clues to what i was thinking - things on the side of the tracks

 

Tags

  1. threefoldness app

Comments


Seth says
MR 2013-03-28 07:59:05 16454
MR 2013-03-28 07:57:49 16454
seth 2013-03-28 07:15:19 16454
thing is each moment hairs into each other moment ... they are not isolated.
Well "hairs into" is not really specific & is mostly your coin.  Analyzing the train of thought can yield information on how unseamless the interruption can be & how one moment can be isolated from another. Memories are much more isolated, and looking at them shows we tend to isolate moments. At least from here & this AM that's the way it looks.

This moment of NOW is the only clear one, maybe?

seems to me that each moment is like a shadow drama on the stage for a moment ... we only are aware of the objects on stage ... but we know that they hair into that which is not on the stage but behind the scene.   thing is a lot of that which is on on stage hairs into that which has been imagined ... so that that which has been imagined, and that which has been experienced is all mixed up behind the screen.  

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-03-23 17:51:48 16454
i like this one
source: what mark was thinking
  • My God particle is a structure of threefold society & the song so full of love and powerful emotion that it will sing itself into existence
... but i won't call it a "God particle" ... too much baggage.   i just really would like a "song so full of love and powerful emotion that it [sings] itself into existence". 

Yeah, the "God Particle" (Higgs Boson) was supposed to be the thingy that made all the quantum physics theories work. It was big news at the time. I am looking for a piece of drama and song that brings it all together for a new Golden Age in dynamic balance. All the intellectualism, arguing & persuasion won't git-r-done !


Mark de LA says

..... Listening Indian Bollywood music w/T playing DJ (;- Possible reset to #13,3 & bu

Mark de LA says

Form is not different from emptiness & emptiness is not different from form. -- The heart Sutra

Seth says
i like your term "Golden Age in dynamic balance"

Mark de LA says
mr 2013-03-27 16:50:10 16454

I only exist in this moment? (yes) ... This is the only moment where "existing" is going on ! ... unknown error sending this ! But it got there
Where did all those used-up moments go? Are they still around ontologically? What about memory? What about all the moments all over the world going right NOW including sleeping people collected together in one giant moment being a god-moment ?

Mark de LA says
MR 2013-03-28 07:57:49 16454
seth 2013-03-28 07:15:19 16454
thing is each moment hairs into each other moment ... they are not isolated.
Well "hairs into" is not really specific & is mostly your coin.  Analyzing the train of thought can yield information on how unseamless the interruption can be & how one moment can be isolated from another. Memories are much more isolated, and looking at them shows we tend to isolate moments. At least from here & this AM that's the way it looks.

This moment of NOW is the only clear one, maybe?


Mark de LA says
seth 2013-03-28 09:04:03 16454
MR 2013-03-28 07:59:05 16454
MR 2013-03-28 07:57:49 16454
seth 2013-03-28 07:15:19 16454
thing is each moment hairs into each other moment ... they are not isolated.
Well "hairs into" is not really specific & is mostly your coin.  Analyzing the train of thought can yield information on how unseamless the interruption can be & how one moment can be isolated from another. Memories are much more isolated, and looking at them shows we tend to isolate moments. At least from here & this AM that's the way it looks.

This moment of NOW is the only clear one, maybe?

seems to me that each moment is like a shadow drama on the stage for a moment ... we only are aware of the objects on stage ... but we know that they hair into that which is not on the stage but behind the scene.   thing is a lot of that which is on on stage hairs into that which has been imagined ... so that that which has been imagined, and that which has been experienced is all mixed up behind the screen.  
On the other side of looking at it, focus on NOW - not so jumbled up is it? All the hair is because you lost your NOW!


Seth says
MR 2013-03-28 09:18:04 16454
seth 2013-03-28 09:04:03 16454
MR 2013-03-28 07:59:05 16454
MR 2013-03-28 07:57:49 16454
seth 2013-03-28 07:15:19 16454
thing is each moment hairs into each other moment ... they are not isolated.
Well "hairs into" is not really specific & is mostly your coin.  Analyzing the train of thought can yield information on how unseamless the interruption can be & how one moment can be isolated from another. Memories are much more isolated, and looking at them shows we tend to isolate moments. At least from here & this AM that's the way it looks.

