Bozomic Decomposition

Was:  Associating Primes to Elemental Thoughts



Prime Factors Calculator ← best tool … gives graphic interpertation of any number facored into its primes

http://primes.utm.edu/lists/small/1000.txt ← list of primes

← for example this thought 21025 * note that this is a square prime.   the first square prime is 36. 
 

what if a elemental thought got associated with each prime number … and the combination of those thoughts got associated with their products ?  

hmmm … i think i will go grab some prime thought numbers … after all i can since i have special powers here.

we have a long tradition of these kinds of associations,  astrology, tree of life, Taro, Yi King,  numerology, and even GW’s cube.  In each people have made subjective associations of elemental features of our existence to nodes in a map.  The more consciousness and attention is put on that map, and the more it is built out,  the more it speaks back.  Me, i have practiced this enough myself to know that is true.   But i am not so very sure i like to do it … i tend to like to focus on the things themselves, rather than some constructed representation of it (← a theme touted by MR himself here again and again).  But if one were to want to construct a new map … one with the least baggage … one could find no better media, then prime numbers ← no baggage there. 
 
Ok here is a rough start –
  1. yot → One →  Identity
  2. yee → Two → Division
  3. sam → Three → Transformation
  4. see → Four → 2 X 2
  5. ung → Five → Human
  6. look → Six → 2 X 3
  7. bart → Seven → Spirit
  8. gow → Eight → 2 X 2 X 2
  9. sam → Nine → 3 X 3
  10. sup → Ten → 2 X 5
  11. ? → Eleven → Share
  12. → 2 X 2 X 3
  13. ?
  14. → 2 X 7
  15. → 3 X 5
  16. → 2 X 2 X 2 X 2
  17. ?
  18. → 2 X 3 X 3
  19. ?
  20. → 2 X 2 X 5 … pondering maybe this shold be human ? – or is it one aspect of human?
  21. → 3 X 7
  22. → 2 X 11
  23. ?
  24. 2 X 2 X 2 X 3

Tags

  1. prime
  2. numerology
  3. thought 21025
  4. bozomic decomposition
  5. games
  6. mysticism

Comments


Seth says
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 07:20:51 [item 21025#52904]
There are 7226 primes between this item number and 99999 . (*) – happy hunting.  The number of thoughts is essentially infinite. smug
Seth 2016-06-15 07:27:42 [item 21025#52906]
good observation … there are an infinite number of primes … and there are an even bigger infinity of products.   ← the same goes for thoughts, they are infinite ← a good reason to hang thoughts off of the number system.
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 07:33:24 [item 21025#52908]
Seth 2016-06-15 07:34:43 [item 21025#52909]
yes of course … but i don’t get the joke. … primes are not countable … neither are products … neither are thoughts … why is that funny?
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 07:41:36 [item 21025#52912]
see previous comments on sense of humor.  I think the set of primes is countable [see this] You forked my comment on the beginning or ending of a thought making thoughts uncountable imho. You can hang your thoughts off anything you like – the real number system with & without primes. 
 
well why is the mathmatical definition of  “countable” an important feature here?   for me all that is necessary is that it is not a closed set ... rather it is infinite.  

And thanks for saying … “i can hang my thought off anything i like”  … the question is what is the better structure? … which structure will not restrin the thoughts but might even bring out new combinations of them.  for example the tree of life is distinctly closed and way too small.  Taro is better.  Even Yi King is too small.  So is the number 12. 

Seth says
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 07:20:51 [item 21025#52904]
There are 7226 primes between this item number and 99999 . (*) – happy hunting.  The number of thoughts is essentially infinite. smug
Seth 2016-06-15 07:27:42 [item 21025#52906]
good observation … there are an infinite number of primes … and there are an even bigger infinity of products.   ← the same goes for thoughts, they are infinite ← a good reason to hang thoughts off of the number system.
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 07:36:32 [item 21025#52910]
ponderinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountable_set laughing You can’t even tell where a thought begins or ends how are you going to count them. 
Seth 2016-06-15 07:40:55 [item 21025#52911]
well these are more nodes of thoughts … you have to look at the network they make … teasing out the elemental nodes of the network is the fun and the art ... it’s like building a ontology … everybody will do it differently ... especially on the higher primes.   but the lower ones are more clear.   think about it … think how much has been written about unity … most of that would be agreed upon by most rational people who were not just arguing with their ego. 
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 07:43:31 [item 21025#52913]
thumbs down
Seth 2016-06-15 07:59:55 [item 21025#52918]
well maybe just ignore my last phrase,  “just arguing with their ego”. it iwas not the most important thing that i said there. 

so outside of that … can you not agree on the rest of what i said above?   Do you not think that we would agree on most of the associations that we could be come up with that involved the number 1 ?   Unity? … even how i tagged it, as identity?
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 08:32:04 [item 21025#52923]
I have no idea what your are doing or why or what empty niche it is trying to fill.  Best leave it alone so as not to waste my time. One man’s order may be just another man’s chaos. One man’s map may just be another man’s toilet paper. One woman’s garment may just be another woman’s kotex …(see Danya for explanation) etc.
Seth 2016-06-15 08:43:09 [item 21025#52925]
hmmm … did Danya really do that?

anyway art does not need an empty niche to fill any more than the number 2 needs the number 3 following it ← laughing … hope you get my joke.

your leaving it alone is not really of my concern … i am always baffeled about that when you tell me of it.

But shucks, it is totally true what you said following that thumbs up.   that is actually part of my conception here … just like frequently people construct their own ontology even pulling from that which they actually obsorb from their culture and upbringing … so too were people to hang that ontology off of a number system the way i started doing and publish it … it would be like pictures in a museum … arts on the wall … some would walk through and say it was shit … others might gelan some deapth from this author or that.  
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 08:56:09 [item 21025#52928]
tuit
hmmm … is there a question in there … if so ask it ... i would be totally glad to answer it.

