How to see an elephant with multi-person binocular vision.

Strange how this thought keeps cropping up ….
maybe because it’s an antidote to the “me” generation.

How not to see an elephant with multiperson binocular vision

... or why when we are talking about an elephant we don't talk about each other.

see dialogue here.
_________________________________________________________________

a more practical way

________________________________________________________________

But wait ... there's more ...

I observe, what seems to me to be obvious ...

if the attitude of the persons twards each other while looking at the elephant is supportive and cooperative even empathetic then the binocular image will appear,

...

if the attitude twards the other eye is destructive, the binocular image will not appear. ______________________________________________________________

Of course being supportive (empathetic) does not mean seeing the same identical thing ... for it is just the differences in the things seen that create the binocular image.

and a great illustration, thanks Mark.

......................................................

and more here, again thanks to Mark.

The parable of the blind men & the Elephant
And so these men of Hindustan

Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.

_____________________________________________________________________

and here is a different representation thanks to G+ post.

source: my comment on G+

brings to my mind that any words, even true ones, are necessarily in a "this is true" plane.

_____________________________________________________________________

this was discussed in a boogie

Comments

Seth says

M1g0r 2014-01-26 09:36:22 17044

seth 2014-01-26 08:44:40 17044

M1g0r 2014-01-26 08:08:47 17044

seth 2014-01-26 07:59:46 17044

M1g0r 2014-01-25 16:40:39 17044

... for some values of attitude & empathy
notice if YOU are in empathy with my point of view things go smoothly
does this just become another part of the RWG with one accusing another of being "out of empathy" ? or ..
playing the empathy card ?
in politics I see such piling on or nesting with people who disagree with POTUS being accused of racism for not being in agreement with his agenda

well sure, as we are in total empathy with each other's view, then just that one image emerges ... but as we fight each other rather than looking at the elephant, in any manner of rwg, even reflected rwg, no mutual image emerges. perhaps a better overall characterizing word for that is "cooperation" not "empathy" ... i'll change that above. but on each personal side, seeing the differences that the other sees is what makes the image bigger than just one eye, that's the sense of empathy that i was trying to call up.

Do you really see it differently?

it is still one of those Golden Rule thingies - you first!
nice for some
so what?
anything practical to get there?
sounds like a dressed up greeting card thingy
nice metaphor
is it memeful? probably not since it doesn't have the survival/genetics basis that spreads the "virus"

well every time i have actually seen this work the "you first" bugagoo has not been a problem, rather everybody wants to go first, it's better called just "cooperation". another thing that feels the same, maybe is the same, is called "consensus", where everybody's view is respected.

i brought this up because it informs my project aka seeing the Leviathan. Me thinks that emerges as a binocular image ... which means that we would need to have more than just one person see and/or create it. Does that answer your "so what" ?

I need at least a glympse of the thingey before i could spread it ... am going for a might more tangeability than a mere scifi story ... thanks for the help

cooperation & consensus depend upon others which YOU have no control over
therefore it is a mere suggestion - a nice to have thingy
in politics currently that depends upon a willing M$M & all the corruption that goes with it
nothing new there
currently the meme trying to spread itself is that not cooperating with the liberal agenda is politically incorrect
that used to work by chopping off heads
you & I both liked consensus at PJ2
.. & that same consensus kicked you out for a while
the bugaboo (in your mind only) of you first got a Wikipedia page here.
the so what was inspired by Rodney King's famous quote during the riots.

well i think we need to give up the idea that humanity and even feeling it from the idside is going to be a homogenious experience.

Seth says

M1g0r 2014-01-27 07:47:07 17044

seth 2014-01-27 07:37:25 17044

M1g0r 2014-01-26 09:36:22 17044

seth 2014-01-26 08:44:40 17044

M1g0r 2014-01-26 08:08:47 17044

seth 2014-01-26 07:59:46 17044

M1g0r 2014-01-25 16:40:39 17044

... for some values of attitude & empathy
notice if YOU are in empathy with my point of view things go smoothly
does this just become another part of the RWG with one accusing another of being "out of empathy" ? or ..
playing the empathy card ?
in politics I see such piling on or nesting with people who disagree with POTUS being accused of racism for not being in agreement with his agenda

it is still one of those Golden Rule thingies - you first!
nice for some
so what?
anything practical to get there?
sounds like a dressed up greeting card thingy
nice metaphor
is it memeful? probably not since it doesn't have the survival/genetics basis that spreads the "virus"

cooperation & consensus depend upon others which YOU have no control over
therefore it is a mere suggestion - a nice to have thingy
in politics currently that depends upon a willing M$M & all the corruption that goes with it
nothing new there
currently the meme trying to spread itself is that not cooperating with the liberal agenda is politically incorrect
that used to work by chopping off heads
you & I both liked consensus at PJ2
.. & that same consensus kicked you out for a while
the bugaboo (in your mind only) of you first got a Wikipedia page here.
the so what was inspired by Rodney King's famous quote during the riots.

well i think we need to give up the idea that humanity and even feeling it from the idside is going to be a homogenious experience.

your choice
I choose not to limit myself
others can do their best to say otherwise

there's that we thingy again

well i was just accounting for your observation above: "cooperation & consensus depend upon others which YOU have no control over" ... which, to be honest, i had no idea why you brought that up in this context even thought it is certainly true. The thing is, does that not limit what we can see with binocular imaging unless we go beyond it and cooperate? Now you may certainly think of yourself as not limited and that you can see anything at all, but this is about what we can see together, not about what you or i can see singly.