This moment of NOW is the only clear one, maybe?

seems to me that each moment is like a shadow drama on the stage for a moment ... we only are aware of the objects on stage ... but we know that they hair into that which is not on the stage but behind the scene.   thing is a lot of that which is on on stage hairs into that which has been imagined ... so that that which has been imagined, and that which has been experienced is all mixed up behind the screen.  
On the other side of looking at it, focus on NOW - not so jumbled up is it? All the hair is because you lost your NOW!


i'm not so sure it hits me that way.   what is "on stage" for any of *my* nows are just symbols or respresentations ... the real things are behind the screen ... so that i am only really aware of their shadows.   enshrining the now for me would be to deny that reality.

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-03-28 09:22:18 16454
[snip] to reduce the size of the post

i'm not so sure it hits me that way.   what is "on stage" for any of *my* nows are just symbols or respresentations ... the real things are behind the screen ... so that i am only really aware of their shadows.   enshrining the now for me would be to deny that reality.
As long as you hang out in metaphors you miss NOW. Additionally the human being is disposed to distort, delete & generalize (factor similarities) produces unfidelity memory & gives forth a mashup of mind shit & beliefs.  Add that to a belief in dualism pretty much describes some of the pitfalls in the path of clarity.   There are other points of view. NOW is absolute - it is always now for everyone; even if you are contemplating a memory NOW.


Seth says
MR 2013-03-28 09:33:19 16454
seth 2013-03-28 09:22:18 16454
[snip] to reduce the size of the post

i'm not so sure it hits me that way.   what is "on stage" for any of *my* nows are just symbols or respresentations ... the real things are behind the screen ... so that i am only really aware of their shadows.   enshrining the now for me would be to deny that reality.
As long as you hang out in metaphors you miss NOW. Additionally the human being is disposed to distort, delete & generalize (factor similarities) produces unfidelity memory & gives forth a mashup of mind shit & beliefs.  Add that to a belief in dualism pretty much describes some of the pitfalls in the path of clarity.   There are other points of view. NOW is absolute - it is always now for everyone; even if you are contemplating a memory NOW.

i don't usually think in metaphors ... i think in references or symbols or images or feelings, etc.  i construct metaphors, for example the one above,  to communicate to others.  where i do think in a metaphor, i try to be aware of the extra level of indirection ... where i am not aware that it is a metaphor, i call myself being in error. 

My point is that each and every awareness in some NOW contains symbols and references and images and other indirections ... just like, metaphorically, each and every sentence that i write.  As you point out,  these are "disposed to distort, delete & generalize" and are prone to the "unfidelity" of memory and other "mind shit".  So, metaphorically, the real objects appear in my AWARENESS OF NOW as shadow references on a screen.   It seems to me that you are telling yourself a story that  the shadows can be eliminated.   Well, i too can imagine that story.  But if i told myself that story now, i would not believe it.

Mark de LA says
MR 2013-03-28 10:07:22 16454
I began to get more out of directly experiencing NOW when I gave up the concept that NOW is just an infinitesimally small chunk of time which is hard to grasp.  Such is a concept! When I look for the nowness of NOW, I run into myself, my body, the external world, my mind & all the distinctions within it etc. - nothing infinitesimally small.



Mark de LA says
Seth (above): ... i don't usually think in metaphors ... i think in references or symbols or images or feelings, etc.  i construct metaphors, for example the one above,  to communicate to others.  where i do think in a metaphor, i try to be aware of the extra level of indirection ... where i am not aware that it is a metaphor, i call myself being in error. 
... symbols, metaphors etc are not the things themselves.  They are more linguistic devices & communication aids. They are not thoughts in and of themselves. Thoughts have active content which attracts the observer's participation. Dualism is not my cup of tea.

