Critical Thinking 2
Your sandbox is full.
- critical thinking abandon
tis true indeed … and i even said as much earlier today translating nathan’s philosophy as follows …
hopefuly the connection to yours above and that is clear. otherwise i could explain it.
grocking that we are each one of us running completely on our own experience and beliefs which are equally valid to each of us … and have absolutely no need of matching with the beliefs of others. Like you, i think if everybody believed that in their bones, they would be much easier with other people, feeling free to interact with others without the need to incessantly force each others beliefs to be identical.
seth translating nathan
Yet what is happening here on fastblogit as we talk together? Are we not rubbing our minds together to see if they can combine in some unexpected amazing way?
XOR – & addition to what you have said, changing context of another’s words changes it’s meaning. Incessant changing of another’s meaning makes one (ME!) feel disregarded & my posts just a waste of time. I have had a lot of those feelings today.
I am not exactly sure what you mean here. This seems a different request than about reframing, which I don’t think is really reframing but simply different people speaking from their different verses.
Is there something specific that was changed in context so drastically that it completely changed your meaning? All the stuff I have seen has simply been forward moving exploration of evolving concepts. Some of them you initiated … which is a really nice co-creating experience I would think.
Shouldn’t concepts evolve beyond the first thought, no matter who has the first thought?
It is not a surprise that I can tell when another is listening, gets what I am saying within the context I provide. As a child I noticed the adults having arguments not understanding what each was saying but just arguing anyway. Yet I could grock each’s points of view. There is a simple idea underneath PR’s podcast. Maybe the protagonists here could gain from using it.
Evolving ideas with many conversations & many different points of view, like in politics, is something else. I still like the idea of mapping the conversations onto a mathematical object like a tetrak which contains both dimension & polarity etc. Here at fbi we have mostly groups, tags & piles – & a texture of linearity.
I have always been excited about multi-demensional navigational systems. But I don’t like doing all the math involved … and nowdays I much prefer to work with people who have a good grasp of leading edge workflow … LOA based and such … because it is so much more productive and fun to work in that venue.
i too would like to see one of these long assed controversies mapped into a structure (regualr or irregualr). or maybe the parts of it that are sustainable and real with the parts that decayed being sluffed off. but that would take an incrediable amount of detailed work. don’t underestimate how much. are you sure that you would be up to doing that kind of detailed actual work?
i mean i don’t know any way to just have it happen automatically. no it must be done by hand.
LOL … no, it must be done by your imagination and backed up by your belief that it can … then it will just appear … trust me, it will … but now we are doing the no no no Mark thing and diverging this topic again. LOL
I think there simply needs to be a button along with the thread button that continues the thread elsewhere in cases like this with reference back to where it started and ability to be done at create time or later.
well bear in mind that we are talking about the results (or memory) of a dialouge system … not human events in real time. and where the people involved have not necessarily agreed to cooperate. i am not so very sure that LOA will help us there.
Ug! Mark is likely to hide this now ... but I must say that LOA works in that case too. It always works. I have used that exact formula to change anything, current or memory or retroactive ... because circumstances are not dependant on anything except current state of being. And also because ALL memory is created in the present to match the current state of now.
… or the simple ability to move threads to where they can expand and not interfear with some other flow. for exampe, my “An Apple Press”, is now almost useless for me to share with those actually interested in using the press because it has so much philosophy in it that would distract. so i need the easy ability to move those threads away from that item.
Yes, that is what I am saying. A button near the thread button that allows you to move, or start, that comment elsewhere with an auto reference back to how it got prompted.
i don’t see it as another button … we got way too many buttons on the comments already. i see it only as another item on the menu of things that you can do on a comment.
… evolution without listening ?
The Brain has a start but the only structures they have are daisy wheels & lists + links. I asked them about the simple structure like the 5-point set mentioned here & in GC but they coundn’t do it yet. Their web version is slow & more retarded than the desktop version.
