Sense & Perception

About: for example: did you notice Pokemon Go?


So now if you see a cluster of unrelated people, and more than the normal number of them are  focused on their cell phones,  chances are they are looking for Pokemon. 

I recognized this  cluster of unusual cell phone activity around the  end of the bridge over the Cedar, and verified with the man center background, that there were pokemon about. ← a firsts for me. 

← more evidence coming into my senses that proves this thing is happening outside myself, yet i experience it.  i am not responsible for creating these happenings.

Tags

  1. firsts
  2. games
  3. pokemon go
  4. sensing
  5. perception
  6. pokemon

Comments


Seth says
this thought was reported in the news.   What “it” do you ask about working?

Mark de LA says
Mark de LA 2016-07-24 09:38:30 [item 21162#54619]
does it work from the news
The “it” was just me testing to see where my attempt to edit from the news landed.  Apparently I did something which left an actual residue on your item .  You can delete the pile. smug In some cases it does something which lands in N’s Elephant shitting sand box.

Seth says
yeah personally i had a similar experience.  i downloaded the app and actually caught a Pokemon in the mall with the free ball.   i probably will never play the game again … not really my thing.

the amazement here surprise is how fast this game has spread.  this thought records some evidence of that.   i was comming from Renton River days and noticed a group of unrelated people all with their cell phones out.  I said to denise, i bet they are looking for Pokemons … then i asked the man shown in the picture if he was looking for Pokemons, and he acknowledged that he was.  When i notice something new happening in humanity, it interests me … whether i intend to get involved in it or not.   This is also an example of something that is happening in my experience, outside myself,  which i did not create there myself, and for which i am not responsible.  I even snapped a picture of it laugh.

You might not believe me if i described how long i thought about how to represent this here.  I’m not sure that i have even done it.   Thanks in any case for your interaction.
 

Seth says
i dont’t think so, especially since he doesn’t have a smart phone.  but it is on my buck list to talk to him about the game … i too want to know how it has effected his consciousness.

Seth says
i guess you mean click on the news and then edit or respond where you end up.   in any case you need to be totally aware of which gadget you click on … otherwise you will be writing in a context which is not what you expect.  nathan already said that he will reposition the edit box so that it actually appears where the writing should end up.   wait for it … wait for it ...

Seth says
ok jason is quite aware of the game … even aspects of it that are quite beyond my knowledge.  there is even a poke stop right outside where he works.   too bad, or too good, that he can’t play it himself, not having an adequate phone or even a data plan.  however it is clear that he would if he could wink

Si says
Mark de LA 2016-07-24 10:13:43 [item 21162#54627]
FYI, I chased Pokemon a couple of days before this – thought it an interesting app/game which I can’t play & tabled my interest. The news has been full of it even & including Drudge.
Mark de LA 2016-07-24 10:40:37 [item 21162#54633]
Does Jason play?
Why do you say it's happening instead outside yourself? There's no evidence of that whatsoever. In fact from my point of view it is definitely happening inside you. My only experience of it is you reporting.

Seth says
I went to Olympia Sunday and found that city infected as well surprise.

so  i predict that if you spend some time walking or driving in the downtown streets or malls or parks of a sizeable city and look with your eyes and ears at what some people are doing with their smart phones,

← or look for signs,

← or look for bands of people focused on their smart phones, and maybe ask them what they are doing,

then you may conclude  that this phenomena is outside of your version of me … and that it is even outside of yourself coming inside into your experience through you senses.  
You may, (or may not) want to feel that you are responsible for it.

If you do feel responsible for it,  could you make it stop, so that even i (or at least your version of me) will not need to experience it again? laugh

Seth says
well, imho, LOA works and so do multiverses … er, but they work in the the inside spiritual world.   And as just about every Guru has told us,  the inside spiritual world works differently than the outside world that matches with others. 

Seth says
GW said things work quite differently in the spiritual world … some places he said they work opposite ... Steiner mentioned profound differences too.  Certainly the inside world, and the outside world make up one world together.  It would be hard for people to deny that … but some people deny (or deperciate) one in favor of the other.  Not me, i like them both smug … and i trip on the channel between them wink.

Seth says
well the words “inside” and “outside” seem to be the best words i can choose to distinguish in my language between these two different realms … these words allow me to write sentences that ring true to me without a lot of baggage.  if you want to hear what i am saying, you will need to use them.   otherwise, please go away and don’t obstruct my words.

incidentally mark, if you use 3.0 the sequence of our transactions will be recorded more accurately and it will be easier to follow what we said to each other later on.

Seth says
well i listened the the ~ 3 minute youtube of TR’s “I Am Not Your Guru” promo and did not hear him use inside/outside at all.   so if you want to communicate this distinction to me you will need to find his exact words.

