Language

About: searching on-line rudolf steiner documents: matches

Language: 
The more directly abstract men’s sense of language becomes, the more their souls become cut off from one another. Whatever is abstract is peculiar to the individual. He elaborates it for himself and lives in it as in something identified with his own private ego. This element of abstractedness, it is true, is only perfectly to be achieved in the world of concepts; but to some degree a very near approach to it has been made in words and phrases as actually sensed and used, especially in the languages of civilised nations. - See more at: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/GA036/LngLng_index.html#sthash.AeKzZltk.dpuf  

 

The Social Question as a Problem of Soul Life
The Inner Experience of Language - See more at: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA190/English/LRZ1969/19190328p01.html#sthash.fBzxVNAG.dpuf http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA190/English/LRZ1969/19190328p01.html 
Accumulated #SSDD can be chased.

Tags

  1. language
  2. thought 20922
  3. SSDD
  4. NLP
  5. rwg
  6. RS
  7. love
  8. hashit
  9. soundslike
  10. orgy
  11. hashtag
  12. MakeShitUp
  13. hashturd
  14. poundsign
  15. front
  16. of
  17. them
  18. hashwords
  19. GW
  20. hashtags
  21. M
  22. in

Comments


Mark de LA says
Hmmmm ….. talk about yourself & how you exemplify your practical training in thought, eh?  Talk about your own Ego instead of trying to insult mine. ponderinglaughing

Mark de LA says
Maybe try to fix the quote in the middle of a  nest of comments too!

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-05-14 07:17:14 [item 20922#52007]
i think the title of the pamplet was “Practical Training in Thikining” ← or something like that. 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-14 07:23:29 [item 20922#52009]
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19090118p01.html – I have the 1949 Anthroposophic Press translation by Henry Monges on my side table.  lecture in karlsruhe jan 18, 1909 to be specific .
The last paragraph from the last page:

The manner in which Anthroposophy penetrates our souls, stimulating us to inner soul activity and expanding our vision, is of far more importance than the mere theorizing about that which extends beyond the things of the senses into the spiritual.  In this Anthroposophy is truly practical.

In some of the other lectures he talks & shows how to change how to speak verbally instead of how people speak nouns & abstractions. thumbs up
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-14 07:53:42 [item 20922#52016]
GW talks a bit about it in a recent post I made on fb of the Tai Shu – https://goo.gl/QZaJ49 
Seth 2016-05-14 08:02:14 [item 20922#52017]
yes

of course the methods in the book are not primarily about anthroposophy  … but rather how best to think about anything. 
Yep, wouldn’t want to credit Anthroposophy (a nemisis?) with anything.  Truth be known, such was derived by RS from the naturalist Goethe: the study of which RS formed a lot of the methods of Knowledge of the Higher Worlds & Its Attainment.  

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-05-14 05:21:40 [item 20922#52001]
Well yes ! yes … the more generalized our thinking, the less specific and since the interactions of our souls are not generalizations, then the more we are not thinking about those.   Think about it,  our souls are  among the most specific spirits which exist – they are themselves not generalizations – the Platonic Cave notwistanding.   OMG, how so very pertinent to that was my whole “A New Respect for The Specific” … and why i do so very love examples.  I always try to think of (and write about) the examples that make up some generalized pattern that i have recognized … and to work bottom up in my thinking from those rather than top down from the generalizations.  Inductive thinking is so much better, i think, than deductive.  ← another grand generalization laugh,  huh?
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-14 07:02:08 [item 20922#52003]
I don’t see how you got any of this from the cited RS. 
Seth 2016-05-14 07:10:01 [item 20922#52005]
it is right there in the quote … or at least in my interpertation of what that means.   maybe read it again yourself …

The more directly abstract men's sense of language becomes, the more their souls become cut off from one another. Whatever is abstract is peculiar to the individual. He elaborates it for himself and lives in it as in something identified with his own private ego. This element of abstractedness, it is true, is only perfectly to be achieved in the world of concepts; but to some degree a very near approach to it has been made in words and phrases as actually sensed and used, especially in the languages of civilised nations.

incidentally Steiner’s pamplet on Practical Thinking was has influenced my thinking.  I have been evolving towards and practicing that kind of thinking ever since i read it in my youth … notwistanding that most of our culture goes in the opposite direction,  especially ( i must admit to be honest and specific → ) you.
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-14 07:17:19 [item 20922#52008]
Sorry – you do better when you talk about YOURSELF!  I read the practical training years ago – don’t need your tout! Repeating my quotes of RS quotes proves & helps with NOTHING!  Maybe compare & contrast your abstract thinking (or/& posting) with what you learned there. 
Seth 2016-05-14 07:25:56 [item 20922#52010]
← of course that last comment was not about how to think, but rather was just an ego transaction from you to me. 