Yes, it can be hidden there. The important point is that you can use it to start the comment OR do it later. Often I know I want to fork the thread and would simply want to click on the auto-forking button which would prolly take the source comment, make it a new thought, about it to the original thought, and open a window for me to add my comment to it.
i guess you guys realize (or don’t) that we already have a structure going … its not regular … but it is a structure that can do just about anything. it is thoughts with trains of thoughts attached knit together with tags and other references. that structure, i claim, is the best one to represent anything that can happen in mind … anything … and i would like somebody to show me something that can be represented in mind that cannot also be represented (or dynamically happen) in that strurcture.
The structure of LOA is mostly as shown in thought 21170 – even structure is a bad word to use to describe it with; being only lightly touched by logic & rationality.
The challenge is that visually, it is hard to go more directly to an appropriate place to find/place a thought. In reality, the Internet is also a structure just or more flexible. Why use maps at all, eh?
Notice y’all only responded to the second half of my comment & ignored, probably missed or didn’t get the first half.
well a couple of things are happening to 3 people each of us in our own train of moments. for example i had to go away and deal with a phone problem here for the last about 30 minutes. then i came back and see that i may have been expected to respond to both parts of a two part comment that happend, relative to my focus, a long time ago. so what i notice is just the natural chaos of a multi verse … not sombody’s vital contibution being ignored or missed.
I should learn to fork. The ideas were both urging me to get expressed. It is an illustration though.
Well Mark, that is normal for any human. Humans tend to only be able to fully carry one train of thought at a time and depending on their propensity will only respond to the first, or the last, thing if you have more than one thing in a thought. I realized this happens long ago and when I want something specific responded to I make it the only thing in a thought or comment … or at least the last thing because that’s what gets picked up most often here abouts.
incidentally, mark, what was the thing that fell off the train … let’s go get it back on board.
c’mon – structure is all here. Try the top of [comment 21202#55381]
ok i see that … the first part of that i know too … i can tell when somebody did not hear what i said … did not act as if they paid it any attenton. which is not something that i personally needed to respond to … it is just a fact of the way people interact.
the second part of that is something about what you and nathan were discussing about the PR podcast. and yes, i noticed you saying that, but i really did not follow all of that because i was knee deep in apple mush when it was happening, nor can i even see any evidence of that dialogue in the current news. so i did ignore it, quite intentionally … because i have nothing to add to it.
so, from my perspective, that is approximately what happened.
Which is why the Peter Ralston podcast was so appropriate!
what are you saying mark? are you suggesting that i go listen to his podcast (am not sure where it is) because it is vital to the context in which i now focus? if so, then where is this podcast? … or am i recalcaltrant to you because i don’t know where it is?
Well the original post attracted too much rwg to flail in the wind here. google peter ralston podcast or go to https://www.facebook.com/OfficialRalston/posts/582892065226687 – I am not inclined to waste any more time on it.
so i presume that you talking about this particular podcast https://peterralstonblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/30/episode-11-there-is-power-in-critical-thinking/ … after all it is about critical thinking. i’m listening to it now.
I still think the original post had very little actual rwg. It did have very little validation for both Mark’s reality beliefs and the point in Marks thought and Mark seems to call those things rwg a lot. I agree that rwg is the need to have one’s reality validated, but it also should require that happening back and forth, on both sides. When it is only being felt that one’s reality is not being validated on one side, then it should be called something else I think.
Yep that is why I dropped the first podcast thingy, dA. If you deny the existence of the RWG then, like blinders on a horse, all you need see is the road your rider points you to.
What I am saying there is that the reality validation was only not happening on one side, Mark’s. Seth and I both were validating each others reality in many ways in the discussion. When lack of validation is only on one side of a conversation, I am saying that it is not rwg … even though it surely feels very similar to rwg to the person who’s reality is not getting validated.
But the term rwg has right and wrong in it and that implies a 2 party experience of a wrongness.
actually i think there are 2 trains here. the one above which relates to RWG and specifically Mark.
and this one here which is about PR’s podcast.