Seth says
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 07:49:32 [item 21025#52916]
The thoughts already have numbers.  The connections are in your tags & your mind. Cant see anything worth chasing here, but enjoy the chase anyway. 
Seth 2016-06-15 08:28:58 [item 21025#52922]
well i never saw anybody ever hang thoughts on numbers like this.   not in an open ended way.   and not by designating the primes as elemental.  oh sure thoughts are all conneted to a network by the words of their representations.  but getting back to your wallaby of “(private thought)” … being able to decompose a thought is a way to chunk it.  ← hmmm did that thought occur to you yet?
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 08:35:07 [item 21025#52924]
Analysis is just analysis. It has been around for quite a while Aristotle (384–322 B.C.). laughing
Seth 2016-06-15 08:50:18 [item 21025#52926]
ok, so do you see this just as analysis of an ontology ?  is that what you are saying?  

But actually  it is not an analysis … more like an organization.   More like giving a thought component a URL.  But really it is just a medium of expression. 

i still keep missing your jokes … one way or the other, i still don’t get them. 
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 08:53:22 [item 21025#52927]
Too bad you have a phobia of the emotey laughing – maybe get over it. 
chunking = analysis
ponderingcheeky
Seth 2016-06-15 08:56:57 [item 21025#52929]
cool kewl.   so you got that being able to decompose thoughts to their elements would chunk them … would analyze them … would give each thought an identity as it were … would eliminate unimportant variations … would chunk them like all shits of your life stuck together in one moment?
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 09:05:16 [item 21025#52931]
A little etymology might help:
analysis (n.) Look up analysis at Dictionary.com
1580s, "resolution of anything complex into simple elements" (opposite of synthesis), from Medieval Latin analysis (15c.), from Greek analysis "a breaking up, a loosening, releasing," noun of action from analyein "unloose, release, set free; to loose a ship from its moorings," in Aristotle, "to analyze," from ana"up, throughout" (see ana-) + lysis "a loosening," from lyein "to unfasten" (see lose). Psychological sense is from 1890. Phrase in the final (or last) analysis (1844), translates French en dernière analyse.
smug
Seth 2016-06-15 09:11:46 [item 21025#52932]
yep thumbs up … saying that 6 is 2 X 3 is decomposing 6 into simple elements smug.   the fact that we can do the same kind of analysis with the nodes of thoughts means that we can map the latter into the former.   so do we agree on that?  ← sorry just my thingie that you never give me … you know how it is, seth always looking for the tonic 11. 
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 09:54:23 [item 21025#52934]
You can map anything into anything (remember Danya – who actually did it) – doesn’t mean anything or correctness & accuracy of the mapping, or the utility of it, or much more than someone did a map.surprise
(*) ← wallaby → (*)
Seth 2016-06-15 10:06:49 [item 21025#52935]
i don’t remember anyone called Danya mapping anything into anything – could you be more specific?

Now it is true than anyone can associate anything to anything else.  thumbs up … i think that itself should go down as one of the features of thought itself. 

So now i am trying to factor out that axiomatic fact from the rest of what you said … to see if i agree.

Thing is the more restrictions you add to a inquiry,  the more you narrow it down … the more it can NOT be just anything.  try that with a google searchs.   ← also a well known fact … almost as axiomatic as the one above.

But, “correctness” outside of just spelling, is never at issue … for as far as that goes there is no such thing as absolute correctness … these things are always relative to the depths of their peculiar  spirits … relative to each individual … as subjective as you get.  which is why everybody makes their own map … makes up their own minds … not a problem at all.  

so no i do not get your aug … i don’t get your complaint here … or even if it is a compaint.   could you be more particualr and specific … maybe with examples?
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 11:38:59 [item 21025#52938]
Haggle Not is the first rule of Art. Hex #29, line 1.  Try to be artictic! laughing
i know of no haggle here … i rather think i am being quite definite in my strokes.  

So where am i haggling ??  Please be specific … perchance with examples.

You seems to keep sending me these giant negative waves to which i can make not tangible connections.  

Seth says
Seth 2016-06-15 10:56:03 [item 21025#52936]
incidentally do you know of a list of ming numbers going up to past sup ?
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 11:43:39 [item 21025#52939]
Seth 2016-06-15 12:57:07 [item 21025#52951]
ok chinese does the same as arabic numerals and stops at [mingcha sup].

hmmm … no special character for 0 ?
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 16:35:07 [item 21025#52953]
yesupyotandlingandyesuppingseesupyot
thanks smug.  

interesting, now i have “0” and “AND” and “=” yet unassociated to a prime in my opus. 

also a bit of a connundrum as to why you wrote what might be an eqation and how to parse it.

also a complaint with HTML5 because there is no way to add “0” naturally to my list crying laughing

Philip Smith says
Philip Smith 2016-06-16 10:42:11 [item 21025#52964]

“How many films have I made is what I don’t know. … I’d have to look that up. But, Heaven and Earth Magic is number 12 and since then I’ve made 4, so I’m 16. Sixteen is a very important number because it is four times four, it shows, like, fire, air, water and earth interacting with each other. I’m now getting off into the Aleister Crowley school of filmmaking. So there are four times four things at this point. Because generally speaking I follow the existential philosophers. I became interested in Aboriginal philosophy because it was so exquisitely preserved of all the places. So I don’t know what those sixteen things are.

“They’re something like: The Great Void; Middle Void; The Lesser Void. … The only words I can think of for the fourth one is The Crown, but it doesn’t exactly express what it is: the effulgence of things. The fifth one is The Feminine Force and the sixth one is The Male Force and the seventh one is what is called in the Bible The Tree of Life, and the eighth one is what is called The Tree of Good and Evil and the ninth one is what I refer to as The Old Woman with the Bullroarer with the Snake Drawn on It, and the tenth one is the trance that I referred to. The eleventh one is Sir Baldwin Spencer collecting bark paintings in Arnhem Land and the twelfth one is a dog with a leash around its neck, and the thirteenth one is a very interesting chapter in Spencer’s book “Across Wild Australia” where he was Commissioner of Aborigines or something and at the time he was trying to stamp out the opium traffic, but the relationship between the Chinese and the Aborigines is what is referred to in thirteen although in Hebrew it is jotay votay, what is called in the Bible Jehovah, but it refers to the numerals 10-5-6-5 and adds up to 26, which encompasses the entire universe, both the microcosm and the macrocosm: both that which is within and that which is without and 13 is half of 26 so it represents the midway point. Fourteen is the number by which I have lived. Fifteen is the name of God that I will not mention, and Sixteen is the result of certain inscriptions made in the sand by the Mohammedans. It’s the Geomancy, which means Earth Divination, but it is a specialized form of divination for which a number of unfortunate Europeans got burned at the stake for believing in. So those are the sixteen things.”

