Chaos vs Cosmos?

Are there any practical or pragmatic - useful results of the Bozometry World Outlook?
Bozometry is Kewl!  Anthroposophy is better

Tags

  1. cosmos
  2. cosmic joke

Comments


Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-17 09:07:46 17103
M1g0r 2014-02-17 09:00:17 17103
  • Was/is there some practical model for keeping a person out of the nuthouse by avoiding metaphysics?
  • Specifics ?
  • In politics the notion of abandoning the traditional notion of truth gives all the wiggle room anyone needs to maintain his party's candidates's public declarations & ones own private political beliefs, eh?
  • In relating to other people, one could relate to just about any behavior in another by at least saying "that is not me" but vive le difference
  • one never need, never explain, oneself to anyone else consequently
  • one may hold another responsible for not understanding one's use of language, metaphors or memes, analogies & descriptions of one's experience.
  1. anything else?
-> ∞ & beyond to the cosmick joke

These are obviously from my perspective - see 5th & 6th bullets

...
  1. I have no practical method or model of keeping people out of the nuthouse by avoiding metaphysics.  I don't remember ever talking to you or anyone else about such. 
  2. In my early childhood, and then later when i was playing myself out of the nuthouse, i discovered that i could relate to people better and act less crazy to them, if i cultured a  respect their otherness from me. 
  3. Actually i would need a better description of what you are now calling  "the traditional notion of truth" as it pertains to politics before i could figure out what we might be abandoning.  Myself i am favoring something, even for politics,  that i have started to call "radical honesty".  It is pretty much the same thing that others call "authenticity" ... or even "integrity".  As such i don't think there is any added wiggle room,  rather more an expectation that when a politician says something that they actually believe it themselves.  I think that would improve politics by leaps and bounds. No more lying about other candidates in TV commercials to start with, eh?
  4. Yes, on can "relate to just about any behavior in another by at least saying 'that is not me' but vive le difference"  after all we are responsible for ourselves and move our own bodies and mouths, not theirs.  I believe Jesus said that a bit differently, "judge not, least ye be judged".  I say it a bit differently too, "try to culture a respect for that which is other than yourself".  I have found it works well. 
  5. Personally i love in depth communication ... even intimacy ...  and that certainly entails being able to describe or explain my insides to somebody else. 
  6. Communication is a two way street.  If both parties don't have the will to communicate, i seriously doubt that any communication will ever happen.

I don't get your cosmic joke. 


Mark de LA says

Mark de LA says
  • I like #3 - I won't hold my breath.
  • truth is that phrase that one swears to when one stands before the bailiff or judge & utters the words "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth - so help me God!"
  • What non trivial meaning you hold & assign the word otherness to is maybe strangeness? otherwise I have no clue yet even with all the discussion we have had about it
  • I like the Golden Rule nature of Judgement expressed as you did. Exercising such is still as difficult as the Golden Rule itself with the "you first" caveats etc prevalent amongst hoi polloi.
  • The meaning of your communications is the response you get.
  • Thanks for your response.
  • I acknowledge, appreciate & respect that you gave it.
  • When all is said & done I suspect the end result of Satori is to appreciate that all concerns & endeavors & struggles are as if the Cosmic Sleeve Job had happened.  I got a glimpse in the moment I associated with this picture & the first time I associated to it.


Mark de LA says
seth 2014-02-17 22:53:57 17103
  • Mark: What non trivial meaning you hold & assign the word otherness to is maybe strangeness? otherwise I have no clue yet even with all the discussion we have had about it
    • Well the definition is quite trivial: that which is not me.  it is that of which i have no control, no responsibility for, not of my creation, no credit to me.  the trick is the attitude i can adopt to it.  to respect it just as very much as i do myself.  to feel it's freedom just as very sovereign as my own.  strangeness is not the point ... that which is not me can be strange to me, or act quite predictably.  think of the prime directive from star trek ... it's kind of in that direction.  its a feeling, that's all.
    • in a way it's almost the opposite of d'A attitudes that he is responsible for all his experiences ... though not with the victim shit.  it is almost the opposite of solipsism. 
  • Mark: "you first caveats etc prevalent amongst hoi polloi"
    • caveats?  what do you mean?  I don't know about those caveats.  I have heard you invoke them, but i though you were being factious.  i guess i missed the meme.
  • Mark quoting a meme: "The meaning of your communications is the response you get"
    • I don't think it's that simple.  Seems to me to be more like
      1. content meaning intended by the author
      2. content meaning heard by the listener
      3. dialogue meaning intended by the author
      4. dialogue meaning heard by the listener
      5. what happened because of the communication
    • unless you want to also include unintended consequences etc
  • mark: "end result of Satori is to appreciate that all concerns & endeavors & struggles are as if the Cosmic Sleeve Job had happened."
    • had happened, or had not happened?
    • i dont get the sleeve job - the cosmos has never lied to me - people, well they lie all the time ... and, er, make shit up that generations of people have to deal with
    • sans that, er, cosmic job i would not be here - i actually feel pretty thankful for that
    • sorry, i took you seriously, you were probably joking

  • kewl on otherness I think I got it.
  • The caveats is another aspect of trying to practice the golden rule. The pluck the beam out of the others' eye stuff, you first & then I will act according to the Golden Rule.  Just try to adhere strictly to it & they will show up!
  • Communication is not as complex as you make it.  I prefer the NLP point of view in that it puts the communication responsibility solely on the shoulders of the person speaking (etc.)
  • Yeah, I thought the "sleeve job" satori was a bit off when I re-read what I wrote.
  • OTOH, I got the inspiration afterward & left it.  Perhaps the promise of the sleeve-job ultimate sex might actually be delivered at Satori.