I agree with the thrust of PR’s analysis that people don’t listen usefully to dialogue. I learned when i was studying how to automatically understand English, that ...
there are 3 meanings of any communication: #1) what the communication means in and of itself .. and #2) what effect it has on the person who said it … and #3) what effect it had on the person who heard it.
New aged thinking kind of squishes 2 & 3 up together into the meme, “the meaning of your communication is the effect you get”. But i claim my more detailed breakdown is much more useful.
Strangely enought, you guys who listen to me should know, that i am listening for all 3 of those meanings … when i talk myself, and when i listen to you all. ← just saying LOL
ride on cowboy or get ridden – whichever you favor!
Danger … much more along this line will hide this item too!
BTW comment response clicking the pen inside the box is slow this AM often suggesting that I close the previous open box.
PR’s comments were all different from Seth’s. I could go back & iterate through his listening questions one of which was “is it true?” at the very beginning of PR speaking. But I won’t.
Huh? Mark, I think you are using the term rwg for many things that are not rwg and some that are. What's wrong with me saying that? Especially since I fully explain why I think that and don't just drive by and shout "ur' using that wrong"? I'm authentically involved with part of your conversation!
well, like i said, “I agree with the thrust of PR’s analysis that people don’t listen usefully to dialogue” … so in a way my comment included all of what he said, and i don’t need to repeat that part of it.
i though i added a vital part that was not included in his analysis. Mark, did you hear that part?
As to “is it true” … well that is as broad as it is long … especially when somone realizes that truth is just a feeling that peopole get about what is said … and therefore is relative to that particular person hearing (or saying). There is really not much that we can do together with that one because you don’t seem to believe that truth is the same thing that i do.
Yep! Truth is not mungeable in my world. I have the ability to focus on what I am conscious of. That fork sitting on my desk doesn’t get munged up with the rock which is also sitting on my desk. Even abstract thoughts like a circle or cube or any mathematical concept have similar qualities. Doubt & haggling is subject of politics & the masses and so forth.
Strangely enough the truth is at this NOW that a rock is sitting on my desk & a fork is also on my desk nearby ~ 4 inches away from it. No problem exists about truth of all that – either the language or the reality it describes.
but the examples of truth that you mentioned above are quite different than the political truths which were the topic of PR’s podcast. i claim that when we talk in the context of politics, there there is mostly only the “what it feels like to a particular person” truth happening … and not the testable kind that can be objectively shared.
which is in fact right in line with what PR is telling us! … er, at least in my interpertation of it.
hopefully this one won’t get lost in the (semi natural) decay of this thought. me, i think it is a vital part from several aspects and points of view.
The fact that the system is taking about 45 seconds to respond to a click on the crayon in the box to make another comment is going to triage my interest here.
MUNGE ON! dear bro.
I would never have a problem with that description of an experience. It is there. It is your now. All I add is that moments can be connected in which way you want and what you experience next is your way of connecting and may be quite different from the way of another. Many things are possible in that transition between one moment and the next ... loa helps figuring what they are and how to do them.
(Mark, do a shift reload of your browser. There was a bug in the 3rd party spell checker latest version.)
Then work your way back to 3.0.
The second half of Peter’s podcast talks about “is the communication worth anything? – does it do anything?” Give a listen if you missed it. He mentions: did it say anything? or did it just make you feel good? If the latter is all then it’s just entertainment (as most politics is). Not bashing entertainment, but I would hardly look for truth in it. Political entertainment is just about getting your vote &/or getting your money – hardly a place to look for truth.
yes i heard that part loud and clear . that fits in with my #2 and #3 parts of meaning above. for example what does it mean to Trump when he keeps saying incessantly, “I am winning” … and what does it mean to conservitive citizens … and what does it mean to hillary supporters … and what is its use to each of those.
or to be a more pointed here, there is no #1 part of objective truth in anything that i have ever heard Trump say … it is all just a fight … you hit me, i hit you, and he is telling us citizents that we must accept the winner. Pure RWG … pure zero sum game … me thinks we should understand what Trump is doing in those terms. (Which is not to say that other are not also doing it also … just that Trump’s game is is pure … no objective truth being communicated to voters at all)
The only question that is useful is what does it mean to YOU? You really only have access to just that!
i am strangely enough not personally involved with Trump’s game ...not at all. the use of his communications to me, is just what i learn about what is happening in the American political arena.
