Thought, Feeling, and Will

according to my ontology ...

Though, feeling, and will are fundamental elements #inside a human being.

Any of those elements can precede or follow any other.

Their relationship to each other is symmetrical in that regard as seen in this diagram.

Rudolph Steiner, #RS , liked to talk about this by using the term “body”.   He identified “Etheric Body”, “Astral Body”, and “Ego” among others … but those three were the fundamental elements upon which he based the ontology that he presented. 

nullNew this morning null, …

triangulating between our ontologies i get the association of #will to #RS’s #EthericBody … and now that i think about it, that seems to hang together very well indeed null
tag #thought #feeling #will #Ego #AstralBody #ontology #TetModel #MarcClifton 



… Browsing around Google images i found this diagram from a website talking about #RS’s ontology which substantially matches my ontology.   I draw the “informs effect” as going both ways … which is just grist for more thought and triangulation.
dialogue …


You are free to invent your own ontology instead of munging around in Steiner’s. 
Maybe Inside, Outside & the Vortex or something.

well yes … there is no doubt … i keep working on my ontology … on what i believe exists null
but it is totally informed by Steiner’s … after all that is where i started.

#inside and #outside are definitely in there … but are not shown specifically in this diagram.

But it is interesting to note that #ego is the threshold between inside and outside.  I think #RS and #GW both associated that with #thinking .  we know that we are separated from that which is not us,  by virtue of a thought.

A plant knows no inside and outside … it just grows and flourishes … that is the #etheric … that is what it #does .

A feeling is all inside … it knows of no outside.


Also realize that all these ontologies are the same. From #RS to #PR to Bashar to Abraham to Buddha to Christ. They all have the same root understandings.

All that is different is the packaging. #RS packaged for the social intellectual mind prevalent circa 1900. Christ packaged for circa 30 Jews, Romans, and Arabs. Bashar for circa 2000 UFO groupies, etc. But the underlying information is the same and anyone open minded enough to delve into it and compare see’s that quite easily.

Ego not associated with thinking in RS.  It is one of the 12 senses in GW xor ~ spirit.

i do not think all of these anthologies are the same.  in fact they are quite different.  yours especially is very peculiar.

if you were not separated from that which you were not, could you make any distinction whatsoever? 
No, you could not think (me thinks) null

 #ego (the separation of you from that which is not you) is not #thinking …
rather it makes thinking possible. 

they are associate like a weight connected to a stick makes a hammer. 
the weight and the stick are not the same thing …
but without both connected the hammer would not exist.

Then, you do not delve into them and compare. For, they are the same in vibration and pattern of thought applied in order to operate in the ontology. Only the surface details change … and in several places, not even those. Jesus’s parable of loaves and fishes is the exact same mental process underlying the Law of Attraction. And Prayer and Gridding are also the same internal process. Etc. It takes very little unbiased effort of perception to see the parallels in the roots of all of these ontologies.

… and p.s. … knowing #LOA, which is an intrinsically based form of the ontoligies, gives one an advantage because it provides an easy to talk in intrinsic common denominator. Translate from any other ontology to #LOA and then compare. #LOA is a common language without the extra political and social elements that are thrown into the other ontoligies by their churches and states and origin personalities.

Intrinsic, like using the speed of light as the base unit of speed measurement, or 0 degrees Kelvin as the base unit of temperature, or the mole as the base unit of atomic quantity. When you find an intrinsic element, it is the most basic form upon which all other forms of something build. #LOA is intrinsic to ontologies.

Well i am not saying that there are not similarities … but there are almost as many structural differences in what we believe as there are believers.  

For example, i make a big distinction between what is inside a being vs what is outside of them.  To me that is the edge of the duality … it is what makes individuls vs a gooey glob.   Yet  It seems difficult for either you or mark to even contemplate that … and i don’t remeber a Christ or a RS to even talk about inside and outside.   Then too all of you guys seem to be obsessed with a physical/spiritual distinction … for me there is nothing there to be distinguished. 