Incidentally i have been toying with the “→” as a punctuation to explicidly show where one though is about another thoght … it is where one goes meta on something that is already meta.  For example:  if X is about A ← that may feel true to me ← that is about me and not the sentence.

this may annoy you.  ← but i don't apologize for doing it ← yet i will try to minimize my usage.
 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-14 07:34:05 [item 20922#52011]
yep arrows are abstract. ← ← ← thumbs down
Seth 2016-05-14 07:49:03 [item 20922#52015]
well any arrow just expressess a relationship … and any expression is just another representation … and all represetation is abstract from that which is represented.  but we could use that argument to aug on the usage of any word at all ← hence your judgment is an example of “Don't Throw out the baby with the bath water” ← thumbs down

practical thinking is knowing what you thought is about.  which is why i do so very love the URL. 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-14 08:04:03 [item 20922#52018]
→ pointers are the ultimate activity of the World of Abstractia. Point & click your way into it & swim around with the thotonsbut notice they just keep pointing somewhere else. laughingthumbs uprose
Seth 2016-05-14 08:15:40 [item 20922#52020]
well yes exactly.   Thing is that is the nature of thought … one cannot think and get out of the fact that your thoughts just represent what they mean ← they are never are what they mean.   These arrows are necessarily in all of language … in fact they are what language is, just arrows, just representations, just the track of the tiger passing by, never the tiger itself. 

and yes i realize PR presumption of direct knowledge.  ← sorry, to me it is just a story, one of many in this naked city.
Of course if that’s all you believe then that’s all you can get.  No problem for me, I don’t believe it. There is no need to limit myself with your beliefs about consciousness. Peter’s method of contemplation is similar to Goethe’s encounter with nature … not to be confused with Bozo’s encounter with Abstractia. (ibid)

Mark de LA says
ponderingThe feeling & qualia of “I am right” & know something etc does not necessarily lead to knowledge, truth & certainly not wisdom. cool

Mark de LA says
The word arrows (not → ) conjure up such pictures & meanings as the below not abstract descriptions of English grammar & sentences. Most of the rest of Abstractia conjures even less.
smug

Seth says
Seth 2016-05-14 08:38:04 [item 20922#52023]
well when you can demonstrate a thought of a hma sandwich and suddenly a ham sandwich can be eaten from your brain, then i will change my belief.   i realize that it is a hard spirit to accept, that it may contract much that you hold dear, but awareness is never the spirit of which it is aware … unless, of course, it is the spirit itself.  but you are not a ham sandwich … er, are you? … so your thought of the one you ate last month is not that ham sandwich itself.  and yes i accept my limitation there.  it is the way this ball is bouncing ← not very useful for me to try to grasp with my right elbow with hand my right hand, eh?
 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-14 08:45:26 [item 20922#52024]
Thanks for your ham sandwitch contribution to your Abstractia menu of Word Salad you provided. Pointers to symbols that taste good in your mind but which are tasteless because they do not appear in the World itself is fruitless. But, keep adding them to the menu as you choose. 
PS I did not get anything from your statement above except your already-always jousting sameo-samo windmill. sad
The nasty thing about Abstractia is there is never anything to hold onto – just words pointing to words → at words → ????
Seth 2016-05-14 08:56:37 [item 20922#52026]
if you practice making your terms point more and more directly to what they mean to you,  then the language you write (and even hear) will seem less and less abstract and less like word salad.  ← that is what i have been doing, and that is the result i have been getting – my prediction is that it will work the same way for you … and i am pretty sure that is the essence of RS’s Practical Training in Thought.  ← apologies in advance if it doesn’t feel good to you to hear me say such a thing to you. 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-14 09:01:52 [item 20922#52027]
I just did & told you that your stuff didn’t mean anything – “apologies in advance if it doesn’t feel good to you to hear me say such a thing to you” laughing
If you only point at abstract things there is nothing meaningful for me; respect for the specific doesn’t work if all it points at is more words (Abstractia) & not real world things like apples & brioche & menus of toothless foodie bakings etc. 
… but i don't always point to generalizations as you seem to be presuming that i do.   thinking is a real human behavior and dominates all human communication.  need i even give examples laugh.   so understanding how best to think is part of a learning process transforming our culture to a more intense and detailed consciousness.  ← now that is an artistic description projected to inspire with the hope that examples of such will emerge ← another kind of thinking. 

Mark de LA says
I remember the Practical Training in Thought exercise of waking each morning and just absorbing the weather outside & the shapes of clouds & so forth without coming to conclusions as to what the weather was going to be & someday one would just grok it.   The impulse to publish when the thought just crosses the mind seems contrary to such a process.   I notice recently that I could intercept a thought without clothing it in words & that later on it might appear again in some other form which I knew instinctively was the thought in question. The Internet magnet for ideas & thoughts is rather gross comparatively speaking. pondering