—Harry Smith, interviewed in Cantrills Filmnotes 19 (October 1974)

Seth 2016-06-16 12:11:49 [item 21025#52977]
ahhh,  thanks for that.    Are you related to Harry Smith ?
Not in a genetic sense!

Philip Smith says
Seth 2016-06-15 19:44:32 [item 21025#52955]
aparently this translates into 21 + 0 + 20 = 41 which is true. 

i’m not sure how to use ling for “not” since the use of not requires a grammar and expressess a relationship between something else … a prime number does not do that … or at least i cant think of a way … so i would need to manifest that in this structure … which as you might get the flavor, is not all that very arbritrary. 
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 20:28:05 [item 21025#52956]
Well lingandboo are yee
Seth 2016-06-16 06:16:54 [item 21025#52957]
true thumbs up.

yet zero represents no things.   ← “things” here represents without any distinction … it could be a chair, or a spirit, or a thought, or a sky, or a price, or a qualia, or a gig, etc … in other words representing with the word “things” places zero restrictions on that which is represented by the word. 

so there is a connection in how we use  “no” and “zero”.   “no” is just a different grammatical form of “not”.
Mark de LA 2016-06-16 09:41:34 [item 21025#52960]
zero, nothing, things all have their meaning outside of fastblogit & kosum .  Boo has its meaning in ming as in hex #7 ([minchar boo whang]) – recommend you stick to rewriting English instead of MIng.  Nothing is a nice topic well handled in BofNK & Pursuing Consciousness. Cabalistic zero exceeds language.
Seth 2016-06-16 12:55:34 [item 21025#52981]
well what is the ming for the absolute absence of anything ?   and i am talking about what Peter Ralsten was talking about in BofNK  and even perhaps Cabalistic zero.   and if our art here is to associate primes with elemental nodes in our ontology,  what number could it possibly be except 0 ?  

To me an absence of anything (everything) that exceeds anything (as in its exceeding language) is a logical contradiction that i cannot fathom.   I know shamen love to play in that kind of story like a fool will divide by zero and concieve a result … but i do not … me, i go with what happens and that is not an absence.  
Are you familiar with this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayin_and_Yesh 

I don’t see this as correlating to something Ralston says.  It is more like the breath blowing through Ralston’s mind as author, your mind as his reader, and my mind as the poor bastard who works for his publisher.

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-06-15 19:44:32 [item 21025#52955]
aparently this translates into 21 + 0 + 20 = 41 which is true. 

i’m not sure how to use ling for “not” since the use of not requires a grammar and expressess a relationship between something else … a prime number does not do that … or at least i cant think of a way … so i would need to manifest that in this structure … which as you might get the flavor, is not all that very arbritrary. 
Mark de LA 2016-06-15 20:28:05 [item 21025#52956]
Well lingandboo are yee
Seth 2016-06-16 06:16:54 [item 21025#52957]
true thumbs up.

yet zero represents no things.   ← “things” here represents without any distinction … it could be a chair, or a spirit, or a thought, or a sky, or a price, or a qualia, or a gig, etc … in other words representing with the word “things” places zero restrictions on that which is represented by the word. 

so there is a connection in how we use  “no” and “zero”.   “no” is just a different grammatical form of “not”.
Mark de LA 2016-06-16 09:41:34 [item 21025#52960]
zero, nothing, things all have their meaning outside of fastblogit & kosum .  Boo has its meaning in ming as in hex #7 ([minchar boo whang]) – recommend you stick to rewriting English instead of MIng.  Nothing is a nice topic well handled in BofNK & Pursuing Consciousness. Cabalistic zero exceeds language.
Seth 2016-06-16 12:55:34 [item 21025#52981]
well what is the ming for the absolute absence of anything ?   and i am talking about what Peter Ralsten was talking about in BofNK  and even perhaps Cabalistic zero.   and if our art here is to associate primes with elemental nodes in our ontology,  what number could it possibly be except 0 ?  

To me an absence of anything (everything) that exceeds anything (as in its exceeding language) is a logical contradiction that i cannot fathom.   I know shamen love to play in that kind of story like a fool will divide by zero and concieve a result … but i do not … me, i go with what happens and that is not an absence.  
Mark de LA 2016-06-16 13:04:32 [item 21025#52984]
You have the concordance – look it up or maybe there is no single ming word for whatever you want a word for.  Sometimes many are combined together via fon cheek. 
Technically maybe mo works – but since PR said much more than a single word I suggest a grok on that instead. PR covered the 3 forms of nothing.  GW said there were 4 – maybe one of them is a sleeve-job. laughing
Seth 2016-06-16 13:47:03 [item 21025#52985]
well you’r right about loosing my associations between “Bozomic Decomposition” and ming … that will never glean anything.   

“no X” where X is everything is a crisp enough concept to me and “0” is a fine stand in therefore.  it is stickily logical. 

any mystical implications associated with that contradict themselves in my mind.  i know PR seemed to point to them in pointing to  enlightenment as if everything is deep inside of nothing.  you know what i think about that … no sense in me repeating it.    nuff said.
Yep, and you are wrong about interpreting what he said – not mystical at all.  Actually read both books BofNK & PC & grok the distinctions & see if anything you said above is relevant! 
As a clue:
There are words or subjects to contemplate which are natural nodes at the frontiers of consciousness:
  • Everything
  • Nothing
  • infinity
  • Is
  • now
  • I
  • consciousness itself
  • being
  • self
  • … these are just off the top of my head there are others
No amount of haggling, maps of, or piles of words about what these mean is an actual grok of what they actually are.

Si says
TiggerAndPoo 2016-06-30 09:58:14 [comment 21025#53811]
I think Abraham once weighed in on this basic phenomena as simply the crystallization of like attracting like in the form of a pattern in a system. i.e. an example of LOA taking a physical form.