Now it could well be that when one drills down to what those sages believe … sans the words that they believe them in … then there will be more similarities than actual structural differences …. i do not know … that is above my pay grade.   I expect yours as well, but then that is part of our different belief sturctures null

”drills down to what those sages believe” … exactly, that is what I do.

And for the record, you see inside and outside so different because you don’t expand your perception out to the point where they are easily seen as aspects of the same. You keep your perception tight, where you have to turn to see one or the other, so they seem very different. I (and perhaps Mark) take the perception journey out to where we can see that otherness and self are really just aspects of the same continuity. When you visit that point of perception, you will see that too.

… and even yet I am a variable.

thanks for illustrating what i just said null null

If you are referring to the physical/spiritual distinction. I don’t know what Mark does, but I have never disagreed with that. I have said several times that I find using those terms allows me to communicate better with people … the result I get more often matches the communication I intend. In intrinsic form, I agree there is only difference of perspective.

that #loa is intrinsic is the biggest peculiarity of your ontology.

strange that you cannot see how others don’t need that belief.

That is not a minor surface detail.

When you find a wrench that fits all the bolts you try it on no matter what country the bolt was made in, you use the wrench and especially if you are traveling, you discard the rest of your wrenches. (real story for me with a real wrench).

What I find strange is that you reject #LOA based on the idea you have that something so simple could not possibly fit all human experience and describe it and model it … you reject it on that idea alone, not by actually putting wrench to bolt and giving a turn and seeing what actually happens, like I have done, both with my universal wrench, and with #LOA.

Munge them altogether & then packag’em in your own lingo. null 
PR does use inside/outside in one part of the GofB early chapters.

Or, look at them closely and notice what is the same and realize that is the underlying truth between them, and then see what is left as personality, time period, and church and state politics.

In other words, distil the intrinsic quality, the basic truth. That would look like a munge to someone who only glances at the surface.

Rs ontology body soul spirit Your divisions 3,4,7,9 etc may be different & overlap different – one has to access more directly not just intellectually.  See #GofB for more of what that means to do so. null

i reject only that #LOA is intrinsic.  yet it is useful otherwise. 

it is not intrinsic to me because i find it not to be so. 

the model i will use, will be just as very simple as it needs to be …
and yet explain and/or predict what i experience. 

that it seems intrinsic to you has only to do with you …
sorry, i am not involved
otherwise i love it null

I don’t deny that all those divisions do exist and are useful in various contexts and for various goals. I do know by actual application that there is a much simpler model underlying all of those which is very useful for practical modeling, discovery, and prediction.

Steiner had specific goals for his 4-fold and 7-fold models. They were not intended to be a basic tool to use for reality navigation and discovery. They were for understaning the interrelationships between the physical and the spiritual, and understanding man as a being in the cosmos.

You reject it by idea, not by empirical knowledge. You don’t try to use it everywhere because you don’t believe it can be used everywhere. I can show otherwise given any example.

You have not reached the point where you have actually found that #LOA is not intrinsic, you have theorized that it must not be, because elements you want to see included, because they are dear to your experience, don’t appear to be there, and have rejected it based on that theoretical line of reasoning.

Like it or not, that IS what you are doing, or close enough to it for government work. I am not judging it right or wrong, I simply see it. You should own it, then you won’t have to judge yourself.

i reject it exactly by empirical knowledge.   all of the things that you describe about it, i do as well, and yet i do not need it to be intrinsic to do them.  

Yet it is strange.  I discovered this the other day.   There is a direct connection between part of what you consider intrinsic in #LOA and something that i consider intrinsic for humanity.  I claim that they are the same thing and only differ by virtue of the language used to describe, and our different viewpoints related to our #Egos.   I won’t tell you what i think it is … i’ll just leave you to guess … more fun that way.