What a person believes exists is her ontology … words are used to describe or point it out to others and even internally to herself.  To say “ontology is a grock” means just about the same to me as when i say “what a person believes exists is her ontology” … just different words pointing to the same thing. 

We certainly can talk about what is called “consciousness” sending sentences of  words between us … but when we do, we have to be very careful that the words  point to the same things in both of us … else there will be confusion.

Mark de LA says
Mark de LA 2016-07-25 07:49:49 [item 21162#54642]
Well you touched & will continue to feel the challenge that LOA presents in manifesting & the story it tells about why things happen. The story now has the intricacies of multiverses where each vibe center is it’s own singularity.  Blend in a little more quantum physics language & you can perhaps become God.
Mark de LA 2016-07-25 08:07:47 [item 21162#54644]
Apparently every guru you listen to.  GW says it is one integrated whole, but like an iceberg you can’t “see” all of it at once.  Multiverses are created because you can’t see all the iceberg at once & so you can make up shit about what is underneath the water. laughing
Mark de LA 2016-07-25 08:28:11 [item 21162#54647]
Maybe your love of the prepositions inside & outside is making you giddy. ponderingcool
Some things people just don’t want to look at.  There is a vortex of that going on these days. You will be glad to know that Tony Robbins uses that inside/outside at the intro to his Netflix “I Am Not Your Guru” promo.  I think he uses it correctly – not extending it to ontology.  But you carry it into ontology which is peculiar. Ontology is a grok not just a story or a pile of words. It involves consciousness not all of which can be expressed in language. Yoga/Zen consciousness stuff like Nirvana, Satori, Ekagrata etc exist only in the domains of language & consciousness as place holders – direct experience is needed. One can find the path (Tao) or not with external coaching. Your choice! XOR you can make up your own story & feel good about it & stop there with a pile of words.
See the video prompt on http://www.fastblogit.com/item/21143 smug where I first mentioned the video in the about line.
BTW, I choose the language of PR where beliefs are not just a dime a dozen to choose & hold as willy-nilly as a gnat in a wind – as many as there are egos.

Mark de LA says
More good advertizement for Pokemon GO
http://www.geekwire.com/2016/watch-throngs-pokemon-go-fanatics-take-city-park/ laughing

Seth says
thanks thumbs up, that is an excellent example of what one should look for with their eyes to see what is happening.  that one is a big even and hard to ignore … there are many more which takes some skill in noticing.

Seth says
Well i do not “play my experience thought my senese” and my senses do not show me a “mirror” of what is inside me. That description in no way matches my experience of sensing what is outside me. 

I know that what you call a  “reality mirror” matches your experience,  and it is consistent with much that you have told me about your philosophy. 

Apparently we have different beliefs … or are running on different gestalts of our experience and our senses … or have entirely ontologies … or think different things exist.  ← 4 different ways to say roughly the same thing.

Si says
 We do have different beliefs and that does determine our own experiences. You wouldn't know the difference between playing parts of your experience through your senses and any other way that information comes in to your senses. It would all be the same experience. Your experience is that you receive information thruogh your senses. You have no idea how that information gets into your senses. Any system would produce the same results and you would not know the difference. So yes, you are talking about what you believe. Not about what you perceive  or how you perceive it or what it means.

Seth says
Well your right about me not knowing what “playing parts of my experience through my senses” would feel like … that doesn’t seem to describe anything that i would intentionally do.  I have however experienced filtering my senses according to my experience.  I do that all the time.  Not only that,  but i notice other people doing filtering too … to lesser and greater degrees, … there are extreme cases.    It is, in fact, a prevalent behavior and quite part of the nature of perception itself.  

One can train oneself to filter more and more …

… and one can train oneself to filter less and less.   Steiner actually talks about this when he is taking about practical training in thought.  Or as Marcus Aurelius famously said "Of each particular thing, ask: 'What is it in itself, in its own construction?'” … the point being to eliminate as much of yourself from your filter so that you can see it’s nature apart from your own nature.  For the thing does live, if it is not you,  quite without your doing. 

Me, i like to do both … i like to choose which to use in this situation or that.   But you are wrong about “It would all be the same experience” whichever way it is done.  I can tell the difference … they feel quite different.  In fact when i go deep inside myself into my spirit, where it is only me, and i recognize something animating itself without my doing … without my filtering it … i get surprised … i say to myself, “where the fuck did that come from?” …. then i think, i have found something quite special and even apart myself, perhaps from another. 

Mark de LA says
Any clarity increase or decrease yet?

Si says
 I  don't think anyone is ever suggested you would experience playing something through your experience senses.  That would be experiencing your experience as you are creating, and perhaps yogis can do that. But it is not part of the normal human experience.   Knowing that you are playing the part of your experience through your senses is just a simple way to look at things so that you can get more useful results. It is a simple way to disconnect from the universe model so that you are no longer trapped in all the inconsistencies and paradoxes it contained.