Mark de LA says
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-14 09:47:03 [item 20922#52035]
That’s why I am studying the Genius of Language in the above RS.  The Tower of Babel notwithstanding, in previous epochs language was more powerful & actually created beings & stuff but with only a dim consciousness & little freedom . In the future it may be used for reproduction. So goes some GW & RS material. We have to go through a period of having such withdrawn so that logic & the rational prevails & then the spirit-self & spirit-man  & spirit-life can thrive in one more spiral of human evolution. That’s my inspiration – perhaps irrational to Bozo. 
Seth 2016-05-14 10:10:56 [item 20922#52037]
well seems to me that in previous epochs language would have naturally been less indirect and even perhaps more honest.   the more indeirect the pointers, the easier it is to lie and get confused and become obsessed with flim flaming.  i don’t know if that is what RS’s generalize thought “in previous epochs language was more powerful & actually created beings & stuff but with only a dim consciousness & little freedom” is pointing to or not.  but me, if i cannot find examples of such a generalization in my own experience, i tend not to believe it, regardless of who said it. 

does your inquiry into that irritate me? … not really … only if you can find any examples in our current world of those kinds of generalizations,  could you bring them to my attention?
Yep your memory doesn’t go back much farther than yo mama’s cunt.laughing

Mark de LA says
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-14 09:47:03 [item 20922#52035]
That’s why I am studying the Genius of Language in the above RS.  The Tower of Babel notwithstanding, in previous epochs language was more powerful & actually created beings & stuff but with only a dim consciousness & little freedom . In the future it may be used for reproduction. So goes some GW & RS material. We have to go through a period of having such withdrawn so that logic & the rational prevails & then the spirit-self & spirit-man  & spirit-life can thrive in one more spiral of human evolution. That’s my inspiration – perhaps irrational to Bozo. 
Seth 2016-05-14 10:10:56 [item 20922#52037]
well seems to me that in previous epochs language would have naturally been less indirect and even perhaps more honest.   the more indeirect the pointers, the easier it is to lie and get confused and become obsessed with flim flaming.  i don’t know if that is what RS’s generalize thought “in previous epochs language was more powerful & actually created beings & stuff but with only a dim consciousness & little freedom” is pointing to or not.  but me, if i cannot find examples of such a generalization in my own experience, i tend not to believe it, regardless of who said it. 

does your inquiry into that irritate me? … not really … only if you can find any examples in our current world of those kinds of generalizations,  could you bring them to my attention?
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-14 10:15:16 [item 20922#52038]
Yep your memory doesn’t go back much farther than you mamma’s cunt.laughing
Seth 2016-05-14 10:17:35 [item 20922#52039]
true … and neither will i assume that RS’s did either.  in fact it is those kinds of stories which he tells all the time where me and him parted company in our thoughts.
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-14 10:23:20 [item 20922#52041]
Since you don’t have access to RS or GW’s memory or even mine I assume you just don’t know shit about any of it.  Here’s some clues:
Seth 2016-05-14 10:57:23 [item 20922#52043]
i needed no access to RS’s memory to write my true sentence above ← so very strange that you speak as if i did need such access  ← i could wonder why you represented such a contra factual, but there is little wonder in that,  I recognize it as pattern in the way you speak … perhaps even think … although that last would be an unnecessary speculation.  I mean,  do you frequently think in counterfactuals?  ← i am curious.
 
Words – just words ….  spew ‘em if you got ‘em .  They are no limit on me.  My experience of you is in the end when you get close to piercing the veil you run in fear & whip out the liar, liar & slimy synonyms thinking you have said something brilliant so you don’t have to cross the abyss.  Enjoy the selfie-glow bro fo . Sorry for wasting my time on in it. crying

Seth says
Seth 2016-05-14 22:16:31 [item 20922#52047]
strange that what you said had nothing to do with what i said … rather you just  changed the subject.  oh well it is hard to foucus in one train of thought, who’s keeping track anyway. 

then what you did say so very clear as to its meaning,  of my words  you say, “They  are no limit on me” … so very obviously true as not to need to be said at all.  I mean  how could my words, my story, ever limit you … such a notion wold be quite absorb … we have never had that kind of relationship ...not even close.  Your statement stands there so emphatically declaring that your insides are not subject to my inquiries that it almost makes me suspect that you were afraid that they were.   But then you go on to talk about my fear … dare i ask how you know my fear? … some presumption perhaps of a story you were told … or maybe your direct experiene of what is inside my soul  … but, dear bro are you quite so very sure that you refer to my fear … and not your own?  flim flam or rwg ?  not so very sure it matters. 

i expect you will delete this comment. 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-14 22:28:41 [item 20922#52048]
It was just a clue for you – do what you want with it. I was probably just pissing into your wind.  You should probably take notice whose item your are writing on before your insides decide that I should follow your stream of consciousness instead of my own.  I am still studying the more esoteric, deeper & interesting parts of language. 
?