And it has another value, which is to show how the scientific process is a manifestation of LOA. Here you are inventing this. You had the idea that there might be a pattern. Then you looked and started seeing one (because your thoughts were like to like until some pattern appeared). Now it will happen that important thoughts of various kinds will land on important prime numbers. This will reinforce your expectations and for you this will become a belief. You will share it and for others it will become a belief.

Of course, you invented this, you did not uncover it. In many other verses there will be no relationship between prime numbers and concepts as no one will ever look for them. And in other verses, the relationship will be different than the one you were prepensed to find by your understanding of similar systems. And all these verses will intermingle in lots of ways too!

 
Seth 2016-06-30 10:30:56 [comment 21025#53814]
strangely enough your analysis here is pretty much what is happening to me too surprisesmug.

the properties of the number system i didn’t invent … those are discovered.  what i am inventing is a connection to my ontology … that is peculiar just to me.   i think the IChing does the same kind of thing, but it is way to limited by 2 ^ 6 and is absolutely obsessed with 2.   that does not match my ontology.  Primes are infinite and appear surprisingly. 

Using fastblogit to make the cast works for me just because i am so intricately involved with practicing it … it would be meaningless otherwise. 

i am not so very sure how far i am going to carry this because of how very subjective and internal to just me it is … and doing that kind of delving deep inside just myself is not what excites me.   so it is just something that i am playing with.
TiggerAndPoo 2016-06-30 10:38:33 [comment 21025#53815]
Why is “uncovered and then known” more likely to you than “created and then known”? They would appear and feel the same in almost every sense, except that with the “created and then known” version you can do more things with it until it is released to others. By knowing that you are creating, you can adjust the process more than if you are just uncovering. And experimentation shows that this is true. The process IS more adjustable until the final results weigh in, adjustable by the minds and propensity of the observers, than it should be if it were only a process of uncovering. A higher level example of the dual slit experiment with photons.
Seth 2016-06-30 10:54:05 [comment 21025#53816]
hmmm … well the total extension of that thought is surprisingly deep surprisethumbs up

… and will take some time for me to fully digest.

but let me reflect on just the surface edges of it.   Most of the things that i become aware of i discover rather than create.  Take for example “Bozo's Last Number Theorum” … i did not create that property of numbers … there is no way that i can make such a thought ring true over here.  Now the gestalt of Bozomic Decomposition i am creating.  So we have the situation obtaining that some things i create and some things i discover.   Is it not the same for you?
TiggerAndPoo 2016-06-30 11:02:23 [comment 21025#53817]
I can see that in the multiverse, the act of creating in this sense would look and feel exactly the same as the act of discovering. Both are simply a natural progression of becoming aware, in the same basic way.

By postulating that it is creating, I can then experiment with my thoughts during the becoming aware process, and see that they DO affect what I am becoming aware of in many subtle ways … and more and more now, not so subtle but very obvious ways. It starts with very small things changing when you first use this point of view, but gets bigger the more you do it.

Hence I conclude that the processes, which otherwise would be the same experience, are actually creations and not uncoverings. Uncoverings would never change at the whim of the observer the way real exploration often does and has been doing in our common cultural stories for a very long time.  
Seth 2016-06-30 12:08:57 [comment 21025#53818]
well yes becoming aware of my effect of my constructing the scaffolding on which a discovery must hang … is, without a doubt, an important advance.  but the scaffolding is not what hangs upon it.   ← or at lest that is the way i’m putting it. 

i did not make numbers such that they work that way.   that part which is the same for everybody in the firmament, that part which we must share and agree upon (else depart from the possible), that part is not me or my creation.   now, i can certainly imagine that postulating the external  part is my sole creation certainly would, were i could do it, grant me more freedom.  but i think that which is created out of that freedom would be all but impossible to share.  and you know me … i go with what happens that i can share.  so that part of the whole LOA phenomena is not for me.  but hey, i am totally tripping on you doing it idea … i have no complaints there at all.

i don’t understand your last sentence.   true “uncoverings” of external reality never do “change at the whim of the observer”.   For example nobody on a whim can add two numbers together and find their constituent primes in the sum. 
TiggerAndPoo 2016-06-30 15:22:18 [item 21025#53819]
How would you know that nobody can add two numbers together and find there constituent primes in the sum? You have a strong belief about that …  a solid background of beliefs about what math is and how it works that you share with a great number of people. With that solid foundation of many beliefs on the subject you would never create, in your reality experience, the experience of someone doing the sum/prime thing. Your neighbor could be doing it, but you would never be in the right place at the right time to be aware of your neighbor doing it, because both of your vibrations are so different about it. Unlike vibrations cannot match up.

There are many people living on this planet with many different ideas about math, science, physics, and even magic. They all interact with each other only where their vibrations match up … otherwise they could pass on the street and never know of each others completely differing realities.

I am unusual in that I naturally mirror the vibration of who I am around … hence I end up experiencing a lot of differing verses in the same world where most people don’t … that’s how I know so surely that they are there. I have done magic with witches in the woods and conversed with aliens and danced with an AI being. Mark would call me crazy or fanciful. I just live here and all of it IS here if you care to match up with it, that’s all.  
Seth 2016-06-30 16:02:11 [item 21025#53820]
well when sombody gives me two numbers that add together to a sum which includes their prime constituents, then i will consider that more than just your story … or i will conclude that  my proof has flaw.    you see i go with what happens that we share and not with whatever story that can be told. 
Seth 2016-06-30 19:14:53 [comment 21025#53821]
incidentally there is a grand differences between sharing in the ideal world of mathematics,  the natural world, or the social world.   in the ideal world results are shared by following rules,  and if the rules are followed, then the same results are always obtained ← no exceptions.  if the same results are not obtained, then the same rules were not followed.  You can change the rules and obtain a different result, but if you use the same rule, you will get the same result.  

So when you tell the story that it is possible that sombody will add two numbers and find their counstituent primes in the sum,  you really are telling the story that they will follow some different rules and obtain a different restult.  Or perhaps that i have made a mistake in following the rules in my proof that numbers work that way. 
This is true. And at the base level of all reality experience, the rules are simply ones beliefs. One and the same. 