Seth says
well i can notice myself doing stuff like that, as i honestly told you above, … but i don’t call myself a yougi for doing it, because i can notice lots of other people noticing it too.   i also notice others filtering out much that exists …. that is easy to notice too … no big training or skill involved …  in extreme cases it looks like a bull running rampant in a china shop.   just like now, you are filtering out the essence of what i am saying to you … did you think i did not notice?

Seth says
incidentally,  no “inconsistencies and paradoxes” actually exist !!  … all of those would be just in your mind. 

Mark de LA says

Seth says
there are many aspects of your multiverse model which i too experience … and yes that model  does explain much of the discord that we experience.  we have gone over several of those aspects elsewhere … maybe somday we can list all of them.

But you are repeating your perpetual theme without hearing what i am telling you.   “It's your experience and only you are creating it” assumes that there is no other multiverse which touches yours … it assumes that your “sense mirror” is completely optic …. your filter is 100%.    I have been shouting to you  that does not happen  in my experience.

We both already agree that experiencing a universe that is the same and strongly identical for everyone is not what happens.  But that does not imply to me that my filter is 100% … like apparently it does in your mind. 

Mark de LA says
I doubt people who claim they experience a whole Universe or all of any one part of one. They get lost in their imagination – like watching a movie – & confuse which is which. Fun though, go to it! thumbs up

Mark de LA says
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-25 13:39:05 [item 21162#54666]
There is no inside and outside. Everything is spirit. That is why I prefer experience and happening. Experience is all that you have awareness of. It is YOUR entire reality. Happening is the part of your experience that you play through your senses (the reality mirror etc etc).
Enjoy your personal jibberish – Fun though, go for it! thumbs up Good feeling that certitude stuffy.

Seth says
well i don’t know for sure about my experience changing were i to believe that  “I create 100% of my own experience”, since i have never believe that laugh …  i find it quite counterfactual.    but i can honestly tell you that i notice other people’s behavior changing when they claim they believe it … it is quite noticeable even from their outside.  

And strangely enough (perhaps to you),  all the “more things” that you claim i will be able to do,  i can do without that belief.  That you believe you need that belief, to do those things, seems to me to be  just beauty inside your mind … a mere rationalization for assuming the belief itself.

Si says
Wow! It is truly mind blowing reading the un-deleted truth in the comments of this thought. So much of the real content, ideas, and interactions were changed by those who deleted things.

I stand by what I say. I believe it and live it with confidence. I don’t need to mangle things as this thought was mangled by ill winds. rose

Si says
p.s. Some of the ill winds were human … but others were simply that 2.0 archives old threads and that can remove the head from a cluster of 3.0 comments. No foul wind there, just ill wind.

Seth says
 pondering … apparently you do not believe that:

 if “others affect each other”  AND
if we SENSE that affect, 
then we do NOT create our “ENTIRE experience”.  

And yes i have read and reread your explanation of your model of what is happening.  It does not square with the belief above which i cannot deny.

Si says
I am not sure what you mean here, at least I don’t see a conflict. I believe we sense others. I believe that what we sense of others is filtered by our state of being (current thoughts, attitude, vibration, beliefs, etc). There are many things about others experiences, and many versions of others experiences, that we can sense. We end up only sensing one (in our normal human state of awareness). What we end up sensing is what is included in our experience. We have control over our state of being through our thoughts for state of being originates from thoughts. Therefore we have control over what we sense if we choose our thoughts accordingly to affect our state of being. It all ends up being our experience, our entire experience. Thus we create our entire experience with our thoughts and in that experience we sense and are affected by others.

Where is the conflict in belief you suggest? 

Si says
… and it is good I made the deleted comments reappear because it is showing what can be improved upon and how nice it is to have a record of changes. A positive evolution.  

Seth says
Okay i’ll think that train but will cross out that which does not work over here and explain the distinction below.
I believe we sense others.  I believe that what we sense of other is filtered by our state of being (thoughts, attitude, vibration, beliefs, intentions, etc).  There are many things about others experience and many versions of others experiences  (1) that we can sense.  We end up only sensing one (in our normal human state of awareness) (2).  What we end up sensing is what is included in our experience.  We have control over our state of being through our thoughts for state of being originates from thoughts (3).  Therefore (4) we have control over what we sense IF we choose our thoughts accordingly to affect our state of being.  It all ends up being our (5) experience, our entire experience. Thus we create our entire experience with our thoughts and in that experience we sense and are affected by others.

(1) We don’t sense others experiences.  Their experiences are inside them where we cannot see.  Rather what we sense are other’s outsides, (and/or their deeds), filtered as you say by our state of being. 

