Thought, will, emotion, movement. Paint the whole picture.

About: ***** A Facebook conversation with Seth & Nate & Mark

      I can't satisfy the request in finite space-time.  I will focus on NOW. I hold NOW to be not an infinitesimal chunk of time, but an awareness of what I have access to at the moment. I looked for NOW & it escaped! I am conscious of the external world, my internal/external body & my mind - sometimes called my soul. My soul experience is not limited to my head nor any particular place.
When I experience thought I live mostly in my head. I can move my "feeling attention" to some other place like my heart, my throat , different places within my head etc... generally following what RS & Indian tradition - new age swamis etc call the chakras.
     At this point I hold that my experience has three normal contexts; those of thoughts, feelings & the will. Normal in this sense means that no occult powers are needed for these contexts to be obvious to any human being.
     Most experience is a mixing of one or all of these three contexts.  Thoughts show up in their purity mostly in mathematical, logical & some scientific domains.  Feelings show up sometimes on their own from memories, sensory impingement upon me by the external world &/or feedback from my actions & doings.  My will shows up both before during & after I perform actions in the external world or my internal world & even thinking. The latter being most flexible or malleable. The first being the most constrained by physicality.  In the middle - feeling - is much like quicksilver hard to control through will & thought, but shiny & fascinating. 
     Moving away from NOW, which I couldn't find I hold that time is an abstraction of change &/or change may be a function of time.  It could be a chicken & egg thing. One needs change for movement to be detected; anyway I need it. I hold that feeling closely tied to will is what the word emotion means. I hold that when I have feelings without the will to change something including move somewhere or someway & I use them as indicators of perhaps a charge (+/-) on some experience or memory of one.
      I hold that I am a human being in evolution so that the relationships I have to thought, feeling & will evolve & will someday be independent yet completly under my own conscious integration & purposes.  I have evolved considerably in the last 72 years of my life.  I have had many mentors including both of my parents. There are many tools such as meditation, contemplation zen, science NLP, etc to tease out more.
      The un asked question I won't answer. 
       I hold that all ultimate particles in the universe, perhaps all beings in some other ontology, are conscious at some degree - even rocks.  For consciousnesses above man's consult Rudolf Steiner or your favorite gurus, however some could be faking it.  I hold that rock-level is an approximate level for my will right now. In my feelings my consciousness is more & in my thoughts - the most.  I hold that when I clarify my desires in a positive way & become very conscious of exactly what they are and what I want & don't want that such enables me to find ordinary ways as in the first paragraph to hitherto unforseen possibilities of obtaining them.  LOA, Manifestation, the magick link & magic are mere ways of clarification.
The rest is just a story - probably a sleeve-job - see 16922
BTW what consciousness is is that which particularizes some part of the universe of experience for my "I".


Tags

  1. 4 questions
  2. 16959

Comments


Mark de LA says
seth 2013-12-13 11:51:08 16959
interesting indeed ... even though i have not carefully followed what promteted you picture here.  most of this is pretty much the same with me ... especially what you said about the now ... for me that is just what shows up in any particular moment.

you have emphasized some things that seem strange to me and/or i don't know what you mean and/or i am different in that regard.   eg,  you say "Thoughts show up in their purity mostly in mathematical, logical & some scientific domains" ... well i don't know what you are implying with your word "purity" here ... for me i think about all kinds of things, mathematics, people, social circumstances, physics, politics, media, what somebody said, etc etc ... in none of those would i use the word "purity" in relationship to my thought.  so here, i guess i don't know that you mean ... and if it is important, could you explain?


you say, "feeling - is much like quicksilver hard to control through will & thought, but shiny & fascinating".  it is pretty much the same with me.   i do like to alter my attitude, which for me is part of my feelings, by changeing what i do and say and where i direct my focus.  it is hard to do, especially with strong feelings, so i think we are the same there.  i like d'A's idea that feelings in some now are caused by a relationship between my life in the now and a "higher" reality.  it certainly can seem to be made to work that way.  there does seem to be some similarities between that and your RS doubles ... no??

i really don't know what you are getting at when you say, "I hold that when I have feelings without the will to change something including move somewhere or someway & I use them as indicators of perhaps a charge (+/-) on some experience or memory of one." ... if it is important, then could you please explain??
para 1 - what pic?
purity is used in the sense that when you are thinking in mathematics you are mostly dealing with concepts of mathematics & not a lot of other shit like in politics or the rest of your list.
there is nothing about doubles in here at all.
the last para relates to the distinction between feelings & emotions. a feeling of guilt rarely does anything to motivate action; mostly churns feeling bad. I elaborated that the other day.