Thinking is similar to directing one's own consciousness in inner space.

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-03-29 08:10:47 16454
Alternatively if i don't *think* at all ... but just am aware of my sensations and feelings ... well those are objects in and of themselves which are experienced directly.  Hmmm ... is that what you are talking about?

My aim is to experience directly thinking. What is it that I am doing when I think?  Some of it does look like sensation & feelings & perhaps that is because a lot is going on in the mind viz: memories, fantasy dramas, linguistic stuff, will directing the "train", self & Ego focus, will organizing things that must be done, encounters with ideas & thoughts & concepts, etc. I don't call most of those thinking! Perhaps asking the question "What is a thought or an idea?" is a good start. Mathematical reasoning is close to what I think thinking is like or maybe just reasoning itself.


Seth says
MR 2013-03-29 08:49:28 16454
Seth (above): ... i don't usually think in metaphors ... i think in references or symbols or images or feelings, etc.  i construct metaphors, for example the one above,  to communicate to others.  where i do think in a metaphor, i try to be aware of the extra level of indirection ... where i am not aware that it is a metaphor, i call myself being in error. 
... symbols, metaphors etc are not the things themselves.  They are more linguistic devices & communication aids. They are not thoughts in and of themselves. Thoughts have active content which attracts the observer's participation. Dualism is not my cup of tea.

Thinking is similar to directing one's own consciousness in inner space.

what do you mean by "active content" ? 

but whatever you mean by it, i don't think will exclude the indirection inherent in the elements of our thinking.  the more direct our thinking the better, of course.   if i am actually sensually looking at the belt in my pants on the other side of the room, then my thinking will probably be more concrete, tangible, and practical, than if i were just imagining belts in general from my memory.  i can think about the leather and how the belt was manufactured ... if i had actually worked in a belt factory, or otherwize made belts, or had invented them, then my thinking about them would be even more accurate and practical.  so for me to arrive at better and better thoughts is usually a process of dereferencing ... of replacing those tokens in my mind which only stand for things with ever more detailed tokens which better reflect (stand for) the world.   but i don't think the tokens can ever be totally eliminated ... that is, unless i actually become a belt .

i don't know what you mean by "dualism" or why you don't like it.   but for me, my mind is *NOT*  the world which it reflects.  that predicament is not something that i can wish away just because i may not like it.

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-03-30 08:37:08 16454
MR 2013-03-29 08:49:28 16454
Seth (above): ... i don't usually think in metaphors ... i think in references or symbols or images or feelings, etc.  i construct metaphors, for example the one above,  to communicate to others.  where i do think in a metaphor, i try to be aware of the extra level of indirection ... where i am not aware that it is a metaphor, i call myself being in error. 
... symbols, metaphors etc are not the things themselves.  They are more linguistic devices & communication aids. They are not thoughts in and of themselves. Thoughts have active content which attracts the observer's participation. Dualism is not my cup of tea.

Thinking is similar to directing one's own consciousness in inner space.

what do you mean by "active content" ? 

but whatever you mean by it, i don't think will exclude the indirection inherent in the elements of our thinking.  the more direct our thinking the better, of course.   if i am actually sensually looking at the belt in my pants on the other side of the room, then my thinking will probably be more concrete, tangible, and practical, than if i were just imagining belts in general from my memory.  i can think about the leather and how the belt was manufactured ... if i had actually worked in a belt factory, or otherwize made belts, or had invented them, then my thinking about them would be even more accurate and practical.  so for me to arrive at better and better thoughts is usually a process of dereferencing ... of replacing those tokens in my mind which only stand for things with ever more detailed tokens which better reflect (stand for) the world.   but i don't think the tokens can ever be totally eliminated ... that is, unless i actually become a belt .

i don't know what you mean by "dualism" or why you don't like it.   but for me, my mind is *NOT*  the world which it reflects.  that predicament is not something that i can wish away just because i may not like it.
Active content in a thought, for me, is a little bit nebulous but is the ability of a thought to go beyond percept to conversation or phantasy where the moment is engaging with the thought. Now we can do that with just about anything, but it appears that some are "conversational".  This is relatively new encounter on the train for me. 
Dualism bypasses the whole idea of direct experience. RS spent a lot of pages on dualism & monism in The Philosophy of Freedom if you want any more clarity. Also BofNK 25:8-22!