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-05-16 06:14:34 [item 20922#52058]
you know, i too am quite interested in thinking and its relationship to language.  there is no reason that we cannot compare notes … quite independent of ego transactions which would get in the way of our thinking about that subject.   in that regard i wrote a piece this morning,  “The apparent randomness of thoughts”.  i am curious if you have noticed the same phenomena about thinking. 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-16 06:34:02 [item 20922#52059]
It all depends upon what you think/hold thinking is & random to be.
I woke this AM ~ 2:30 & was awake trying to ignore the snoring body next to me.  I went out to the front room to ponder for a while. I decided to do some za-zen for a while focusing on my breathing.  As Usual a conversation was inside but this AM I chose not to use the language to chase any of it. The usually “random” stuff still remained, but I chased it not to clothe it in words. It worked until I gave up the exercise.  The material was mostly the concerns of the previous day & the morning before the exercise. I don’t hold any of it as random.  Mathematics & especially geometry can remove the apparent randomness & help with the focus.  It is not about content, but the will to focus.  Apparent randomness is perhaps one being in a  nest/tree of intention regarding any purpose one has for the moment. 
Seth 2016-05-16 07:17:02 [item 20922#52060]
quite so … it seems we are talking about the same thing yes

randomness is certainly relative to something,  else it  cannot be detected at all.   in the case of my biology paper, i wanted my thoughts to occur according to my intentions,  but they occurred randomly in relationship to that.   In  your terms, i held them to occur randomly in relation to my intentions.   What you refer to as “the will to focus” is, i believe,  the same thing that i refer to as “my intentions”.   In other words i call “focusing” the act of controlling the sequence of my thoughts and to what they refer.  Do you see it any different than that?

i totally agree that something like math or geometry or science or even writhing itself provides an external anchor … a sequence in relationship to which our thoughts can become aligned and hence not appear random.   that is to be the conclusion or take away from my thought 20926.

Of course we can give up the “will” to control the sequence … and consider that sequence just what happens in the moment.   Then, as perhaps you observed, there is no randomness at all.    Do you see it any different than that?
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-16 07:47:36 [item 20922#52061]
I think GW expressed randomness kyng somewhat differently. Things which appear random in the material world are not so in the spiritual & visa-versa. Apparently I don’t have the quote available at this time. Your last sentence above seems “random” as the kids use the word these days. 
I did not say I observed the lack of randomness, rather I suspect that lack of focus causes apparent randomness. It is not only a context thingy, but also context caused because purpose is not necessarily linear but more tree-like. 
Seth 2016-05-16 08:48:29 [item 20922#52064]
thanks for the example of relative randomness appearing yes.

Relative to you thoughts, my thought “then, as perhaps you observed, there is no randomness at all” occurred quite randomly … or so you say.   Yet relative my my thoughts it quite followed from you thought, “I don’t hold any of it as random” quite directly.
Well, if I have a thought & if it is my intention to fastblogit & clothe it in words – at the point of intention the process is not really random although mostly unconscious.  The Monte Carlo Method shows a possible intersetion of random & not.  Thought or a train of thought need not be linear or 2 dimensional. 

Seth says
Seth 2016-05-16 09:13:58 [item 20922#52069]
well there is no doubt in my mind that events happen in trees and not in one dimensional sequences.   but i do not see how that changes my contention that randomness is relative.   if we hold our intention or purpose as fixed, and measure the occurrence of thought relative  to that purpose,  then we can say that thoughts occur randomly in inverse proportion to how strongly we are actually focused on that purpose. 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-16 09:23:20 [item 20922#52070]
Define random & randomness – please!
Seth 2016-05-16 11:28:54 [item 20922#52075]
yes good question.   although i still think that arriving at that distinction by studying examples rather than by criteria rules will yield a more accurate concepton.   nevertheless i think it a good idea to find the definition … i think it exists in shannon’s definitions of communication … or some such place.
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-16 11:31:54 [item 20922#52076]
c’mon it must have meant something to you! What did you mean when you used the word?
yes, obviously it meant something to me … and i agree that we should find a good mathematical/scientific definition … it just need of a tuit to find.   perhaps this is a start

anyway show me something, like for example the static on a TV screen which is not tuned to a specific channel, and i can tell you whether it appears random to me or not.  and i will bet that you can do the same thing and that we will agree on the vast number of such distinctions.   that is just an alternative method of arriving at the meaning of a word ← me thinks even a better method.

Seth says









←  a precise measure of randomness

note: an individual pixel is measured relative to the whole. 

Seth says
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-16 12:05:36 [item 20922#52079]
You may have used a word that you don’t seem to know what it means.  Random usually means unpredictable or in no specific sequence relative to it’s kind. You might consult the thesaurus as well here or here. Maybe you are just using the occasion to get a random definition of the word random. laughing Maybe it is just the universe just haggling for the sake of argument.
yep, “unpredictable or in no specific sequence”  is in fact how i was using the word in “The apparent randomness of thoughts”.  …. the question i raise here is pinning that down a bit more and asking “unpredictable to who” … or “relative to what”. 