Mark de LA says
What shows up in any particular NOW can show up without opne's self consciousness or the distinction of now.  I add to it the presence of mind and the will to stay present without just riding the train of thoughts, memories & feelings. It is synchronous with the NOWbies but not in the way they describe it as a religion.


Seth says
mrU 2013-12-13 15:53:25 16959
seth 2013-12-13 11:51:08 16959
interesting indeed ... even though i have not carefully followed what prompted you picture here.  most of this is pretty much the same with me ... especially what you said about the now ... for me that is just what shows up in any particular moment.

you have emphasized some things that seem strange to me and/or i don't know what you mean and/or i am different in that regard.   eg,  you say "Thoughts show up in their purity mostly in mathematical, logical & some scientific domains" ... well i don't know what you are implying with your word "purity" here ... for me i think about all kinds of things, mathematics, people, social circumstances, physics, politics, media, what somebody said, etc etc ... in none of those would i use the word "purity" in relationship to my thought.  so here, i guess i don't know that you mean ... and if it is important, could you explain?


you say, "feeling - is much like quicksilver hard to control through will & thought, but shiny & fascinating".  it is pretty much the same with me.   i do like to alter my attitude, which for me is part of my feelings, by changeing what i do and say and where i direct my focus.  it is hard to do, especially with strong feelings, so i think we are the same there.  i like d'A's idea that feelings in some now are caused by a relationship between my life in the now and a "higher" reality.  it certainly can seem to be made to work that way.  there does seem to be some similarities between that and your RS doubles ... no??

i really don't know what you are getting at when you say, "I hold that when I have feelings without the will to change something including move somewhere or someway & I use them as indicators of perhaps a charge (+/-) on some experience or memory of one." ... if it is important, then could you please explain??
para 1 - what pic?
purity is used in the sense that when you are thinking in mathematics you are mostly dealing with concepts of mathematics & not a lot of other shit like in politics or the rest of your list.
there is nothing about doubles in here at all.
the last para relates to the distinction between feelings & emotions. a feeling of guilt rarely does anything to motivate action; mostly churns feeling bad. I elaborated that the other day.


er ... the picture is the one you refereed to in your title.

i heard the doubles not in what you said, but in what d'A said ... in the sentence i bolded above ... can you not hear it in his sentence?

Seth says
seth 2013-12-13 20:52:34 16959
mrU 2013-12-13 15:53:25 16959
seth 2013-12-13 11:51:08 16959
interesting indeed ... even though i have not carefully followed what prompted you picture here.  most of this is pretty much the same with me ... especially what you said about the now ... for me that is just what shows up in any particular moment.

you have emphasized some things that seem strange to me and/or i don't know what you mean and/or i am different in that regard.   eg,  you say "Thoughts show up in their purity mostly in mathematical, logical & some scientific domains" ... well i don't know what you are implying with your word "purity" here ... for me i think about all kinds of things, mathematics, people, social circumstances, physics, politics, media, what somebody said, etc etc ... in none of those would i use the word "purity" in relationship to my thought.  so here, i guess i don't know that you mean ... and if it is important, could you explain?


you say, "feeling - is much like quicksilver hard to control through will & thought, but shiny & fascinating".  it is pretty much the same with me.   i do like to alter my attitude, which for me is part of my feelings, by changeing what i do and say and where i direct my focus.  it is hard to do, especially with strong feelings, so i think we are the same there.  i like d'A's idea that feelings in some now are caused by a relationship between my life in the now and a "higher" reality.  it certainly can seem to be made to work that way.  there does seem to be some similarities between that and your RS doubles ... no??