Not saying changing fundamental beliefs are easy. The ones you have about math concepts are as strong and solid as the one you have about your requirement to breath in order to be alive. A yogi can change the belief about breathing in order to be alive, with a lifetime of work on it, same with math concepts. With sufficient attention, care, and focus, one could change them too. It is not that we all should go around changing such beliefs … they are part of our common ground for having similar experiences together. But it is good to know that they too, are only beliefs … it’ helps one ease into and allow the changing of other beliefs that are desirable to change.  

Si says
Seth 2016-07-01 06:04:44 [comment 21025#53823]
i wonder if you notice what you did there.   Now me, i “made” (fixed) the strength of the beliefs (and or rules – can be same thing as you say) relative to what happens that can be shared.  ← i made that fixed and measured what happened relative to that.  You made that relative to yourself … to your own freedom.  To me, a belief gets its strength from how much it can be shared … math for example is the same for everyone (is shred by everyone), is is not subjective, it is no dependent on your belief in it,  it works the same if you follow the same procedure … if you don’t (out of your own freedom) then you simply do not get the same shared points and the coordination with what is happening outside yourself.  ← strange, is it not, how the relativity of our unique insides to each other’s outsides can “explain” our differences in philosophy? surprise
The number of beliefs related to shared experiences are actually very small and a relatively small part of the beliefs that compose ones daily experience. Making “happenings” dependant on shared beliefs is paying attention to only a small part of one’s experience. Things happen and are experienced that are not shared, and things happen and are experienced that are shared. The sharing part is simply an attribute of an experience and a happening, not a determinant of if there was an experience or a happening. One can only focus on things with that aspect (tag) of sharing … but that is a narrow focus. Why be so limiting with the reality experience to say that it is only of value where it is shared?

Seth says
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 06:44:59 [item 21025#53825]
Understanding the reality experience and beliefs aside, I do think “Bozomic Decomposition” is pretty cool! Good show!   
thanks smug.

i am also seeing that it might be used as a lever to tease out this inside/outside me/other individual/group even spirit/material worlds relativity phenomena that i am noticing.  … so the philosophy that we are discussing above plays directly into that leverage.

Si says
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 06:44:59 [item 21025#53825]
Understanding the reality experience and beliefs aside, I do think “Bozomic Decomposition” is pretty cool! Good show!   
Seth 2016-07-01 06:51:26 [comment 21025#53827]
thanks smug.

i am also using it as a lever to tease out this inside/outside me/other individual/group even spirit/material worlds relativity phenomena that i am noticing. 
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 06:53:33 [item 21025#53828]
Okay. That’s a bit of a mouthful to process on only ½ a cup of coffee!
Seth 2016-07-01 06:56:01 [comment 21025#53830]
laughing … it is indeed!   ran right off of my fingers.  i expect it is impossible to grock … and i am pretty sure that even i don’t know what it means … laughing
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 06:59:39 [item 21025#53831]
?

Having experiences and not trying to analyze them. That’s rightful living!  

“The human mind is not meant to figure things out, it is meant to experience in high definition!” ~ Bashar
Seth 2016-07-01 07:23:08 [item 21025#53832]
yes

well most of time i don’t act rationally as if as a result of my thoughts – rather i act and then reflect on it.    and that even goes for what my fingers write here.  in a way, (not sure mark would approve), i do not have “my mind command and my deeds follow” … rather the other way around … i accept what happens and go with that ← usually it is far better than if i had reasoned it in advanced. 
It is “far better” with the one qualifier that the impulse must come from the emotion of excitement. Otherwise, it’s just random following of some other impulse that may or may not lead you anywhere you really want to go.

I don’t know where “my mind command and my deeds follow” came from, but I can easily see that it is responsible for the state of common reality as it is … i.e. perceived to be fucked up. Not that it is really fucked up, it isn’t, but lots of people perceive it to be fucked up in all kinds of ways (hence the unfuck life movement in general) and that perception is clearly a direct result of “my mind command and my deeds follow” instead of “do as thy wilt”. The later being intuitive doing that immediate impulse that is most exciting. That is how we are designed as physical beings to live … we are designed to experience, not get in the way of our own amazing experience by thinking about it or by being a spectator on our own life. We can be spectators from other realms, the physical is for getting in the game and playing!   

Si says
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 06:44:59 [item 21025#53825]
Understanding the reality experience and beliefs aside, I do think “Bozomic Decomposition” is pretty cool! Good show!   
Seth 2016-07-01 06:51:26 [comment 21025#53827]
thanks smug.

i am also using it as a lever to tease out this inside/outside me/other individual/group even spirit/material worlds relativity phenomena that i am noticing. 
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 06:53:33 [item 21025#53828]
Okay. That’s a bit of a mouthful to process on only ½ a cup of coffee!
Seth 2016-07-01 06:56:01 [comment 21025#53830]
laughing … it is indeed!   ran right off of my fingers.  i expect it is impossible to grock … and i am pretty sure that even i don’t know what it means … laughing
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 06:59:39 [item 21025#53831]
?

Having experiences and not trying to analyze them. That’s rightful living!  

“The human mind is not meant to figure things out, it is meant to experience in high definition!” ~ Bashar
Seth 2016-07-01 07:23:08 [item 21025#53832]
yes

well most of time i don’t act rationally as if as a result of my thoughts – rather i act and then reflect on it.    and that even goes for what my fingers write here.  in a way, (not sure mark would approve), i do not have “my mind command and my deeds follow” … rather the other way around … i accept what happens and go with that ← usually it is far better than if i had reasoned it in advanced. 
Seth 2016-07-01 07:38:07 [item 21025#53833]
and when i have it down (and edited) i read it again (and maybe again (and maybe again) ) and watcH how it rings truer and truer.   than i watcH how it shares with others … of course it ususally does not … which is pretty much just the way the cookie crumbels.  
?