Seth says
Well, if I have a thought & if it is my intention to fastblogit & clothe it in words – at the point of intention the process is not really random although mostly unconscious.  The Monte Carlo Method shows a possible intersetion of random & not.  Thought or a train of thought need not be linear or 2 dimensional.
mark

in “The apparent randomness of thoughts” i was discussing what happens randomly before I get the thought,  not afterward.   Afterward, like you, i just deal with the thought’s clothing in words – syntax, voice, attitude, etc.   in the case of a response to somebody else’s thought, [for example this one], i already have the anchor which provides the focus which filters out randomness.  however, the thinking that gets me to the point of knowing that i have a valid response is still fairly well random.  but somtimes, i just respond out loud, extemporaneously, having arrived randomly with just a vague notion of what the though will end up actually being after it is represented ← this is an example of such.  then, i go back and edit and edit making sure that the respresentation actually does match my intended meaning …  mostly take out extra words,  but somtimes i add whole new thoughts that better express my vague notions.   ← now that is not something can be done when you write, but not when you just think to yourself.

incidentally, i hear your paragraph above as 3 random thoughts.   ← sorry about that, please don’t take it as rwg, rather as analysis of how we think together and how those thoughts get thunk.

smug but you raise a important point →   if the process that moves attention from thought to thought spreading out tree like,  is, as you say “mostly unconscious”, then is that not the same as saying that, relative to your intention, is it not predictable, hence it is random?  ← which is probably the only interesting inquiry of my comment here thumbs up.

then i must admit that i do not understand the meaning behind the second sentence in your paragraph, “The Monte Carlo Method shows a possible intersetion of random & not”.

Mark de LA says
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-17 00:21:58 [item 20922#52088]
The unconscious part is mostly the will part – like moving your arm – hard to be conscious of the will. Where do thoughts come from? is an interesting question I have asked many times.  I suspect it is not just random electro-chemical perturbations in the brain pan.
Seth 2016-05-17 06:25:13 [item 20922#52089]
Well will is control … if i will my arm to move, then i am controlling my arm.   I am just not so very sure that i ever will (control) my thoughts in that sense.   Random is the same as saying that i can not predict.   Without focus i can not predict what my thought will be.  Can you will yourself to remember something? or said differently focus is the controlling or willing of my thoughts.  … which for me happens with a external anchor.  for example, this paragraph here is the anchor of the thoughts that are being expressed in it. 
Well will is the fire which lights the fuse & turns a the thought of action within consciousness into real action. Elsewhere we have already argued PR (.. the correct method of body & function (*)) phrase “ the consciousness commands & the body obeys...” 
cool

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-05-17 08:02:48 [item 20922#52091]
well it is hard to predict real action happening within some gestalt.   if the gestalt is a clear and compelling story cooperating with the world and in sync with my feelings, action happens easily …. absent that i look for anchors to construct same.   With possibilities being any combination of thought, feeling, and world event and interaction,  leading the charge.  it is a high art.  for me it does not yield to legislation like “the consciousness commands & the body obeys”.

that would be kind of like the state of north Carolina passing a law mandating that people use the bathroom according to the sex recorded on their birth certificate.   which law can not, nor will not ever be enforced.   it is in fact just a story full of sound an fury, signifying nothing. 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-17 08:12:59 [item 20922#52093]
Nothing to do with legislation which YOU brought up as a straw man.laughing
Seth 2016-05-17 08:19:05 [item 20922#52094]
but it is legislation.   making a rule that should (must) always be followed is legislation.   look, sometimes thought leads action and feeling and even controls events and interactions in the world.  but quite frequently it does not lead.  at least that has been my experience.  so stating a rule that most usually contradicts what actually happens,  does nothing but piss into the wind.  me i go with what happens.  you can piss into the wind all you want. 
It probably has more to do with the diameter of YOUR anal sphincter at full dilation while misusing the word legislation .laughing

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-05-17 08:30:59 [item 20922#52096]
there is another way of looking at this.   i view consciousness as a representation of what happens … it is the map, not the territory itself … what happens is the territory.   a representation does not control what it represents … what happens underdetermines any story of it.   so observing that, i hesitate to even think that i can give any map the control of its territory … that to me is ass backwards.  the map and the territory being is sync is great … then we know how best to move … but what happens seems what we draw the map from.   the other way works too … then the map is like plans or blueprints … a great way to go into a known future.   is it always that way … NO!   just being honest.
Again you are off target with straw people arguments not in the original discussion.  No map & territory here. Consciousness is neither a map nor a territory nor a represenatation.   One needs no language for consciousness.cool The process/sense of language may, however, become conscious to some extent. 

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-05-17 09:01:42 [item 20922#52099]
Well there are all kinds and manners of different types of languages.   But they all seem to have one thing in common.  They represent things in a context which do not exist there themselves.   The things represented exist in some other context.  If you are conscious of a chicken egg, that chicken egg is not in your head.  Sorry, i cannot conceive of a consciousness that is not such a representation.   I don’t know how to write sentences about such a thing that will ring true to me.  

There is, of course, the special case where one is conscious of being conscious.   That does seem to break my pattern.   But personally i don’t think it is a very interesting outlying example on which to build a story.   To me it feels like a mirror looking at a mirror … like “Chocolates on Chocolates”. 
Again a straw man.  Representation is your schtick not mine – it is your already-always vaudeville act – the song & dance of your life. You will always be meta to that which is not you. But with your schtick you will be meta to yourself. Consciousness is like nothing else. It IS! One may put filters on it & just “see” through the 5-senses & represent stuff & call that the stuff & yet there is a Universe besides that.
cool 

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-05-17 10:14:05 [item 20922#52101]
well that is your story of my story.   and it includes quite a bit that i would not say myself.   for example i am not merely about myself … i am myself … i am happening and that happening does not represent me, it is me.  so that when you put in your story of me that, “you will always be meta to that which is not you. But with your schtick you will be meta to yourself”, those words do not mean anything to me.  maybe you could write them differently and i could assent or not as to whether that is also in my story. 

