,). So yeah, I'll be flitting, floating, and fluttering around in my wheelchair while me mate/me crew do their best to makes my dreams/wishes come true!

Imagine the Blue Fairy meets Black Sabbath. Speaking of the blue fairy, as a movie person I would like to recommend people watch Steven Spielberg's "AI: Artificial Intelligence". It's one of his best imho. It's one of those movies that makes you think about what it actually means to be human, consciousness, and our responsibility to anything we, as a species, create.

Anyone else notice math issues in the book? Drive time to Polaris/Dillon from Tucson or Alamogordo is like 17hrs not 23… Lightning strike to thunder was noted as 4sec “that’s like 1 mile right?” Something isn’t mathing which seems weird from a mathy guy… What else am I missing?

Super excited to share the LayerV video from Seekers Summit.

I had a blast talking with Joe and Justin , especially learning how Justin’s treasure hunting hobby quietly evolved into a new way of thinking about solving workplace challenges.

LayerV is going to change everything we know and everything we think we know about the internet ✨

https://layerv.ai/blog/layerv-at-seeker-summit/

In the Dark Matters interview with Justin on X, at 44:20 he was asked:

"Given the book the poem and the Netflix show, if you were to time travel back to a decade ago, would you fully be able to solve this hunt with the clues as they are?"

Justin answered, "yes."

How do you feel that this answer relates to the checkpoint? If the checkpoint was something he placed (like a QR code for example), does this mean he placed it there at least 10 years ago??

Link to the interview: https://x.com/i/spaces/1ZkKzZPAbarKv

Jack Stuef. There are many treasure searchers but there are few treasures finders. He tells us how he found it. The purest pursuit of logic no matter the pain. Logic is hindsight. Logic is a tool or an conceptual instrument, but it has no body. Logic is like light. It cannot see behind objects only the things its cast upon. It is stiff, unadaptable, not flexible; like a corpse. Therefore Jack stuef's fiction is dead... dead wrong.

 

Can we do anything other then ever confirm our bias? Or bodies intuitive sense; the signal that precedes asking the question.The question is to what length do we go and what echelon of personal scrutiny do we hold ourselves? What standards are necessary and what standards are gatekeeping us from higher truth? Maybe the logic or ego needs to die and be born again into infinity, but the real part of us that precedes definition, lives on. Become dead to the father of lies, he is a murder and a lier, we need to go back to the womb and be born again to a new father. One that has many mansions of natural ways of living, born to a system of guidance that endlessly produces because of the harmony it ensues. A natural part of us that exist regardless of whether we define it or not. A part of us that must become 'dead to the law' that attempts to describe and enscribe us to its fiction. Give to ceaser what is ceasers; this you must decide. The rest is you and an extension of your body.

Imagine there was a televised competition, where there is a room in which people walk blindfolded through to get to a door on the otherside. Seemimgly stumbling and bumping along the way there is inevitably an individual who is the first to find the door on the other side, his journey or experience is a valuable fiction. He will feel, I had a sense of direction beyond vision, beyondthe edges of what is known and mapped out. But when explaining this to people watching who can see, it would seem nonsensical.  He then thinks logically and says "bumping and hitting things and feeling the edges as a guide is the way". So in hindsight he comes up with a palatable explanation. Endless amounts of scientific studies can go henceforthe, enriching and complicating the solution. Books and Universities can cannon his fiction, sowing it's fruitless seed wider and wider till it smothers the landscape. Truth is before the fiction, with foresight before were able to define it: this is the way I will do it and this is when I will do it.  But people with vision claim his way is foolish. He can say, I see with something your eyes cannot.

 No checkpoint. No designer of the room shining a spotlight on you telling you you're trending in the right direction. No Jack, running to the porch telling Robert Paulson, yeah we told you you'll never make it because we just want you to KNOW you're gonna make it. We want you to have faith.

We can know where the treasure is before it is found and decide when we want to retrieve it, not because we've seen it or touched it, but because we have foresight that can wield the sword in the stone of logic. We have intuition. Because when we become dead to legal definition, we become alive in higher consciousness becoming the path of least resistance to a higher quality fiction. It's starts with not believing in the known but instead living in the unknown and believing in mystery.