Incidentally this "we thingy" will keep cropping up in these contexts because, after all, that is my project here: "How can we perceive the inside of humanity just as we perceive ourselves from the inside?"

M1g0r says

Concensus anyone - ?

Seth says

M1g0r 2014-01-27 10:31:01 17044

The point is that I choose to draw NO LIMITS not that I may have some
Drawing limits is of no value to me
It is a waste of time
Draw them for youself if you choose, I will not object
Draw them for We & I will object
I will always point out the We thingy when you talk about We & include a bunch of assumptions and bullshit trying to include Me in that We
One of the properties of contemplation is to be willing to look at whatever shows up - that means no constraints - openness!
your results may vary,
but, don't get stuck in walled gardens unless you like the flowers
... or licking the spoons you plant with

Anyway back to the point. Humanity is just not going to appear to be homogenous. Perhaps you see that as a limit that i am assuming on humanity. I do not. I see it as making what humanity is bigger, grander, more robust. But really Mark, you yourself made the pertinant observation: "cooperation & consensus depend upon others which YOU have no control over" ... so to any particular person things will look very diverse and conflicting ... that is not going away by assuming that they are homogenous. Yet the assumption of this exercise is that we are one being. The trick is to see that notwithstanding the diversity of the beast.

So i am not choosing to limit myself, you, or us in any way ... i am just observing what things we do which work to prevent us from seeing this beast that we compose, from the inside - all our individual diverse lives respected. That may be an impossible thing to see ... buy why should we accept that limitation?

Seth says

source: mark

back to the point of this entire piece
so what?
none of this stuff is useful or practical
except for your purposes
if you declare consensus how do you get one?
just reading your pedantry ...
or using logic
never got anywhere without the other components such as emotion
& that silent will
we all know that stopping bad habits would improve our lives
we can talk all day about it
haggle agreements & keeping one's word till the sun sets 1000 times
but does it work
I say NO!

... well RS and others give us exercises which make the spiritual world appear. those do not try to form any kind of consensus ... nor am i.

i think being able to perceive our selves from the inside does serve to improve our personal development. so why would not perceiving our humanity from the inside do just as well for us as a people? That is the practical aspect of my work here.

And yes, feeling that emotionally ... and silent will (whatever that be?) ... is a big part of that perception ... thanks for mentioning it

M1g0r says

seth 2014-01-27 12:18:00 17044

source: mark

back to the point of this entire piece
so what?
none of this stuff is useful or practical
except for your purposes
if you declare consensus how do you get one?
just reading your pedantry ...
or using logic
never got anywhere without the other components such as emotion
& that silent will
we all know that stopping bad habits would improve our lives
we can talk all day about it
haggle agreements & keeping one's word till the sun sets 1000 times
but does it work
I say NO!

You are already a human being
One part of humanity
inside & outside at the same time
if you care to look
From ibid (* ) para 6 - "Man is the universe. An individual is a permutation of one of the particular ways the universe has of being and doing." ..
para 7 continues .. "What you see and feel and know and think are you, your "I"."
...etc. go read it again or for the first time.
When you get to the point of identifying with the Universe you will have your grock
I doubt you can just think your way into it
I doubt you can reason your way to it
I doubt you can talk your way into it
I doubt you can write your way into it
I doubt you can will or feel you way into it.
It took Buddha a very long while to get to such a point
better start pretty soon, eh?

Seth says

I wonder if binocular rivalry could inform this item. Thanks Philip Smith

Seth says

seth 2014-03-12 12:12:09 17044

Einai 2014-03-12 09:33:18 17044

attitude = already, always listening.
It never helps to point out someone's attitude as a problem unless one is talking about oneself.

mark: attitude = already, always listening.

seth: sure it can be.

mark: It never helps to point out someone's attitude as a problem unless one is talking about oneself.

seth: hmmm ....

... i am actually not so very sure that is always true. To be honest that sounds like some of the new age, me generation, LOA philosophy which presumes quite a bit more solid wall between inside and outside than do I. That presumes that we do not affect each other ... and perhaps should never try. Now that presumption has a good side and a bad side.

The good side is that (talking for myself here) I am responsible for my own being and what you do is really none of my business. That side is so very true.