Yep, as RS once said a boot-maker sees the World in terms of boots. Tesla saw the world in electricity etc. GW saw it in occult & mathematical terms. Trump sees in money & business. etc.
What you see as simple overarching principle of #LOA accessed with channeling I see as a minor NLP tool & don’t have to channel for it nor, unsuspecting, fall prey to Lucifer-Ahrimanic (RS) influences to do so. The models are intellectual. 
From #GofB ...
2:22 Understanding what’s being said is the first step but isn’t even close to enough. To make your understanding real, it must be followed by the next stage, which is validating the truth in your own experience and memory with examples and personal insights that create an experiential sampling of the assertion. Once this is done, the assertion is seen as being true or valid, and yet a conclusion of validity still isn’t enough.
2:23 Your examples may confirm the assertion, but this validation will quickly slip into memory so that your understanding will remain in the realm of intellectual knowledge. Even bolstered by your memory of “proof,” any present experience of the matter will tend to degrade into something merely believed. Having obtained a profound “nugget of truth,” people will often toss it on top of the pile in a place of honor, but they’ll rarely continue beyond this point.
2:24 The last step is to grasp the assertion as an ongoing and present dynamic that’s occurring constantly in your experience. This is actually grasping it. It’s not just that you understand or can point to proof of an assertion, it’s that you presently see it or experience it as an ongoing aspect of perceived reality. Such a level of consciousness no longer requires proof or conclusion; the matter becomes self-evident as a constant activity in your ongoing experience. At this point, the truth of the matter is naturally incorporated as an aspect of the reality in which you live.

Ralston, Peter. The Genius of Being: Contemplating the Profound Intelligence of Existence (Kindle Locations 552-553). North Atlantic Books. Kindle Edition. 


If you tried #LOA things in the way they are prescribed, then you would get the same results. #LOA is very consistent no matter who is using it. The differences are in the actual order and sequence, and in trying to substitute ingredients, just like in baking a cake.

So I don’t know what empirc you are referring to. What you do referer to is your beliefs, and your pearls.


well it seems that you think that way just because that is your box.  ask yourself what exactly does thinking like that do?  what does it do for you? 

… and so you don’t get to do all the things you could be doing with #LOA … so what?

And #LOA itself has nothing to do with channeling. I do that for fun and usefulness … have not ever called it #LOA. That you believe it can open you to undesirable influences is a belief borrowed from others in another time when people believed in many other such things. I don’t believe that … and neither does anyone else I know except a few crackpots in the psycho ward.

Yep, point severely missed – #BuhBye nullnull

As usual, I fully agree with what #PR says … and don’t see why you put that here … seems like some hidden #spin you are introducing on your own.

I simply applied the point to you.

Which thing? Clearly what these things are doing for me is enhancing my life and making it more enjoyable and going more easily where I want my life to go. #LOA is great for modeling, understanding, and predicting, actual life experiences. Better than any other tool because it utilizes principles that are closer to the root of the reality experience. That is kind of a no brainer, so I am not sure what you are referring to.

nothing there.

So Esther, Abraham & Bashir are just clowns in your same circus, eh?

i also agree with #PR .   but i am sorry, i would hasten to add that understanding human psychology from just the point of view of a single individual, is to understand it like the famous “boot-maker” you mentioned.

talk about attracting … there is this tweet … and my response …

I have no idea what that means. Neither Esther Hicks or Daryl Anka invented #LOA, nor did those they channel. The information about #LOA comes from many sources, and has been for thousands of years. Abraham and Bashar are just particular packaging well suited to acceptance by various personalities in our time. As I said, even Jesus Christ taught #LOA … many of his parables are exactly that.

Well, your responding to “something”. If there were nothing to respond to, you would not have been able to call it nothing.

More like there is nothing of value to me. null

Finally, you say “something” null

Yep, as I said above - munge it all together & re-label it & claim it.  #IDC ZZzz… null(not) – N #juice’n again with his #SSS . 

… and as I said, it only looks like munging to a shallow surface skimmer. Drop in deep and you will distil the truth … and it will be yours. null

Conversation forked to thought 23171