(2) We end up sensing that which we did not filter out.

(3) My state of being is affected by my spirit and consciousness, my thoughts, my emotions, my deeds, how blood is circulating in my head, by what i just ate, my habits, my anticipations, and what i am sensing … in a beautifully amazing feedback loop.  I do not control my state of being exclusively by thinking.

(4) Your conclusion depends on thinking completely controlling what we sense.  But it does not … at least not in my case.  If you completely control the sensing filter (by whatever means), then you have shut off the outside world ENTIRELY …your ego barrier is COMPLETE …  and then, yes, as you keep saying, you are then entirely in control of your own experience.

(5) You should speak for yourself here … as you should be able to hear  that does not work for me.  But don’t get me wrong, it sounds great for you … makes a great leader … a strategy of changing the world to conform to your thoughts.  Hopefully they will be amazing ones.

For me, it would be tone deaf to the splendor that is already not me. 

Si says
Pretty close. But mostly you have cause and effect backwards, mainly so that it fits a universe model, which is the way you are used to thinking about things. For instance, circulation of your blood is a circumstance. It does not affect your state of being, but is set up by your state of being. That is why changing your thoughts does affect your circulation. Have you ever just “thought” about a pretty girl and had your circulation change?  

Your state of being is controlled exclusively by thinking, but most all the thoughts are outside your awareness and part of the narrowing down to the universe model is pushing even more thoughts out of your awareness. For instance, the thoughts that set up your state of health … most of those happen outside your consciousness awareness. Being human, being physical, is mostly a process of forgetting and narrowing awareness until your left with the thoughts that are directly stimulated by your senses, and even those are further narrowed down. You are not aware of all of what your senses tell you all the time, but only a tiny part of it, same with your thoughts. And then through meditation and other techniques you can expand your experience to include things outside your senses. Even dreams are like that.

And lastly, there are only experiences. No one can prove anything else. Anyone can create theories about what is there beyond one’s experience, but no one can prove it. All one knows is what they experience. Why invent something beyond your experience and maintain a whole structure of thought that pretends it exists? Oh yea, it’s needed to do that to maintain belief in a universe.  Or, you could just go with what you really know, your experience, and enjoy how your thoughts create it and enjoy including aspects of others experiences … those are all things you can have directly and don’t have to maintain with imagination about a universe and are satisfying exactly the same with no loss of experience … because it IS experience.   

You don’t loose anything with the understanding that there are only experiences. You still have all the same experiences. Nothing is gone that you had before that realization. What you gain by realizing there are only experiences is richer experiences! When you realize that circumstances are born out of your state of being and not some big outside universe, then you can organize your circumstances more to your liking. They can be richer and more full of what you like. The experiences (your reality) will be the same, if you want it to be, but the range of your experiences and your ability or order and organize them can be much wider, if you let it be by not pretending that circumstances are created by an outside universe. You can even have pink elephants, and touch them and ride them and even share them with others, if that is what you want in your circumstances. There are no limits to what you can experience because your experience is all … you create the limits with your beliefs and thoughts.

Seth says
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-28 04:44:11 [item 21162#54772]
Right now you have a really tight thought-belief-experience loop going on. Something like "there is a universe out there. things happen in it. I detect those things. I think about them. I do things and it changes the universe. and around it goes".

All you have to do to get out of that loop is soften your belief, even a little, and into your experience will flood many things that were not there before. Drugs do that for you, but you can do it without drugs too. Many people do many things that tap into the wider range of experience possible outside the loop. Drugs are so wide spread and popular in this time because people of all ages and types realize there is more at an intuitive level and desire to access it ... but don't know how to get out of the thought loop. Drugs do it, but not in a reliable way. They just kind of throw you out of the loop in uncontrolled ways and when the drug wears off your beliefs are mostly the same so your stuck back in the loop again. If you realize that drugs are showing you more of the aspects of your experience, then you can use that knowledge to soften your beliefs and learn to open up the loop the same way on your own. Or, you can also just go for the beliefs directly, soften them, and watch your experience expand as you do.

Or, you can keep your beliefs about a universe and stay in the tight thought-belief-experience loop. That is perfectly okay, there is no right and wrong ... but more is possible for those who want it and in these times, many do! rose
I am quite aware of experiences “outside the loop of sensing what is not me” … i call them deep,  spiritual, and quite personal just to me … yours are in fact in another verse … in a context to which i have no access.  I tell you that because you talk as if i didn’t know anything about it.

I am part of many verses, many contexts (as i call it) … some of them are very personal just to me (as above) …and in those, like you talk, it is all just me.   But in most contexts (verses),  i am only a part.  In those contexts  there is a barrier (a membrane), perhaps partially created by my beliefs which separates what i can honestly call me from that which is not me.  For example when i believe i am American, then that belief and even geography and legality does separate me from Iranian or Chinese or German.  My own personal ego is just one such membrane … perhaps the most important one to me (or perhaps not).   In any case it separates what is inside my being, from that which is outside my being and of which i am just a part. 