The bad side is that i am also partially responsible for what we do together. When one of your attitudes is adversely affecting what we are doing together, should i just ignore that, and not inform you of it? No i think not.

Now here is the rub. If you don't take the message on face value, but instead reflect it back onto me ... er, then you are right ... it never would help.

shades of this same topic ... in which, mark above, states the same truth

... "mark: It never helps to point out someone's attitude as a problem unless one is talking about oneself."

Isn't it interesting how when our minds are in a different context we see things differently.

sometimes my mind gets in this super-fluidity mode where nothing but direct perception counts and i can make "sense" of none of it. momentarily i try to get to something deeper and other times i chalk it up to dementia

. it was in one of those moments that i remembered this meme and had to go back to grab it and post it in this context here where it applies. An yet these words and approimate and merely in "a piddly truth" plane ... somthing otherwise actually happened

... this is just the best truth i can write in this moment. i still claim that representing truth, ends up changing it, not merely just representing it.

Seth says

we can think outside of our own skulls

Seth says

... 2015-07-14 15:07:29 17044

seth 2015-07-14 15:01:25 17044

... 2015-07-14 14:48:49 17044

seth 2015-07-14 14:47:03 17044

... 2015-07-14 14:42:14 17044

seth 2015-07-14 14:04:35 17044

we can think outside of our own skulls

Mostly without a brain.

well what kind of "brain" does a mind supervene upon? What is the boundary of brain? What is the boundary of your mind?

Missed anatomy class? The brain is inside the skull & connected to the spinal chord. The mind is unconfined & is conceptual.

hmmm ... well i do believe that i incorporated both of those facts in my sentences. To say, we can think outside of the boundary of our skulls, is to say that we are thinking within the concepts that we find in the culture at large ... whether said concepts are within the ontology we individually hold-to or not.

Yep ... imaginary/conceptual/abstract stuff - any story that makes you happy.

hmmm ... so the pattern recognized is, if a story does not fit withing the ontology inside Mark's skull ... he calls it something like "imaginary/conceptual/abstract stuff" and then refers it to goo. How many times are you going to be doing that? Let me know, because then i will come back and start to pay attention to you when you are through.

Si says

MR of group mark 2016-03-06 13:32:04 [item 17044#48280]

I prefer the NOVERSE! The cross-ratio of all nodes is 0.

As you wish. Lots of maps. Not sure how to use the noverse map though. Are there instructions? Seminars? Workshops? Does anyone channel noverse entities for us to get info and ask questions of?

Seth says

All these parables and perspectives and thought models try and explain these reality puzzles and make sense out of them. They all have one thing in common too. They ignore the simple idea that people are reporting accurately and instead try to forcefully fit what people report into the assumption that there is a “universe”. If one lets go of that assumption and takes things simple, as they are seen and reported by each, then one would conclude that each person is in a different entire experience, not that each person is having a distorted experience of the same thing.

The metaphore of the elephant and the 3D image are part of the attempt to reconcile the base assumption and what people report … but they are only metaphores. If we take people at their word we don’t need metaphores. We can work with things as we really see them, perhaps, as they really are, or at least a simpler map that better fits without all these metaphores and additional assumptions and thought puzzles.

Nothing is lost having a multiverse instead of a universe. Everything we care about and experience works out the same. The only difference is that we get to loose all the confusion, contradictions, and paradoxes that hanging onto the assumption of a universe creates.

nathan

Well of course “each person is in a different entire experience, not that each person is having a distorted experience of the same thing” …. absolutely! That is the nature of personal experience. You experience what you experience from within your skin … i from within mine … i am not in your skin .. nor are you inside mine … you see and experience with your eyes … i with mine. To be honest with you i don’t know any sane and mature person who would even doubt such a thing.

However that fact does not determine in any way that your skin is not outside of my skin. It could be, it could not be, what happens is inadequate to completely determined that story one way or another … see All stories obtain. So chill … nobody is here contradicting your multiverses.

Fact is this though is not about that … and the thinking you are doing here in this comment has distracted you from thinking about How to see an elephant with multi-person binocular vision..

I am saying that if we do not continually mistrust and disparage and compare others experiences to our own and continually play the RWG game …. we actually can see things outside of both ourselves quite a bit more clearly. We can both see in sterio. It is kind of just like your verse jumping in a way … only it takes more than one person jumping … and it requires both of us believeing in what is outside of our skins .. and looking at that, rather than the mirrored image of the other person on our retina.

How to see an elephant with multi-person binocular vision.

Strange how this thought keeps cropping up ….
maybe because it’s an antidote to the “me” generation.

Tags

Comments

See Also

How to see an elephant with multi-person binocular vision.

Strange how this thought keeps cropping up …. maybe because it’s an antidote to the “me” generation.

Tags

Comments

See Also

Strange how this thought keeps cropping up ….
maybe because it’s an antidote to the “me” generation.