Then you story of consciousness does not say anything … “consciousness is like nothing  else.  It IS!” can be felt true or not, but makes no difference one way or other.   Those are not the kinds of wisdoms which i seek.   Then too it does not matter what the senses (or channels from outside to indside) there are … i take into myself what i can get from out there.  
Yep, already always nothing to do with the topic over dilated sphincter droppings. Maybe drop it on a different topic in the back room of group pellickpondering

Seth says
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-17 10:59:21 [item 20922#52103]

Dualism rests on a false conception of what we call knowledge. It divides the whole of reality into two spheres, each of which has its own laws, and it leaves these two worlds standing outside one another.

It is from a Dualism such as this that there arises the distinction between the object of perception and the thing-in-itself, which Kant introduced into philosophy, and which, to the present day, we have not succeeded in expelling. According to our interpretation, it is due to the nature of our organization that a particular object can be given to us only as a percept. Thought transcends this particularity by assigning to each percept its proper place in the world as a whole. As long as we determine the separate parts of the cosmos as percepts, we are simply following, in this sorting out, a law of our subjective constitution. If, however, we regard all percepts, taken together, merely as one part, and contrast with this a second part, viz., the things-in-themselves, then our philosophy is building castles-in-the-air. We are then engaged in mere playing with concepts. We construct an artificial opposition, but we can find no content for the second of these opposites, seeing that no content for a particular thing can be found except in perception.

- See more at: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA004/English/GPP1916/GA004_c08.html#sthash.SIjAGopu.dpuf 

 

Seth 2016-05-17 14:07:47 [item 20922#52106]
i think Steiner speaks here of an attitude .. a way of “regard”ing.  I don’t regard my consciousness of objects as separate from the things, rather i regard them as the things themselves.  It is only when the one does not correspond to the other that i go with what happens, rather than what i had represented, probably in error.  if you do it the other way, and hold your perceptions as fixed and unquestionable, then you end up with false sense of certainty and even a  kind of omnipotence or pig headedness that we see exhibited in people from time to time.  
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-17 14:18:18 [item 20922#52107]
Nope! not attitude (yours) not regarding anything ...read in the original German if you like . just you making up more shit & adding more shit to what was not there in the first place.  Percepts are percepts. Concepts are concepts. Meaning is the shit you add after the grok of the percept or concept; not mentioned in the quote. 
pondering your half-cocked commenting notwithstanding. Read the rest of the chapter linked there.
Seth 2016-05-17 15:27:18 [item 20922#52108]
well yes that  is my interpretation of Steiner’s story which i read a several times very carefully … my interpretation is consistent with all of his sentences especially with his usage of the phrase, “If, however, we regard all percepts, taken together ...”  and the following sentences. 

i have a question for you,  how do you reconcile your philosophy with your experience when what you perceive as one thing ends up being perceived later  as something much more elaborate?   And yes i am talking about perception and not conception just in the very same sense as are you.  What do you conclude changed, your perception of the thing, or the thing itself?
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-17 16:02:47 [item 20922#52109]
It is a matter of focus.  If I look at an iceberg & only look at that which is above the water I see one thing & assume & add shit onto that grok.  If I look beneath the water I get yet another. One does not expect to see all of Mother Nature all at once. The same goes as well for the “I” . I don’t know beyond your rwg what you are getting at.
Seth 2016-05-18 06:44:42 [item 20922#52110]
so very strange how each of your examples describes a difference between a perception and its object grin
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-18 06:58:12 [item 20922#52112]
Nope! guess again. It’s a difference between your focus & the object. smug
Seth 2016-05-18 07:02:04 [item 20922#52113]
exactly, it is a difference.  try describing them as the same. 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-18 07:09:34 [item 20922#52114]
Why not confuse yourself some more by focusing on a basket of fruit some of which are apples, pears, bananas & pineapples & then calling it an apple…. er a bannana ...er a pineapple … er … oops a tarantula .thumbs down
now that is a strawman … and not something i am doing. 

incidentally identity is a real stickler … unless of course you contrive to throw out logic.   wherever “A” appears in a equation, it must refer to the exact same thing … no exceptions.  fact is an object and its perception are different things.  they are not identical. 

Mark de LA says
Maybe review the sequence of encounter of PR for more light or munge your way back into the darkness of Abstractia. 

Mark de LA says
Concluding from the Tai Shu Commentary

P.2621 #22,1 83-1-2-12-11-14 WED 4 years/5 months before GW’s death
" ... Pristine Realities evolve to Symbols; Logic Language, Logos emanates from the Father, not from Nothing except as it seems, of Tertulian pee; thus "The Heart girt with a Serpent" has parallels in Ontogeny & Phylogeny.  If you want to dunk your doughnut, go ahead & dunk it!  "it is a lie, this folly against self" - Awareness, Attention is the function of the Ego;  Brightness, Brilliance, Luminosity which is measured by Photons increase with Development.