i really don't know what you are getting at when you say, "I hold that when I have feelings without the will to change something including move somewhere or someway & I use them as indicators of perhaps a charge (+/-) on some experience or memory of one." ... if it is important, then could you please explain??
para 1 - what pic?
purity is used in the sense that when you are thinking in mathematics you are mostly dealing with concepts of mathematics & not a lot of other shit like in politics or the rest of your list.
there is nothing about doubles in here at all.
the last para relates to the distinction between feelings & emotions. a feeling of guilt rarely does anything to motivate action; mostly churns feeling bad. I elaborated that the other day.


er ... the picture is the one you refereed to in your title.

i heard the doubles not in what you said, but in what d'A said ... in the sentence i bolded above ... can you not hear it in his sentence?
Follow nate's link in the about that was a metaphorical picture of what he was talking about.
Yep neither of you knows what RS's double is about. Did you ever read Doestoevsky? that is only a hint.


Seth says
seth 2013-12-14 07:47:37 16959
ME 2013-12-13 21:15:47 16959
seth 2013-12-13 20:52:34 16959
mrU 2013-12-13 15:53:25 16959
seth 2013-12-13 11:51:08 16959
interesting indeed ... even though i have not carefully followed what prompted you picture here.  most of this is pretty much the same with me ... especially what you said about the now ... for me that is just what shows up in any particular moment.

you have emphasized some things that seem strange to me and/or i don't know what you mean and/or i am different in that regard.   eg,  you say "Thoughts show up in their purity mostly in mathematical, logical & some scientific domains" ... well i don't know what you are implying with your word "purity" here ... for me i think about all kinds of things, mathematics, people, social circumstances, physics, politics, media, what somebody said, etc etc ... in none of those would i use the word "purity" in relationship to my thought.  so here, i guess i don't know that you mean ... and if it is important, could you explain?


you say, "feeling - is much like quicksilver hard to control through will & thought, but shiny & fascinating".  it is pretty much the same with me.   i do like to alter my attitude, which for me is part of my feelings, by changeing what i do and say and where i direct my focus.  it is hard to do, especially with strong feelings, so i think we are the same there.  i like d'A's idea that feelings in some now are caused by a relationship between my life in the now and a "higher" reality.  it certainly can seem to be made to work that way.  there does seem to be some similarities between that and your RS doubles ... no??

i really don't know what you are getting at when you say, "I hold that when I have feelings without the will to change something including move somewhere or someway & I use them as indicators of perhaps a charge (+/-) on some experience or memory of one." ... if it is important, then could you please explain??
para 1 - what pic?
purity is used in the sense that when you are thinking in mathematics you are mostly dealing with concepts of mathematics & not a lot of other shit like in politics or the rest of your list.
there is nothing about doubles in here at all.
the last para relates to the distinction between feelings & emotions. a feeling of guilt rarely does anything to motivate action; mostly churns feeling bad. I elaborated that the other day.


er ... the picture is the one you refereed to in your title.

i heard the doubles not in what you said, but in what d'A said ... in the sentence i bolded above ... can you not hear it in his sentence?
Follow nate's link in the about that was a metaphorical picture of what he was talking about.
Yep neither of you knows what RS's double is about. Did you ever read Doestoevsky? that is only a hint.

well yes i think i knew that.   but it was not d'A who identified relating to a "higher self" to the idea of a "double" ... it was me.  i mean, whatever a "double" is, RS does describe it as a "higher self" ... my words, not his.   that said, it actually might be interesting for me to re-read Doestoevesky ... let's see if it happens .
RS does NOT describe the Double as a higher self. Where do you think he does? He describes it as Ahriman-Luciver cohabiting all the 4 vehicles of a man i.e. the physical, etheric, astral & ego.
As the ego works on the other three & "purifies" or evolves the higher self evolves out of the other three : spirit-self, life-spirit, spirit-man. the latter 3 are not the doubles we speak of . I suppose it all depends upon what you identify with.  If you identify with the human being in it's sublime state of being you call the Ahriman-Lucifer-Asuras part as the "double".  If you identify with the latter then the other is the double. RS identifies with the more Christ like part.
The Outline of Occult science or KofHW makes this more clear here.

See Also

  1. Thought i tend to kill my doubles with 0 viewings related by tag "16959".