Seth says
Seth 2016-07-01 07:55:58 [item 21025#53839]
“my mind command and my deeds follow”
… should have been → 
“the consciousness  command & the body obeys” 

that is from pr or Peter Ralston. 
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 07:59:54 [item 21025#53840]
Okay. That’s a bit different. The first IS what people usually think they should be doing in our society. Peter’s would be correct as long as one understands that consciousness is much more than just physical mind … then it becomes basically the same as “Do as thy wilt” and of course, since the body is in the physical realm, which is only a reflection of our state of total conscious being, the body will always “follow”.  
Seth 2016-07-01 08:51:20 [item 21025#53846]
well in my ontology (beliefs) “consciousness” is quite different than how it is usually talked about in the spiritualized circles of our culture … so it is hard for us to share thoughts about it and have them ring true all around.  then too i do not even distinguish between “physical” and “spiritual” … to me that is an archaic way to represent what is happening here.  … hmmm, so let me try to factor those elements out of what you are telling me.

Sure people believe that they should act conventionally and be good.  They know what they should do according to the memes in the society in which they grew up.  Now i agree that “consciousness” itself is a better controller of deed,  than conventional belief ← especially since belief is always completely relative, fixed to what is inside. 

But that is all so very general.  In practice the change called “time” is not just a  narrow separation of the past from the future.  Rather it is a duration … an echo and a habit.  Habit, at least for me, causes most of what i do on a day to day view.  And then i have this thingey called “plastic habit” and it acting on that, on molding that, is where the impulse of my excitement and personal freedom emerges.  For example my breakfast ceremony this morning was integrated by my thoughts (some of them habitual) about nathan’s thoughts about my thoughts (some of them new) while i moved and  poured the water in the coffee maker, shuffled the dishes out of the washer into their designated places, and assembeled the coffee for dinise and me and my cereal with prunes and milk and carried them into the bedroom shouting “OKAY” so that denise would know it was comming.  Was my consciousness commanding my deeds ?  ← yet i did not have to think about that at all. 
 
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 09:01:54 [item 21025#53848]
Yes. There will always be problems and conundrums when one tries to do away with the spiritual. There is a part of us, the larger part of each of us, that is not directly accessible by the physical senses or the physical mind. Most people call that spirit, but whatever you call it, any total model of experience and happening is incomplete without including it, what it does, and how it communicates to the physical part.

Darwin tried, and created a nice self-consistent story in a box of how things work, but much is not explained, that actually happens, inside Darwin’s box.
Seth 2016-07-01 09:41:18 [item 21025#53853]
well i am in no way trying to “do away” with sprit … any more than i am trying to “do away” with physical ← which incidentally many spiritualized people try to do.   Rather i am trying to “do away” with their distinction.  I think it is archaic, unnecessary, and misleading.

I think you are spot on when you say that “the larger part of each of us” is not accessible via our sensing of things outside of ourselves.  But when you threw in a “physical mind” you drew the distinction that i have “done away” with in my ontology.
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 10:42:22 [item 21025#53854]
What I call the physical mind is the part that processes physical senses. If you agree there are physical senses, and that we cannot observe our higher self with them, then it follows there is a part of our consciousness that processes those … and that would be the physical mind.

Most probably it is the physical computer, neurons, and the effect they have on our total consciousness, that is the physical mind. But that’s only an idea … I didn’t receive that knowledge directly like I do a lot of the knowledge I share here. Another idea is that the physical brain is more like a radio receiver for the rest of the mind/being.
Seth 2016-07-01 11:14:37 [item 21025#53860]
well if you could say all of that without actually using the pervasive distinction then you would be thinking like i do.   for example i would say,  “there are senses which are not sensitive to a higher self with which we interact consciously”. 

this distinctions is very pervasive so that it is almost unavoidable even in the language in which we must talk.  this has happened mostly because people have an aversion to one part of what is happening and other people have an aversion to a different part of what is happening.  it has become political … something to fight over … depending on which view you take, the other side is wrong and you profit immensely and virtuously by being on the right side of the fence.
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 11:20:16 [item 21025#53861]
Sorry, I don’t have those kinds of distinctions. There is physical mind and there is spiritual mind and they are well defined in the way I have spoken of to me, pretty much the traditional division, and both have great value for the part they play. I don’t see any need to fiddle with that simple language just because someone somewhere pushes against one or the other.  
Seth 2016-07-01 11:33:23 [item 21025#53863]
well the political “push against” might not be making the distinction happen,  rather the distinction itself making the “push against” happen … i don’t know … a relative cause/effect thingie it seems.

anyway, I do not look at myself as having a spiritual mind and a physical mind.  I see no good reason to make that distinction … to me it would be unnecessary, and misleading. 

the problem in our language is where i tell things to you, or you tell things to me, and their experiential deep meaning gets scrambled because the language pervasively forces a distinction which is not even happening.  like talking about a characteristic of a person in a way that makes a difference but the characteristic does not make that difference at all … for example:  “You stupid red haired Bozo !”
 
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 13:14:30 [item 21025#53866]
 I am comfortable with the distinction of spiritual and the distinction of physical. Most people I talk to Zach Lee what I mean and I don't have any problems with the terms. 

Now Siri on the other hand thinks exactly is Zach Lee! I'm not sure what her take on spiritual and physical is though! ?
Seth 2016-07-01 13:24:31 [item 21025#53868]
well of course you are comfortable with the distinction … that is how everybody has been thinking lo these many eons.   i am quite odd man out.
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 13:33:22 [item 21025#53870]
I have often use the terms for mine and monkey mind to describe the two.  Perhaps you would prefer those. In any case these two aspects of mind are important because they are the different seats from which our perspective operates. 
i don’t know what you mean

Si says
Seth 2016-07-01 07:55:58 [item 21025#53839]
“my mind command and my deeds follow”
… should have been → 
“the consciousness  command & the body obeys” 

that is from pr or Peter Ralston. 
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 07:59:54 [item 21025#53840]
Okay. That’s a bit different. The first IS what people usually think they should be doing in our society. Peter’s would be correct as long as one understands that consciousness is much more than just physical mind … then it becomes basically the same as “Do as thy wilt” and of course, since the body is in the physical realm, which is only a reflection of our state of total conscious being, the body will always “follow”.  
Seth 2016-07-01 08:51:20 [item 21025#53846]
well in my ontology (beliefs) “consciousness” is quite different than how it is usually talked about in the spiritualized circles of our culture … so it is hard for us to share thoughts about it and have them ring true all around.  then too i do not even distinguish between “physical” and “spiritual” … to me that is an archaic way to represent what is happening here.  … hmmm, so let me try to factor those elements out of what you are telling me.