(2462) CONSCIOUSNESS is awareness of the part which self takes in production of a judgment either as cause or effect - cause when I act on another, effect when I act on myself, when my hand touches my head, e.g., "I am a cause - active consciousness;  passive consciousness - I am an effect".  Believe a cause exists without an effect or vice versa if you like to be mystifyied.  The categories of Reality are: number, space, motion, time & judgment;  if it be a thing it must have unity, it must be one, or it does not exist. Also it must have extension, speed, persistence & consciousness;  these cats or essentials are independent but concomitant; the thing is its component essentials; there is no "ding an sich".  From here we can go to the subject of "Electricity" & what happens to make it positive or negative, the yang & the yin!"


Mark de LA says
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-18 07:27:09 [item 20922#52116]
Abstraction doesn’t do you any good with a percept – learn what it is. Perceiving & perception is what comes through the senses not what your mind makes up about it & even not what you abstract about  it.thumbs down
Seth 2016-05-18 07:33:18 [item 20922#52118]
well what you actually said (apart from your judgement of it) is true.   so what?  it is beside the point.

people can see an elephant from different points of view … those views of the elephant are not the elephant. 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-18 07:37:12 [item 20922#52119]
so what indeed … the points of view only captured/perceived part of an elephant …. & if all of them spoke only Chinese there would be no “elephant” there at all . laughing
Seth 2016-05-18 07:47:26 [item 20922#52120]
laughinglaughing indeed …. maybe there would be choy  ← sorry i don’t know the ming for “elephant”.

and strangely enought surprise an excellent example of the map not being the territory thumbs up.    one way to falsly eliminate that problem is to just declare, with dint of your authority, that the map IS the territory.   hmmm … i wonder who is doing that?
Not me! maybe kosum laughing

Si says
Yes, but so? I get that souls are cut off from each other … and in fact, this is the normal state of things. We build connections. Often it is better to actually build connections by having abstract words so that people stay in rapport (see #NLP), than it is to disharmonize for the purpose of maintaining your individual point of view … which at best leads to #rwg.

I am not sure what conditions existed that caused #RS to say these words in this way in circa 1900 … but I am fairly sure he would be saying them in a different way, not negating them, but finding their evolved place of context, if he were to say them in our time.

Seth says
there is a lot of wiggel room in generalizations … which i why i #love examples … and specificity.  that is where the actual connections between souls can be found.  waving a generalization at another person is just too easy … like social chit chat … it will keep going on and on and on with no anchor like a ship lost as sea.  i do believe that is consistent with what you quoted RS saying in this thought.

Si says
Specifics builds intimacy … but not necessarily understanding, or rapport. Rapport is based on harmonized vibrations of thought, and understanding is based on shared beliefs.

Si says
And #love is most often felt when all 3 come at once.   

Mark de LA says
I realize you folks are having fun with #hashit but if you stand back a bit & look it doesn’f read very well – something similar to what someone complained about with the nullold $smileys

Mark de LA says
#soundslike an #orgy

Si says
Well, I disagree, not to #rwg, but simply because I have probably been doing this longer, with more people, and now see the new, evolving, multi-dimensional, language that #hashtag’s create. When you first see it, it’s more like seeing a new foreign language and doesn’t read well … but when you learn to read it more like a tesseract, then the depth of the new language starts popping out at you and you wonder at how so much information can now be packed into such a small space of just one paragraph!  

Seth says
specifics build intimacy, it is true …. and proves it … concepts build it too and harmonize.  frequently it is easier to start with general concepts … actual examples and specifics are harder … but that is where we touch which is the intamacy me thinks creates a deapth of real consciousness. 

where deep spiritual matters are our context,  this is even more the case than the easy geography of our lives.  i could tell a true story of where i first discovered the easy waving of generalities and how it can easily harmonize a group of like minded people.  but i’ve told it before,  … anywy it is available upon request.

Seth says

Seth says
thing is, ever term in our language is a #hashtag.  the only real difference is that now poeple are encouraged to #MakeShitUp … which, i agree with Navigator is a great part of where it is at null

Mark de LA says
if every word is a #hashturd then why put a #poundsign #in #front #of #them ?

Si says
Two reasons.
  1. For the needs of the computer, so it can be identified and hyperlinked … all words were hyperlinked in CyberMind(tm) … but here that is not very efficient.
  2. So that humans can visually parse the new #hashwords as discrete symbols … much like #GW said that the next written language would be symbols, and he thought maybe like Chinese, but it turns out it is a new kind of symbol made up of multiple squished words preceded with #.  

Seth says

Seth says
and it is not very effecient here either … must needs an entire search of the database for each delve ← just saying …. fun though,  good implementation null

Si says
Very soon #hashtag’s will be indexed and super fast. Finished massaging the tagging table and converting all the SQL queries already. Now just a little magic on the saves and it’s done.  