That is a pretty general statement but i think it is even comparable with your model.  Except in your model you keep believing that the contexts (the verses) in which you are only  a part don’t exist.   Sorry Nathan, that is just your thingey … homey don’t play that game. 

Seth says
sorry about that i was in 2.0 … oh well laugh

Si says
“Except in your model you keep believing that the contexts (the verses) in which you are only  a part don’t exist.”

The experiences exist, why is that not enough? Why do you want something to exist that is not a direct aspect of your awareness?

Si says

Seth says
because i SENSE otherness by NOT filtering out everything that is not just me. 

Si says
That is a confusing statement, but I am not sure I don't agree with it.

You sense otherness. Otherness is not you. I agree. You are you and your entire experience is yours. Others are them and their entire experience is theirs. We have the ability to sense the experience of others and include that in our own.

What is different in how you say it?
 

Seth says
i am not aware of any comments that got delete here on my thought.  All of the red comments that i scanned were created by the 2.0 protools.  Which one did you find that was managed by what you call “the ill wills of a human” ??

Si says
Who knows? The verses are always in motion and changing relative to each other. Even more so because I allow them to and honor it as a valuable aspect. Often the next day things look entirely different. What is important is what can be done next and that is much clearer from this experience, in all it’s variations … and that is where I prefer to spend my time.  

Seth says
well its not all that different, tiz true.  smug

But as in my detailed thinking of your thought above,  people do not sense the experience of others … because others experience is private and not accessible outside the person themselves.  (← which imho is a very important matter to include in any model).   My experience is mine, i guess i own it wink… same for anybody else.   We have the ability to sense the effect of others … er, at least that part which we don’t filter away …. and, yes, include that in our experience. 

Seth says

Si says
I have no knowledge that any aspect of others experiences are private. We have words like “empathy” and “heart felt” in our language which are there because people are sensing all different kinds of experiences of others all the time. When I crashed the motorcycle 2 months ago, Natalie knew it happened long before I nursed it, and my bloody self, home.

We each choose, through our beliefs, and through our desires for the kind of experience we have, which aspects of others experiences we allow ourselves to sense. That appears to be how things are. Even the government has a think tank that does remote viewing to gain military information. It has been going since the 60’s. It keeps going because it works … because some people allow that information to come across.

I believe that ALL of any others experience is available to everyone … and that it is agreements and beliefs that determine what we allow across.

Seth says
it just dawned on me that this turning 2.0 deletions red will make all of us quite more aware of what we are doing.  and yes, might just clarify to mark what the big difference is and why he should start using 3.0 exclusively at least for contributing to dialog.  it will also make it painfully clear to all when we are trying to mix 2.0 and 3.0 in the same thread.

Si says

Si says
Do you believe in the Akashic records? They supposedly contain records of all experience, inside and outside (as you call it). Not only of all the verses of everyone, but all variations as well.

Even Steiner talks about the Akashic records and has a lecture on how to access them … and his treatment of the subject is very similar to mine … a direct sensing of information of the experience of otherness, not going to some library and reading about it.  

Si says
The barriers / membranes you talk about above I would say are you coming into direct experience of the barriers created by your own beliefs, habits, and agreements. You are sensing those directly in those moments of awareness and how you describe your experience of them is very much how I experience beliefs when I identify them and set up to change them.

Seth says

Well what the words actually point to is very important here … we should not talk ambiguously.   Only I can experience my experiences … how they feel to me … what i think about them.  For example here is a representation of me having a very intense experience … which is why i took the selfie.  But now even i cannot tell much at all by my demeanor shown in the picture and from that i certainly cannot reproduce it.  Nor could anyone watching me there standing on my farm have had any true inkling of what it felt like inside of me. 

Oh sure, there are always external effects, micro expressions,  and tells … external effects that another can pick up on.  And then there is empathy which can simulate much and fill in blanks.  For example, I swear to you that i can walk in the mall, and look at people, and think i know at least the texture of their internal experiences.  But all of that  is internal to me …it is in them …  is what i create or simulate … and does not give me access to their internal qualia,  and may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with what they are actually feeling inside. 
And i am not forgetting about psychic sensing … for example what Natalie felt.  Things like that occur to me too. I know when it comes to me that it is not from my 5 senses.  It comes into me from whence i cannot explain … yet i know that it is not from inside of me.  But that does not change anything … it is just another sense channel that i filter.   In normal life it happens infrequently.    In every day life i must assume that what another is experiencing is not accessible to me … especially so if i can only read what they write.