Seth says
MR 2013-03-29 08:41:16 16454
seth 2013-03-29 08:10:47 16454
Alternatively if i don't *think* at all ... but just am aware of my sensations and feelings ... well those are objects in and of themselves which are experienced directly.  Hmmm ... is that what you are talking about?

My aim is to experience directly thinking. What is it that I am doing when I think?  Some of it does look like sensation & feelings & perhaps that is because a lot is going on in the mind viz: memories, fantasy dramas, linguistic stuff, will directing the "train", self & Ego focus, will organizing things that must be done, encounters with ideas & thoughts & concepts, etc. I don't call most of those thinking! Perhaps asking the question "What is a thought or an idea?" is a good start. Mathematical reasoning is close to what I think thinking is like or maybe just reasoning itself.


well when i feel or think or act,  it is an experience, in and of itself, and that experience is not really indirect ... and any relationship it has to anything else is purely conjecture.  of course, everything in the universe of my experience *is* of that nature.   is that what people are talking about when they talk of "direct experience" ?  

the assumption, which would be taken on faith, that those experiences do *not* reflect some other universe is, me thinks, solipsism ... lol ... not my cup of tea .

In a way, i am baffeled by your sentence, "My aim is to experience directly thinking" ... i mean, you are experiencing thinking ... how much more direct could it be?

For me, reasoning is kind of experiences which can be reliably repeated ... whether they accurately reflect the world or not.



Mark de LA says
seth 2013-03-30 09:49:46 16454
MR 2013-03-29 08:41:16 16454
seth 2013-03-29 08:10:47 16454
Alternatively if i don't *think* at all ... but just am aware of my sensations and feelings ... well those are objects in and of themselves which are experienced directly.  Hmmm ... is that what you are talking about?

My aim is to experience directly thinking. What is it that I am doing when I think?  Some of it does look like sensation & feelings & perhaps that is because a lot is going on in the mind viz: memories, fantasy dramas, linguistic stuff, will directing the "train", self & Ego focus, will organizing things that must be done, encounters with ideas & thoughts & concepts, etc. I don't call most of those thinking! Perhaps asking the question "What is a thought or an idea?" is a good start. Mathematical reasoning is close to what I think thinking is like or maybe just reasoning itself.


well when i feel or think or act,  it is an experience, in and of itself, and that experience is not really indirect ... and any relationship it has to anything else is purely conjecture.  of course, everything in the universe of my experience *is* of that nature.   is that what people are talking about when they talk of "direct experience" ?  

the assumption, which would be taken on faith, that those experiences do *not* reflect some other universe is, me thinks, solipsism ... lol ... not my cup of tea .

In a way, i am baffeled by your sentence, "My aim is to experience directly thinking" ... i mean, you are experiencing thinking ... how much more direct could it be?

For me, reasoning is kind of experiences which can be reliably repeated ... whether they accurately reflect the world or not.


Well OK you are talking about different things.  Thanks for contributing. See BofNK for direct experience.

Mark de LA says
Here's a clue - when you get clarity you can focus on the "I" as in Who am I? & directly experience it.  The survival self prevents that most of the time with RWG, & other tools in its machinery arsenal.


Mark de LA says
An example of NOT thinking is watching TV. Thinking, imho, is interacting with the material in the MIND & landing in a different place, object etc.


Mark de LA says
M 2013-03-31 11:22:47 16454
seth 2013-03-31 09:18:57 16454
M 2013-03-30 10:42:37 16454
An example of NOT thinking is watching TV. Thinking, imho, is interacting with the material in the MIND & landing in a different place, object etc.

of course it depends on how you watch TV.  if you follow the intentions of the producers of the program exactly, then, me thinks you are being played like a recording ... that could be called " *You* are not thinking" ... rather the producers are playing you.