Sure people believe that they should act conventionally and be good.  They know what they should do according to the memes in the society in which they grew up.  Now i agree that “consciousness” itself is a better controller of deed,  than conventional belief ← especially since belief is always completely relative, fixed to what is inside. 

But that is all so very general.  In practice the change called “time” is not just a  narrow separation of the past from the future.  Rather it is a duration … an echo and a habit.  Habit, at least for me, causes most of what i do on a day to day view.  And then i have this thingey called “plastic habit” and it acting on that, on molding that, is where the impulse of my excitement and personal freedom emerges.  For example my breakfast ceremony this morning was integrated by my thoughts (some of them habitual) about nathan’s thoughts about my thoughts (some of them new) while i moved and  poured the water in the coffee maker, shuffled the dishes out of the washer into their designated places, and assembeled the coffee for dinise and me and my cereal with prunes and milk and carried them into the bedroom shouting “OKAY” so that denise would know it was comming.  Was my consciousness commanding my deeds ?  ← yet i did not have to think about that at all. 
 
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 09:01:54 [item 21025#53848]
Yes. There will always be problems and conundrums when one tries to do away with the spiritual. There is a part of us, the larger part of each of us, that is not directly accessible by the physical senses or the physical mind. Most people call that spirit, but whatever you call it, any total model of experience and happening is incomplete without including it, what it does, and how it communicates to the physical part.

Darwin tried, and created a nice self-consistent story in a box of how things work, but much is not explained, that actually happens, inside Darwin’s box.
Seth 2016-07-01 09:41:18 [item 21025#53853]
well i am in no way trying to “do away” with sprit … any more than i am trying to “do away” with physical ← which incidentally many spiritualized people try to do.   Rather i am trying to “do away” with their distinction.  I think it is archaic, unnecessary, and misleading.

I think you are spot on when you say that “the larger part of each of us” is not accessible via our sensing of things outside of ourselves.  But when you threw in a “physical mind” you drew the distinction that i have “done away” with in my ontology.
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 10:42:22 [item 21025#53854]
What I call the physical mind is the part that processes physical senses. If you agree there are physical senses, and that we cannot observe our higher self with them, then it follows there is a part of our consciousness that processes those … and that would be the physical mind.

Most probably it is the physical computer, neurons, and the effect they have on our total consciousness, that is the physical mind. But that’s only an idea … I didn’t receive that knowledge directly like I do a lot of the knowledge I share here. Another idea is that the physical brain is more like a radio receiver for the rest of the mind/being.
Seth 2016-07-01 11:14:37 [item 21025#53860]
well if you could say all of that without actually using the pervasive distinction then you would be thinking like i do.   for example i would say,  “there are senses which are not sensitive to a higher self with which we interact consciously”. 

this distinctions is very pervasive so that it is almost unavoidable even in the language in which we must talk.  this has happened mostly because people have an aversion to one part of what is happening and other people have an aversion to a different part of what is happening.  it has become political … something to fight over … depending on which view you take, the other side is wrong and you profit immensely and virtuously by being on the right side of the fence.
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 11:20:16 [item 21025#53861]
Sorry, I don’t have those kinds of distinctions. There is physical mind and there is spiritual mind and they are well defined in the way I have spoken of to me, pretty much the traditional division, and both have great value for the part they play. I don’t see any need to fiddle with that simple language just because someone somewhere pushes against one or the other.  
Seth 2016-07-01 11:33:23 [item 21025#53863]
well the political “push against” might not be making the distinction happen,  rather the distinction itself making the “push against” happen … i don’t know … a relative cause/effect thingie it seems.

anyway, I do not look at myself as having a spiritual mind and a physical mind.  I see no good reason to make that distinction … to me it would be unnecessary, and misleading. 

the problem in our language is where i tell things to you, or you tell things to me, and their experiential deep meaning gets scrambled because the language pervasively forces a distinction which is not even happening.  like talking about a characteristic of a person in a way that makes a difference but the characteristic does not make that difference at all … for example:  “You stupid red haired Bozo !”
 
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-01 13:14:30 [item 21025#53866]
 I am comfortable with the distinction of spiritual and the distinction of physical. Most people I talk to Zach Lee what I mean and I don't have any problems with the terms. 

Now Siri on the other hand thinks exactly is Zach Lee! I'm not sure what her take on spiritual and physical is though! ?
Seth 2016-07-01 13:24:31 [item 21025#53868]
well of course you are comfortable with the distinction … that is how everybody has been thinking lo these many eons.   i am quite odd man out.
Seth 2016-07-01 13:30:40 [comment 21025#53869]
laughing the odd thing is that a spiritualist will call me a materialist … and a materialist will call me a spiritualist

surpriselaughing … i quite get hit from the best (and worst) of both worlds
Ok. I'll just call you ICYOR.  Individual creating your own reality   ???

Seth says
well we both are ICYOR in that sense smiley.   mine works for me quite well internally … i expect yours works quite well for you internally …. the only challenge is communication between us.  our language and culture favor your spirit/material divide and distinction.  ← which is one reason i don’t try to push my ontology out there all that very much,  rather i do a lot of translation when i read people who are talking from the other camp. 

Seth says
i can’t seem to edit that last one …. so i will just continue it here
… rather i do a lot of translation when i read people who are talking from the other camp so i can grock their deep meanings where it matters.