Si says
Yes. I agree with all of that. I would simply add that people come to earth to have a particular range of experiences and as such, during the process of physical incarnation (9+ months) get a download of the basic beliefs and agreements that create the texture of what we normally experience of otherness and others experience … but that it is all a kind of programming over reality … reality itself has no limits on what can be known about the experience of another and some people, and others sometimes, transcend the basic programming in many different ways. Some people do directly know what someone else is experiencing. Psychics that the police use to solve crimes can relate the exact internal experience of a rape victim for instance, and later it is verified by the victim’s own telling of the story and their internal experience of it.

Seth says
i believe that vibrations … changes in and of whatever medium … never completely disappear … then just get fainter and fainter and less and less distinguishable from the other changes with which they merge.

… like a expert Indian tracker the footprints can be followed.

Si says

Si says
“i believe that vibrations … changes in and of whatever medium … never completely disappear … then just get fainter and fainter and less and less distinguishable from the other changes with which they merge.”

Yes! And that time itself is simply another belief structure for which the natural progression is for vibrations to get diluted, just like ripples in a pond … but that time is only an illusion and all reality, all experiences, are actually happening in the same moment and with the right beliefs and perspective, one can access any vibration in it’s fullest moment.

Seth says

Seth says
that hits me as just your thought … just a story that you are telling … of which i have heard many in this naked city of my life.

Si says
How did you create [comment 21162#54794] as a subcomment of something that was already a subcomment? The database structured allows that, and in fact likes are exactly that, but the gadget structure was set up to prevent that. How did you do it?

Seth says
well if time is an illusion (and yes it certainly is a gestalt … filled in by myself), then so is change itself … for without any change there would be no time against which to measure it.   But i do not live in any context that does not change … (though i can imagine such) … so you talk of not time meets deaf ears over here.

Seth says

i thought i just hit the “reply to this thread” gadget … as i did here again.

Si says
There should not be a reply to thread gadget on subcomments. I have none in my verse. Your verse differs from mine! LOL wink

Seth says
No that is not what i said.   I said i have never experienced living in a context that does not change.   It is the change which is not an illusion … it is the change that i  experience.  Time is just a way to measure change external to myself. 

Seth says
well after all, this whole thought is owned by me … i should have special prividlidges in it.   grin

Si says
Bashar says that change is the experience of our awareness shifting from one static frame of experience to another and that normally we do that in tiny increments and that is why change is a gradual process but that it is possible to shift our awareness to any other static frame next and in fact that is how starship propulsion works (we would call it wormholes in our language).

In this I have only had a few experiences of my own. Dawn, my ex, however had many experiences where she experienced massive change in brief moments ... especially while driving. Sometimes she would be in one city at one time and in another city 100's of miles away and the clock only showed a few minutes difference, while she was truck driving.

Si says
Some yes, but no one should be seeing a gadget to add a sub thread to an existing thread. That was not the FB model we were creating here … though later on I did have plans to explore that possibility as other things settled out more. We have enough trouble between 2.0 and 3.0 already without including adventures in that alternate dimension!  

Seth says
Yep i have heard Bashar’s story … he is good at telling it convincingly.   I too have experienced massive shifts in context in the bat of an eye … but that does not indicate to me that there is some context which never changes in which i am navigating my awareness.  To me that is just a story.  ← not one which i  like.  I do so love change heart … if that is my box … then i live in it with glee!

Si says

Seth says
yes

yep I do not experience external objective time.  rather I experience moments changing.  

Yet  if i want to meet someone else in the farm down the street,  i had better consult my objective clock so that i might match or agreement.  

Seth says
yes i definitely agree.   “No sub trains” is a great way to prevent the noxious branching lateraly, which me thinks is almost always just a confusion. 

It might help though if you would separate trains a bit more from each other … trust me, that will make this train stucture pop out better to others.   I would complain to Facebook too, but it would do me no good.  They need better separation of trains too. 

Mark de LA says
Mark de LA 2016-07-28 07:44:24 [item 21162#54806]
One may be confused about context changing or not changing. I submit that context (one such is objective reality) may be shifted around by an individual to other contexts within which a human holds & interprets his experience but the context is not likely to change. Unless I am staring at a clock or counter I experience change as just nodes along the course of life – often matching them against those of my parents & friends & people whose lives I have details about.  The idea of time as a digital micro unit of another dimension gets thin in the context of NOW. NOW is more node-like.
The ancients used celestial moments like “the Harvest Moon” , sunrise, sunset etc. In a digital world I guess we need to be machines of digital moments.

Mark de LA says
TiggerAndPoo 2016-07-28 07:29:53 [item 21162#54798]
So you say you understand that time is an illusion, but you don't experience that and so you are deaf to it. Okay, that is a choice. I can close the blinds in my house and say that I understand there is a sun, but I don't experience it, I am deaf to it.