Seth says

Mark de LA says
so is there going to be a centralized pc guy who determines which #hashtags can be used or can anyone update the table or is it dynamic ? What are the rules on what a #hashtag looks like?  I noticed that #M$M did not work as one.

Seth says
i don’t think it is being done with a table … rather by a global search now using an index.

Si says
No, it is a table, the same old tagging table in fact. There is no way to create an index in SQL without a table column to do it on.

Standard rules for hash tags, as can be seen at the below link, except that we also exclude dashes and underscores for the same reason they discourage them. Otherwise the same. 

https://www.hashtags.org/featured/what-characters-can-a-hashtag-include/ 

Seth says
null that is a surprise.   i guess i’ll have to go look at the tagging table.

Mark de LA says

Seth says
Conversation forked to thought 21500

See Also

  1. Thought Thought, Feeling, and Will with 378 viewings related by tag "RS".
  2. Thought The perception of decay with 318 viewings related by tag "RS".
  3. Thought There is no intrinsic meaning in signs. with 288 viewings related by tag "language".
  4. Thought Love - Lying with 281 viewings related by tag "love".
  5. Thought Inquiry: The nature of an individual to a group. with 266 viewings related by tag "RS".
  6. Thought Rudolf Steiner speaks of the CycleOfDoing with 235 viewings related by tag "RS".
  7. Thought Calling Wolf with 197 viewings related by tag "MakeShitUp".
  8. Thought Teasing out the "will" with 188 viewings related by tag "gw".
  9. Thought Enforcement enacted. with 186 viewings related by tag "MakeShitUp".
  10. Thought about: Megaphone vs Free Speech vs Political Correctness - comment 73418 - comment 73462 with 177 viewings related by tag "GW".
  11. Thought Fake News or Advertisement - PC Meme Spreading & Political Correctness with 173 viewings related by tag "language".
  12. Thought Negative Feedback with 166 viewings related by tag "rwg".
  13. Thought Zen & the Art of the Right-Wrong Game with 158 viewings related by tag "rwg".
  14. Thought Encountering Edges with 153 viewings related by tag "gw".
  15. Thought Socretes Cafe Tuesday April 18 2017 with 138 viewings related by tag "RWG".
  16. Thought [title (21932)] with 137 viewings related by tag "RWG".
  17. Thought Politics is the Art of making the possible happen ... with 131 viewings related by tag "RWG".
  18. Thought Glossary with 116 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  19. Thought Conversation on hash tags? with 111 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  20. Thought I banished evil! with 110 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  21. Thought Wow! Words have meanings to others too! with 105 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  22. Thought Rudolph Steiner with 104 viewings related by tag "rs".
  23. Thought Why my trains of thought break ... with 104 viewings related by tag "hashtags".
  24. Thought about: Important Things to Know & Do with 102 viewings related by tag "GW".
  25. Thought about: Unhacking Wars - comment 67183 with 68 viewings related by tag "rs".
  26. Thought A deeper understanding of American intelligence via the PDB with 66 viewings related by tag "MakeShitUp".
  27. Thought The Oath of Truth with 63 viewings related by tag "GW".
  28. Thought The C.F.R. Channel with 59 viewings related by tag "GW".
  29. Thought Thinking in the Public River with 58 viewings related by tag "love".
  30. Thought Think a thing in and of itself with 58 viewings related by tag "RS".
  31. Thought about: What Seth voted for in politics - comment 64975 with 57 viewings related by tag "RWG".
  32. Thought #MadeUpShit #MakeUpShit with 53 viewings related by tag "MakeShitUp".
  33. Thought Conversation Rooms and Tag Clouds with 44 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  34. Thought Humanity from the Anthroposophical Point of View with 44 viewings related by tag "rs".
  35. Thought Clarifying how hashtag’s are defined with 41 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  36. Thought Being on Stage in the Foreground with 38 viewings related by tag "rwg".
  37. Thought The trick is to enjoy the prick with 38 viewings related by tag "RWG".
  38. Thought about: C.F. Russell - Wikipedia with 37 viewings related by tag "GW".
  39. Thought Communication with 31 viewings related by tag "RWG".
  40. Thought The Objective World vs The Occurring World with 31 viewings related by tag "language".
  41. Thought Oath of Truth with 30 viewings related by tag "of".
  42. Thought about: The Medium is the Message - comment 74259 with 30 viewings related by tag "GW".
  43. Thought What informs hearing truth? with 30 viewings related by tag "MakeShitUp".
  44. Thought What is the fear of losing control? with 30 viewings related by tag "love".
  45. Thought I am what i do with 28 viewings related by tag "love".
  46. Thought #Field with 26 viewings related by tag "NLP".
  47. Thought about: I like Words - I respect words - I love words with 25 viewings related by tag "language".
  48. Thought Re keeping things hidden ... with 23 viewings related by tag "GW".
  49. Thought Infinite Nothing NOW with 23 viewings related by tag "rwg".
  50. Thought I like Words - I respect words - I love words with 22 viewings related by tag "language".