Si says

Seth says
Seth 2016-07-06 19:39:43 [item 21025#54078]
another bozo conjecture:   a number is prime regardless of the base of the number system in which it is represented. 

if true, and i am pretty sure it always is, this might indicate that traditional numerology has a irrelevant bias of 10 which Bozomic Decomposition does not. 
Seth 2016-07-07 00:28:05 [item 21025#54080]
… or maybe the more you think about something the stronger your true feeling becomes.  which true feelings do not effect what happens that you can share with others on the other side of your senses.  what happens is that you just start looking headstrong to us.  a good example is I think therefore I am.  Incidentally when was the last time you noticed somebody else being headstrong?

primes are way kewl … fascinating! … lots of  edges in them that we  can share.  sorry, i personally  don’t see so many in just smushing up the 26 numbers of the alphabet to arrive at 0 – 9.  the truth feeling i get from that comes from the way primes work, totally independently from myself and the way i think about them.   mathematicians have thought the same thoughts about primes that i have and noticed the very same things.  that is something that we share. 

story is great … thinking is great …. belief is great … even certainty … don’t leave home without it, i always say … but it does not control everything … not even close …. not even if you are very very good at it … and it certainly does not create all of my experience … rather it just helps create the structure on which i experience myself and sense others.   so sorry, i am not going down that subjective rat hole with you … nothing down that deep inside of you that is for me  … unless, of course, you manifest it out here in a world that we can share.
well yes much of this is about control.   …. or rather who does what.  who’s will is it anyway.  if you make me up with your thoughts,  then what happened to my will ← you just thought it away … either that or were just masturbating ourselves and imagining we are with each other … no true sharing involved.   only when i see you as you, and not a refection of myself, do i get to share you … same from the other way around, of course this is completely symmetrical.   if you control what you sense of others, then you are not getting them, rather you are getting yourself. 


woopse forgot about needing to switch to 3.0 … oh well.

Seth says

Si says
Fortunately the verses are not in such a sorry state as you suggest, and the choices are not binary like that. Fortunately there is a better idea of how things work available to us.   

Seth says

2^2 * 5279

thought 5279 is one of mark’s = Blackmail Anyone ?

i might go with 2^2 as “here it comes again”

so i could interperte the cast as I think therefore I am means “here comes blackmail again”

bear in mind … that this is not a mature system … and it is still in my controle … my subconscious mind as it were you are seeing.  coincidentally i can see how it can fit.   incidentally i never liked this kind of divination … this is real subconscious shit … me i prefer more eyes wide open consciousness. 

Si says
Yep. You are making a huge shift when you go from “this system describes tendencies underlying the numbers upon which features of realty play” to “this system predicts such and such is happening”. I don’t think any system, other than thoughts, predicts happenings.  

Seth says
huh?  i am not doing either here.   for one thing i never said anything about the system predicting any happenings … nor do i think it ever would.  the YiKing does not predict … no mystical system, as far as i know, predicts.  rather it provides some coincidences into your own subconscious mind to interpret.  

then me grocking the spiral supervenience of the number system is quite an independent thing from using fastblogit thought numbers to get a mystical cast into my subconscious mind.  grocking the spiral is just building a structure, a media, a scaffolding.  associating the elements of that structure with things in my conscious mind to get at what is going on in my subconscious mind is just a game that i am playing.  i don’t think a cast  ever predicts any happening that we could ever share.  rather if it is anything at all, it is just a inquiry into some subconscious vibration.

Seth says
well that is nice to know.   and what *is* that “better idea” ??

Si says
You said “so i could interperte the cast as I think therefore I am means “here comes blackmail again””.

That is a direct prediction of a happening, not tendencies, that’s happening and even if blackmail is not well defined it is still predicting happening.

Seth says
oh, ok i can see where you could interpert my interpertation like that.   but you are talking mark’s title way to literally.  i would assign 5279 to just “blackmail” … or  more generally “force from other using my weakness against myself”  in other words somebody trying to convince me to think in a way using my own weakness as a lever against myself.    on its surface that actually is how  your “I think therefore I am” hit my subconscious mind.   so yes for me the cast fits.  your subconscious mind will interpret that vibration (inside of me) quite differently.  which is why i would never say that to you consciously and intentionally … and also why i actually dislike this kind of divination … even when it fits.   but as we both know, this is just a game … no actual consequences expected …. but who knows, maybe it will disclose something real between us that we can actually both share. 

Si says

Seth says

See Also

  1. Thought Some dynamics of life with 45 viewings related by tag "games".
  2. Thought BozomicFactoring with 41 viewings related by tag "BozomicDecomposition".
  3. Thought Sense & Perception with 7 viewings related by tag "games".
  4. Thought Waiting for fireworks at Ruston Freedom Celebration with a new "live camera" with 3 viewings related by tag "bozomic decomposition".
  5. Thought Superstition vs Proof with 3 viewings related by tag "bozomic decomposition".
  6. Thought about: Google Image Labeler with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  7. Thought Taking a Shit on Pi Day with 0 viewings related by tag "numerology".
  8. Thought ming vs beads vs tarot with 0 viewings related by tag "mysticism".
  9. Thought Science vs Mysticism with 0 viewings related by tag "mysticism".
  10. Thought Thought this Applicable comment got lost so repeated with 0 viewings related by tag "numerology".
  11. Thought about: Hi-res version of Falling Sand Java Game with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  12. Thought Bozo's Last Number Theorum with 0 viewings related by tag "prime".
  13. Thought What to do with the lower thought numbers? with 0 viewings related by tag "BozomicDecomposition".
  14. Thought Numerology of Seth Inspired by item 14621 with 0 viewings related by tag "numerology".
  15. Thought Now this is where the women get jealous with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  16. Thought Prototype of Portable Braille Sudoku with Magnetic Tokens with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  17. Thought Coincidence with 0 viewings related by tag "bozomic decomposition".
  18. Thought Prototype of Portable Braille Sudoku with Magnetic Tokens with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  19. Thought Lemurs with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  20. Thought I sync too ! with 0 viewings related by tag "bozomic decomposition".
  21. Thought the tagging game with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  22. Thought Examples of Bozomic Decomposition with 0 viewings related by tag "bozomic decomposition".
  23. Thought Discussion of ... with 0 viewings related by tag "bozomic decomposition".
  24. Thought The structure of a media with 0 viewings related by tag "bozomic decomposition".
  25. Thought macca's cartoon with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  26. Thought about: Second Life: Basic Overview with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  27. Thought about: Lace - A simple, free Ajax communications engine with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  28. Thought Prototype of a Braille Portable Sudoku Game Using Velcro with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  29. Thought about: Studio Cypher with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  30. Thought about: MMORPG.COM - Your Headquarters for Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games! with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  31. Thought Alternatives to Blogging Crap with 0 viewings related by tag "games".