What do you get by living in such a box?
I think Tony Robbins does a much more enjoyable job of itcoolthumbs up “I am not your Guru” – Netflix.

Si says

Si says
Enjoyable things often don’t expand you out of your box, they simply allow you to validate it more fully. This is the reason we create disharmony and the universe model to support disharmony … it expands us beyond the barriers we have become comfortable with.  

Seth says
seems to me that there is almost a fight … in the sense that water fights stone … between what could be refered to as objective time (or reality), and subjective time (or moments).   so that if a person sides with deep subjective and spirtual,  then then will almost deny the existance of the other …. alternatively if somone sides with objective relaity, then will tend to deny (or ignore) the more spiritual moments.  me, i dont side with water or stone … i love heart them both in my life smug.

Seth says
please, if you respond to this thread, then do so in 3.0.

Si says

Si says
All is spirit. All objective things, even time, are simply patterns in the ocean of spirit. Siding is not necessary … but was created as an idea to support the universe model … so that we could forget spirit for a time.

Seth says
yes, definitely Nathan … you obviously side with WATER … or in your case maybe AIR … or maybe even fire ...   we hear your stance loud and clear.  You do not choose the Earth, stone, and the restriction and lack of freedom that it entails.

Seth says
incidentally, do you remember that the last time you said, “all is spirit” … i said that was the same thing as saying that “all is physical” ?   hmmm … maybe i can look us that thought …

Si says
There is a difference between siding and choosing a model that does not require sides, but is inclusive and contains. The sides in all of this are only because things are being seen as separate, instead of one inside the other. That is why I choose LOA, it does not create sides, it describes how things hair out into the more specific from the one general principal that all is vibration and like vibration attracts like. That one simple idea ends up describing every process and relationship when you understand how to see it.  

Seth says

incidentally, did you know that i can no longer edit some of my comments here ?

Si says
I remember it and remember not responding specifically but thinking that it then removes the way to talk about the inner container we usually use the word physical for. That inner container still needs a name. :) 

Seth says
well yes i tend to agree, it needs of a name.  i guess you may have noticed that i have been toying at least with a term for it.  i call it “what happens which we share” … so it is the matches, the synchronizations,  between humans … those happining in which their experiences touch.   using that we can say everything that needs saying between us and not use the name “physical” with all of its negative augs which those who choose water and air seem to avoid. 

Si says

Seth says

Mark de LA says
Maybe it is a rock-paper-scissors thingy pondering put that into your model.

Si says
Huh?

Seth says
well certainly the quatrain, “Fire, Air, Water, and Earth” is one of the first “spiritual associations” that we learn.   We learn how those symbolize the textures of radically different spirits in our experience … and we recognize patterns because of those associations. 

That “those  associations are entwined with GW’s work, especially the cube” ← is certainly something of which Mark is aware.   So why he would joke about it in this context is quite funny peculiar … at least to me.

Woopse … maybe it wasn't a joke … rock=Earth … paper=air … sizzors=fire …. so maybe it is the same association … only RGB, rather than CYMK laugh … shucks i missed that the first time i read it, Mark.

Si says
Well, remember I am a triple gemini (sun, moon, and rising) and that’s ALL air. I am also a Tigger, which is wood. So basically, your pretty much right!  

Seth says

Mark de LA says
The way you munge them around is like using a hammer to play a violin – yeah maybe you can finally hear the “sound of one hand clapping” or at lease some noise  & maybe you are just missing the point 
……… & the ART. crying – they are the 4 fundamental states of stuff (materiality) 

Seth says
and me, i am very much into water.   i think Scorpio corresponds there too.  Mark is very much associated to  Earth … the rock or rock papper sizzors.   patterns do get a bit unclear  when you see the same pattern through a  2 pixel,  3 pixel, 4 pixels … or a 12 pixel grid.

Si says
Eh. The pattern in front of you is all you really need. It’s your experience in this moment and our brains are better equipped to experience than to organize and figure things out. There are plenty of faeries in the multiverse doing all that organizing and arranging to match up our current thoughts and desires with our current experience … so that the pattern in front of you is exactly what you were looking for!

Seth says
strange … while it is true that materiality can be seen in those four states … me thinks they inform that which is in no way material as well.

… but no Mark, i do not miss the Art of it … how could you know me at all and expect such a thing?

Seth says

Seth says
incidentally, Nathan, recognizing patterns is what we humans do … nobody should be ashamed of that.  an even higher art is to recognize that the pattern itself is just another map of the territory ← that is a harder, meta, pattern to see.  in some contexts within our culture that is called “reifying the model” … and it is frowned upon indeed.  but i think we all do it to some degree or another.   One thing i do to jump out of the map is to look for particular examples of a pattern that i see.  It helps me keep my thinking feet on the ground.

