Teasing out the "will"

Mark de LA says ...
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
Provoked ....



#etheric is life force itself … 
that which plants do,
they grow manifesting their characteristics
in the world with/against that which they are not. 

 

I claim the life force as pure #will
unvarnished by thought or feeling.

seth

Comments


  • #RS’s 4-fold – physical etheric astral ego
so the way my thinking is going, if there is no physical/spiritual distinction, then RS’s simplest mapping becomes just a triad of: etheric, astral, ego.  Astral is clearly feeling, qualia.   Thinking is not explicit in there. 

And we know that …



#etheric is life force itself … 
that which plants do,
they grow manifesting their characteristics
in the world with/against that which they are not. 

 

I claim that as pure #will
unvarnished by thought or feeling.

seth

#GW’s 3 ness in his cub work came out in the dimensions of the cube itself which he named:  salt, quicksilver, and sulphur.   I remember that “salt” was associated with thinking … but i am not sure about the other two associations … maybe mark has that closer to his finger tips. 

The four elements identified ages ago are:  fire, air, water, earth.   Those are elmental forces of the natural world … it might be hard for a modern man to see that … i am sure that anyone who has lived in nature will recognize those as composing the world in which they live.   But they are external to a man’s internal psychology.  Personally i do not find them working the same way inside me as they work in the world … except as degrees of manifestation.

This Steiner book may well inform this though,  #thanks → mark



← my tweet

Like I am saying, #MakeShirtUp – leave me out of it.  You don’t need to argue/discuss it with me. It is not original if you just negate anothers’ ideas. Don’t just negate RS & GW while barely understanding them.  Go for the kill & invent your own entirely. You may have to start with some words already in existence.  The “will” is thinly cognizable these days as distinct from doing & manfesting. Intention is similarly disposed.  Intend to cognize exactly what the will is ! nullnull & then maybe leave it out of your ontology & go for a different partitioning of your human? experience.  (XOR not!)
rose

mark:  The “will” is thinly cognizable these days as distinct from doing & manfesting. Intention is similarly disposed. Intend to cognize exactly what the will is ! nullnull 

seth: yep, that is true.  people do not know what sparks their action.  it is not under their conscious control.  That is a situation that #GW told us early on … and is obviously something that i have been paying with all of my life.   

Gurus tell you that they have mastered that for themselves … and most of them try to profit by selling their solution to others.   Me i suspect, the very structure of that social transaction conflicts with it actually working.

mark: & then maybe leave it out of your ontology & go for a different partitioning of your human? experience.  (XOR not!)

seth:

it does not make any sense to leave out of what i believe the very spirit of what i do.

seth

Then you are just rehashing old shit and doing your #AlreadyAlwaysArguing w/ GW & RS. 

BTW, according to Peter Ralston, you might be able to contemplate (see BofNK & GofB) the will & get a direct experience of it . Woops! you argue with that too. GofB handles that arguing a bit too.
p.s. d’A just bypasses will & emotionally vibes things into existence xor so he seems to say.

every time i do something i get a “direct experience” of my #will to do it.  

The question is am i sufficiently aware of it to think and feel about it.

What i am doing here is thinking and feeling about it. 
The only question then becomes how thourally my thinking #RingsTrue.  

I have no idea what you are doing here in that regard.

Enjoy your personal music or whatever rings between your ears. I’m #done. #nullBuhBye
null – apparently you need to hear your own thoughts clanging around inside you rather than think outside your box – #juice ‘n like N’n

huh?  … feels like it quite the opposite over here.

I represent my thoughts externally so that i can “hear them claning around” outside of me.  

seth
so very strange that you apparently percieve it oppositely null

So obviously you hid my comments to avoid them – still inside your own box.
Free yourself & get rid of beliefs ! Don't be a BELIEF robot - M.R.

i hid you comments which were about stuff that was not even remotely related to this train of thought.

According to you.  #done –  my best advice is: (still)
Like I am saying, #MakeShirtUp – leave me out of it.  You don’t need to argue/discuss it with me. It is not original if you just negate anothers’ ideas. Don’t just negate RS & GW while barely understanding them.  Go for the kill & invent your own entirely. You may have to start with some words already in existence.  The “will” is thinly cognizable these days as distinct from doing & manfestingIntention is similarly disposed.  Intend to cognize exactly what the will is ! nullnull & then maybe leave it out of your ontology & go for a different partitioning of your humanexperience.  (XOR not!)
rose

Is it not a strange idea null that …

one can hear truth ring internally inside one’s mind …
and also hear it ringing true externally among others.

seth

#thanks → mark for provoking null that thought null

Ringing true is  just as thin as always in carrying truth outside yourself.  I wonder how many people outside yourself hear such a bell ? null

Analysis can yield any number of pieces of a puzzle. You can cut up a picture & make any number of puzzles out of it from surgical precision or a buzz-saw .  Analysis is but one way to contemplate a unity. 
The tag line of #GofB is apt.
The Genius of Being Contemplating the Profound Intelligence of Existence Peter Ralston

Ralston, Peter. The Genius of Being: Contemplating the Profound Intelligence of Existence (Kindle Locations 4-7). North Atlantic Books. Kindle Edition. 
-
Go thou & do likewise.

I doubt that is true at all.

null … such a strange thing to doubt over here.  

Of course one cannot take the perception of the ringing literally …
after all it is not a sound vibration coming into your ear through the air.

For example i just herd my thoughts, representing here,
dissonating outside of myself in your mind. 
I listen to things like that very carefully.
 

Of course one cannot take the perception of the ringing literally …
after all it is not a sound vibration coming into your ear through the air.

What you are talking about is authority.  Just because something seems (is?)  true for you does not mean it is true for anyone else. Otherwise there would be nothing for you to be #AlreadyAlwaysArguing with GW & RS about.

well yes of course i do not know anything about “true for anyone else” unless they tell me. 
Then i can hear it resonate or dissonate just to the very degree to which  i #listen to what they say … 
and assuming that they are being honest. 

There really is nothing else that we can experience
notwistanding that you always seem to presume otherwise.

#BetterTruth

#birdies notwithstanding, your limits or lack thereof are yours – of course.  Resonance may or NOT apply to truth. I hold that which IS! Truth is more language & a separate distinction.  Language munging IS, but does not apply. 

well this mythologic “truth of that which is” may or may not even exist …
and almost certainly will not exist the way my little pea brain thinks it up to be.
but i do not care, one way or the other. 

i must go with what i experience … for that is all that i have.
All that i experience is this resonance that i call #RingsTrue.
Honestly that is all i have.

You think you have more,
but can you make that more that you have,
resonate outside of yourself?
If so, then i too will #listen.

seth
tag: #AbsoluteTruth #RelativeTruth

Your #AlreadyAlwaysArguing with an imaginary me obscures the #IDC factor.  That’s why earlier, I suggested you leave my name out of it.  Quote yourself, invent your own ontologie etc. 

your #IDC factor has absolutely nothing to do with this train of thought. 

it does not resonate with it

it does not resonate against it

it is irrelivant to it

it is otherness to it

it is static and distraction to it

it would tend to decay it

it is only about you.

  1. your #IDC factor has absolutely nothing to do with this train of thought.  it does not resonate with it it does not resonate against it it is irrelivant to it it is otherness to it it is static a… (unreachable)
  2. ditto for your stuff. Just don’t quote me or reference me & we’re fine & can ignore each other. null


null → #MarcClifton