& so that means that your bloviation on Trump means nothing & is just entertainment & if you are not politically active for the Democrats for votes for Hillary, it is merely entertainment – a good laugh for some.
Perhaps the RWG dissolves into entertainment in the political arena.
well we would need to drill down into a particlar one … but, yes, in general my communications here about Trump were all in service of awareness of what is happening in the American political scene. If that awareness means nothing to you, then okay, it means nothing to you.
incidentally to say that Trump’s behavior is all for its entertainment value …. is to say something that has already been repeated incessantly in the media.
The only question in my mind is how that will bite with the American people. I have already gone on record predicting Trump’s victory. It is kind of even fun watching how (or if) this new kind of Trump politics will work in an actual election. ← that is the awareness for which i converse here about Trump … and there are many aspects of that awareness … many of which are right up my alley … and in fact right up the alley of Mr Ralston’s recent podcast.
Yep! Wouldn’t look for truth or anything useful there. I do applaud, appreciate, respect & acknowledge your self-expression on the topic & I won’t need to feel the need to respond or counteract with my own counter-perceptions. I may however do so just for the sport of political jousting.
i have no idea what you mean to me with your last comment.
nevermind then . Drill down not necessary. Like I said if the communication is intended to make you feel good so that you will give them your vote or money or both then it is just entertainment: NOT a source for truth or doings.
except, of course, where the “makeing me feel good so that I will give them my vote or money or both” is the only “source for truth or doings”. in other words, in that context for me , there is only that which is happening in America which we are all sharing and what that feels like to us … notwistanding that each of us is experiencing that differently.
apparently i missed the #1 meaning of what you just said, am absolutely disinterested in the #2 meaning, and the #3 meaning is irrelevant to you.
& the conversation has gone back into the degeneracy of the RWG …
The original item is not deleted & nobody deleted the comments of others on it. It was just returned to draft mode (thanks for having one) & privatized it so I won’t have to deal what I call RWG stuff pulsating in the news on that subject for a while.
Incidentally, I woke up in my AM thoughts with the brilliant “news” to myself that Peter’s podcast also applies to inner conversations. (or what’s inside our minds). It mostly showed up when my mind came up with something I self-labeled bullshit.
The new forking feature will improve on this drastically too. Now we can fork an inspired thought to a new topic, leaving only a tiny little trail on the original thought, and everything gets connected auto-magically and goes to the right place.
i think “inner conversations and external conversations almost always happen the same way”. the only difference is that the former is accessible only to the being having them, and the latter is accessible to anyone who is in earshot.
The question in my mind which I have not tested yet is if a forked item on a private thought in a private group preserves the original privacy? I know my one test did not preserve it (draft,private) was lost. It didn’t even let me change it from a presumably draft state.
Conversation forked to thought 21232
Well it should. It should be forking to the same group if it is a private thought and preserving private. Because if you can see it to fork it, then you are allowed to write in that group. And if not, you couldn’t have seen it to fork it anyway.
Not all of this is fully tested, but that is the design and at some point, perhaps even now, it will all work to design.
Mostly other humans , particularly selfies, acknowledge or bend their thoughts to some special audience even if that be all Americans etc. I noticed that in my mind as well. Sometimes I talk in my mind to others who are not even alive (GW etc.) . At other times it is Seth. When I talk directly to myself in my mind it is exhilarating, however. When I finally grasped what was going on there (early 70’s) it was quite enlightening.
The draft status was not being propagated, now it is. Private/public/muffled is one state and is being propagated.