Mark de LA says
Well the metamorphosis extant at the beginning of the Earth as chronicled by RS & others (GW) is more complicated than a big bang or materiality. The four elements are themselves the forms (or even before forms came into being) of the Earth before our current state – see spirits of form etc Tai Shu – Book K. etc. When you munge all of that into abstract intellectualism the Art fades into Andy Warhol like distortions – for me anyway.crying

Seth says
well seeing the four elements as forms is great thumbs up … spirits to be fulfilled … to be unfolded into  … to be expressed into smug ← i like that.

now whereas i can sense the explosion … (er, how could i not) … i wasn't around for the bang… sorry charlie, not part of my experience … that is way above my pay grade to think about, so i don’t. 

but of late i have been enamored of those “elements” beyond just the first 4.  the primes quite do virtually explode winklaugh

Si says
True, if you munge all that. That's why I don't rely on what GW or Steiner or anyone else says, only use their ideas to get a jump start from. When I want to know something, I simply ask, and the multiverse tells. rose

Si says
Totally! Recognizing the patterns is the experience!

Trying to reconcile every one else’s patterns with your own experience is the conundrum that gets panties all in a twist.  

Si says
I really love this animation. It so clearly shows where humans fit in the scheme of the multiverse!


Seth says

See Also

  1. Thought Cycle of doing with 777 viewings related by tag "perception".
  2. Thought Where Bashar's single sequene stops working with 339 viewings related by tag "perception".
  3. Thought The perception of decay with 318 viewings related by tag "perception".
  4. Thought A New Yourk State of mind ... with 212 viewings related by tag "firsts".
  5. Thought Sensing ... with 167 viewings related by tag "sensing".
  6. Thought The Behavior Sequences with 167 viewings related by tag "perception".
  7. Thought A finely tuned set of beliefs sensing a roll of tape with 158 viewings related by tag "sensing".
  8. Thought Belief preceeding Perception with 117 viewings related by tag "perception".
  9. Thought Noticing Crossing the line with 106 viewings related by tag "firsts".
  10. Thought I think i can smell this ... with 91 viewings related by tag "firsts".
  11. Thought Some dynamics of life with 45 viewings related by tag "games".
  12. Thought Edges with 27 viewings related by tag "perception".
  13. Thought The map is not the territory. with 4 viewings related by tag "perception".
  14. Thought funny page cartoon with 3 viewings related by tag "pokemon".
  15. Thought Bozomic Decomposition with 1 viewings related by tag "games".
  16. Thought about: Google Image Labeler with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  17. Thought Shoot Out at the Renton Corral with 0 viewings related by tag "firsts".
  18. Thought Plum blossoms, Russell Farm Spring 2016 with 0 viewings related by tag "firsts".
  19. Thought First Time I Ever Saw a Scrolling Advertisement On A Truck with 0 viewings related by tag "firsts".
  20. Thought A first spotted ... with 0 viewings related by tag "firsts".
  21. Thought about: Hi-res version of Falling Sand Java Game with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  22. Thought Now this is where the women get jealous with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  23. Thought Prototype of Portable Braille Sudoku with Magnetic Tokens with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  24. Thought Prototype of Portable Braille Sudoku with Magnetic Tokens with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  25. Thought Product Placements with 0 viewings related by tag "firsts".
  26. Thought Lemurs with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  27. Thought the tagging game with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  28. Thought Examples of Bozomic Decomposition with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  29. Thought Is this what you first percieved it to be? with 0 viewings related by tag "perception".
  30. Thought Dots moving in straight lines with 0 viewings related by tag "perception".
  31. Thought Enhancing Your Shopping Experience with YouTube Videos with 0 viewings related by tag "firsts".
  32. Thought about: terrapass: fight global warming, promote alternative energy with 0 viewings related by tag "firsts".
  33. Thought macca's cartoon with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  34. Thought about: Politico.com with 0 viewings related by tag "firsts".
  35. Thought about: Second Life: Basic Overview with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  36. Thought about: Lace - A simple, free Ajax communications engine with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  37. Thought about: google donald trump polish workers with 0 viewings related by tag "firsts".
  38. Thought Indirection with 0 viewings related by tag "perception".
  39. Thought Prototype of a Braille Portable Sudoku Game Using Velcro with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  40. Thought about: Studio Cypher with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  41. Thought about: MMORPG.COM - Your Headquarters for Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games! with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  42. Thought Alternatives to Blogging Crap with 0 viewings related by tag "games".
  43. Thought Google is trying something new ... with 0 viewings related by tag "firsts".
  44. Thought Bush Lied Thousands Died Bumper Sticker with 0 viewings related by tag "firsts".