Strangely enough that is not the way i watch TV ... in fact, it is even hard for me to follow the intentions of the producers ... i have to force myself ... but i can still do it, if i want. 

When i don't type or stroke Aerial for 10 minutes she shows me a slide show of my own photographs that i have selected ... but she randomly selects the photos.  So as i watch that the memories of my intentions as i snapped the scenes and the interpertations are called back in my mind.  But strangely enough even there it is not the same as my original intentions and interpretations when the photographs were made ... no it is always different than that and brings up new connections and fascinations ... or boordoms. 

I said all that to say that a thought like "Watching TV is NOT thinking" is way to binary for my mind ... and reflects  a prejudice against partaking in modern culture ... which prejudice i do not accept.
Yep, so far none of what you say has any resonance for me! The last part of your paragraphs makes no sense at all to me! I don't know how you can watch TV & enjoy it & yet not get swept into the fantasy but, enjoy whatever you do!

The last part about modern culture is just rwg-shit as far as I can interpret the bull shit in it.

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-04-02 08:06:12 16454
source: M asks
I don't know how you can watch TV & enjoy it & yet not get swept into the fantasy ...


TV provides a vicarious message ... just like somebody telling me a story or reading a story in a book or a newspaper or even watching my own slid show.  I still direct my own attention in all of these cases.  Rarely do i relegate that direction  over to the producers or the tellers of the vicarious message.  I suppose that everybody from time to time is somewhere on this spectrum ... on one end complete immersion and acceptance of the producers interpertation of the narrative ... and on the other end a complete rejection of it or even being oblivious to it.

At best it provides a vicarious view into modern culture ... at worst it is Novocaine.  Like all of my behavior it is what i make it to be ... it provides things to think about.   Try this one on:  Guns don't kill people, people kill people ..... TV does not kill thoughts ... you do .
The best way to deconfuse your TV watching of a show is to periodically ask "where am I?" - see what you find out.  I doubt your professed TV explanation above. I would never watch TV if I couldn't get absorbed in the drama & entertainment of the program. I doubt that you are so organized that you can do both at the same time.  Your gun analogy is of course SHIT!


Seth says
source: M asks
I don't know how you can watch TV & enjoy it & yet not get swept into the fantasy ...


TV provides a vicarious message ... just like somebody telling me a story or reading a story in a book or a newspaper or even watching my own slid show.  I still direct my own attention in all of these cases.  Rarely do i relegate that direction  over to the producers or the tellers of the vicarious message.  I suppose that everybody from time to time is somewhere on this spectrum ... on one end complete immersion and acceptance of the producers interpertation of the narrative ... and on the other end a complete rejection of it or even being oblivious to it.

At best it provides a vicarious view into modern culture ... at worst it is Novocaine.  Like all of my behavior it is what i make it to be ... it provides things to think about.   Try this one on:  Guns don't kill people, people kill people ..... TV does not kill thoughts ... you do .

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-03-31 09:31:57 16454
M 2013-03-30 09:56:47 16454
seth 2013-03-30 09:49:46 16454
MR 2013-03-29 08:41:16 16454
seth 2013-03-29 08:10:47 16454
Alternatively if i don't *think* at all ... but just am aware of my sensations and feelings ... well those are objects in and of themselves which are experienced directly.  Hmmm ... is that what you are talking about?

My aim is to experience directly thinking. What is it that I am doing when I think?  Some of it does look like sensation & feelings & perhaps that is because a lot is going on in the mind viz: memories, fantasy dramas, linguistic stuff, will directing the "train", self & Ego focus, will organizing things that must be done, encounters with ideas & thoughts & concepts, etc. I don't call most of those thinking! Perhaps asking the question "What is a thought or an idea?" is a good start. Mathematical reasoning is close to what I think thinking is like or maybe just reasoning itself.


well when i feel or think or act,  it is an experience, in and of itself, and that experience is not really indirect ... and any relationship it has to anything else is purely conjecture.  of course, everything in the universe of my experience *is* of that nature.   is that what people are talking about when they talk of "direct experience" ?  

the assumption, which would be taken on faith, that those experiences do *not* reflect some other universe is, me thinks, solipsism ... lol ... not my cup of tea .

In a way, i am baffeled by your sentence, "My aim is to experience directly thinking" ... i mean, you are experiencing thinking ... how much more direct could it be?

For me, reasoning is kind of experiences which can be reliably repeated ... whether they accurately reflect the world or not.


Well OK you are talking about different things.  Thanks for contributing. See BofNK for direct experience.

Well, am i thinking about different things, or am i thinking about the same things differently?  I strongly suspect that the latter is the case.  I actually got BofNK on my Kindle and we can see if after interperting Peter, i can still say that honestly. 
Yep, chapter 25 is the most interesting of the ontological context for me.  You haven't grasped the "thinking" yet that I am trying to grok.  Interpretation will not get you much on Peter. Try to grok what he's written instead.


Mark de LA says
seth 2013-03-31 09:55:42 16454
M 2013-03-30 09:59:48 16454
Here's a clue - when you get clarity you can focus on the "I" as in Who am I? & directly experience it.  The survival self prevents that most of the time with RWG, & other tools in its machinery arsenal.


You may not have caught it in my words above but i have started thinking that what you and Peter are calling "direct experience" is what i would call "personal experience" ... i.e. that which I personally experience first hand.  When I am sad, then i experience that sadness directly ... it is not indirect or symbolic or vicarious.  The same with when i hear something ... I hear it and experience the sound with my being.  The same for all sensual experience.  The same goes for imagining something.  Those are personal experiences ... first person experiences. 

In fact all that i experience ... err almost by definition ... is my personal experience ... even if it is *of* something that symbolizes or represents something that i have not experienced.   Even any story that i imagine about myself is my direct and personal experience.   However the stories that you, or my wife, or Nathan, or Peter Ralston, or the TV tell me about myself are not my personal experience.  No, those are somebody else's experiences ... they are kind of just as recommended on TV to me.
You don't know you are sad until you interpret the emotion. The "direct" part is without interpretation, cognition or other bullshit added to it.  You are missing the point STILL! Personal is not the point since it can reasonably be held that you experience your experience; although your experience may not be right at NOW & contain a lot of past garbage in it.



Mark de LA says
M 2013-04-02 12:48:36 16454
(Seth replies to the above): ...
Well you might believe me more if you know about the circumstances in which i watch TV ... mostly in the bed with denise in the morning and the evening.  Frequently i am not watching at all and am off in my own thoughts ... somtimes i just narrate the visuals for denise ... other times i  follow along with the program and even analyze the commercials more to grock the producers intentions than to "enjoy" the material.  Occasionally i do follow a drama or news story ... just like i read a book or newspaper or listen to somebody tell me a story.  For me, TV is about the culture i live in ... it is my portal into that.  It is a view of otherness.  How do you watch TV?Sure, our lives are partially formed by the instruments of our culture.  I am not disputing that.  Though, perhaps you dispute it, when you keep thinking that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." .... TV doesn't make you a zombie, you make yourself a zombie ... same kind of thought. Incidentally i would understand  what you would mean should you say, "Watching TV means you are progably not present to a NOW",   that makes sense to me because there is a giant indirection involved in the images on the TV screen.  Like i said way back, if you are totally engrossed in that experience, if you give yourself over to it,  you are substantially being played by the producers of the show.  For me it rarely happens like that.  The materials on TV are not that engrossing ... and that includes the materials on MSMBC, CNN, and Fox.  So it really is not true for me that when i watch TV, i am not thinking.
... When I am reading a book or listening to someone speak it is I that am making the pictures & drawing the relationships between things.  TV is different.
    Years ago ~ 1971 I noticed one day that I had been driving from the Navy Yard to my apartment & had arrived within a few blocks & yet I had not been in the car for most of it - my mind had been elsewhere.  With good drama the feeling is the same - an escape from reality into an otherness which is not my ordinary life.  With the news I am critical; similar to reading a book for information rather than literary dramas.
     You still didn't try or answer the question in your mind "where am I" while you watch a good TV drama or series. 
     Those who still do not acknowledge that it is the people & criminals & insane people who kill people & not the tools such as guns or suicide bombs are part of the low information people who form the sheeple of the country. Criminals do not follow laws, DUH! Neither to the insane, DUH!  Nothing contemplated is going to change that. There for a while there was even a liberal campaign against SUVs - where every headline had an SUV killing someone ignoring the person behind the wheel as if it suddenly took of on its own & decided to run into a crowd.
      Thinking is active, viewing TV is really not active in the same sense.  I'm glad I grew up without TV & learned how to read books & make up my own pictures, before the boilerplate education system got hold of me.  Excluding the news which is full of its own lies, distortions, & deletions, the pictures on TV are fantasies - (not real events). You may pride yourself in thinking that you are at the high tech end of today's culture, but so what ?  Are you just a zombie sponge for modern culture?  Most of it is just following the crowd to ever greater materialism & anti-religious exploits & low-information behavior. Phooey to most of it!
 


Seth says
Well a lot of what you are saying i agree with.  Watching TV certainly is less active than reading a book, in that with reading you actively make up the imagery yourself, while the TV strongly suggests that imagery and even serves you an emotional content in the sound track. 

But the extent of that really does depend on how you watch TV or read a book.  Just like you have found yourself driving a car leaving yourself behind, so have i found myself reading along parsing words from a book an thinking about something entirely different ... i had to go back and reread to pick up the story ... not so with driving, there you don't have to go back and re-drive the path,

I'm just pointing out that it is the same with TV ... sometimes you are engrossed ... sometimes you are not ... sometimes you are making up scenarios about how the show was written or produced or directed or stories about the actors ... other times you might be thinking about how the content is reflecting the culture from which it comes.   We are all so very different, and at different times are even different from ourselves ... some more so than others, .

My life is what i make it ... even myself ... that is what i make it too.  I can be present to my immediate sensations ... and/or what i am feeling at the moment ... and/or what i feel about myself or imagine myself to be; ... and/or i can be present to what is happening in my culture and how that is affecting my behavior and how my behavior is affecting my environment and my friends and family.   Watching TV, does not change that ... in a way it extends it, giving me a wider awareness ...
lots more to be present to .

That said, to answer your question directly, when i watch TV, i am most usually in bed with Denise.  She watches quite differently than I do ... and frequently needs me to tell her what the screen is showing.  She also is much more caught up with fashion, consumerism and money ... i guess you would call that "materialism".  So frequently my mind is not at all engrossed in the content from the TV.  When we do happen into a good drama, which is not very often, of course i will follow it ... just like it was a good movie or live stage play or a novel.  Where am I when that happens?  Just the very same place I am with all the other media ... listening to somebody tell me a story.

Mark de LA says
Well, anyway, finding myself somewhere else & suddenly realizing that I left the real world was quite fascinating for me.  According to GW the ego in motion is hard to find. (it's in the Tai Shu somewhere). My body can be somewhere - doing something & yet the "presence of mind" is not & consciousness is somewhere else.  Not unusual, but being aware of it leads to interesting findings.


Seth says
you actually did that with her?

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-11-01 10:25:14 16454
you actually did that with her?
Not your picture, NO ... none of that had been invented yet.


Mark de LA says
M 2013-04-04 09:33:48 16454
seth 2013-04-04 09:10:06 16454
... yeah ... of course there is this


thanks to No Help for the human race
Yep, add a few mirrors & be intriguing.  I find fucking more interesting when I focus my attention of fucking!

Then too "It's not what you look like when you're doing what you're doing it's what you're doing when doing what you look like you're doing ..."
spread yourself ....
One that Charlene introduced me to decades ago while turning me into a hippie.