Mark de LA says
Anyway the joke is whatever Ho Tei is laughing at!


Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-18 07:59:14 17103
seth 2014-02-17 22:53:57 17103
  • Mark: What non trivial meaning you hold & assign the word otherness to is maybe strangeness? otherwise I have no clue yet even with all the discussion we have had about it
    • Well the definition is quite trivial: that which is not me.  it is that of which i have no control, no responsibility for, not of my creation, no credit to me.  the trick is the attitude i can adopt to it.  to respect it just as very much as i do myself.  to feel it's freedom just as very sovereign as my own.  strangeness is not the point ... that which is not me can be strange to me, or act quite predictably.  think of the prime directive from star trek ... it's kind of in that direction.  its a feeling, that's all.
    • in a way it's almost the opposite of d'A attitudes that he is responsible for all his experiences ... though not with the victim shit.  it is almost the opposite of solipsism. 
  • Mark: "you first caveats etc prevalent amongst hoi polloi"
    • caveats?  what do you mean?  I don't know about those caveats.  I have heard you invoke them, but i though you were being factious.  i guess i missed the meme.
  • Mark quoting a meme: "The meaning of your communications is the response you get"
    • I don't think it's that simple.  Seems to me to be more like
      1. content meaning intended by the author
      2. content meaning heard by the listener
      3. dialogue meaning intended by the author
      4. dialogue meaning heard by the listener
      5. what happened because of the communication
    • unless you want to also include unintended consequences etc
  • mark: "end result of Satori is to appreciate that all concerns & endeavors & struggles are as if the Cosmic Sleeve Job had happened."
    • had happened, or had not happened?
    • i dont get the sleeve job - the cosmos has never lied to me - people, well they lie all the time ... and, er, make shit up that generations of people have to deal with
    • sans that, er, cosmic job i would not be here - i actually feel pretty thankful for that
    • sorry, i took you seriously, you were probably joking

  • kewl on otherness I think I got it.
  • The caveats is another aspect of trying to practice the golden rule. The pluck the beam out of the others' eye stuff, you first & then I will act according to the Golden Rule.  Just try to adhere strictly to it & they will show up!
  • Communication is not as complex as you make it.  I prefer the NLP point of view in that it puts the communication responsibility solely on the shoulders of the person speaking (etc.)
  • Yeah, I thought the "sleeve job" satori was a bit off when I re-read what I wrote.
  • OTOH, I got the inspiration afterward & left it.  Perhaps the promise of the sleeve-job ultimate sex might actually be delivered at Satori.

Well well what do you know communication does happen .  I'll have to peserve the moment and the string somewhere, who knows, maybe sombody else can use it.

I still think you are being factitious when you call "you first" as a "caveat" to the Golden Rule.  To me it is just a blatant breaking of the rule. 

I still don't think communication will happen unless the person talking cooperates with the person hearing.  Neither has all of the, er "responsibility". 

Strangely enough i did get a laugh when delving into your sleve job satori ... i caught myself laughing, honestly i did, then when i tried to hear the joke again i forgot it, and could not reproduce the mirth.   But i know we were not laughing at the same thing .... but who knows, maybe we were .

Mark de LA says
Maybe this & it's follow on class could help, eh?

Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-18 09:30:55 17103
Maybe this & it's follow on class could help, eh?

i don't know ... seems targeted different that what we could use ...
source: from the curriculum of this

The sessions and assignments are designed for participants who teach or have access to classrooms in which they can gather samples of students’ conversation during lessons. Finally, we include resources and tasks for instructional coaches and others who support teachers and build school-wide capacity.

Please note that this is a slightly modified version of a previous course offered in Fall, 2013. This course is targeted towards elementary school teachers.


...


Mark de LA says
seth 2014-02-18 09:45:09 17103
M1g0r 2014-02-18 09:30:55 17103
Maybe this & it's follow on class could help, eh?

i don't know ... seems targeted different that what we could use ...
source: from the curriculum of this

The sessions and assignments are designed for participants who teach or have access to classrooms in which they can gather samples of students’ conversation during lessons. Finally, we include resources and tasks for instructional coaches and others who support teachers and build school-wide capacity.

Please note that this is a slightly modified version of a previous course offered in Fall, 2013. This course is targeted towards elementary school teachers.


... it's the basics - could build on them or not.



Mark de LA says
seth 2014-02-19 00:10:08 17103
M1g0r 2014-02-18 23:18:33 17103
M1g0r 2014-02-18 23:11:11 17103
seth 2014-02-18 21:03:30 17103
i think, thinking of a thing in and of itself,  and ignoring the fact that there is a inside private part of it that you yourself cannot experience, is to disrespect the thing, and hence not to know it for itself.
[see: tags word salad]
secrecy?
privacy?
Ego?
wtf?
I have no need for YOU to draw lines for me.
But then you seem to be designing your own universe
Why would I worry?
I don't
Communication in some universes is over-rated.
Try this with someone else
I am experiencing you experiencing me experiencing you
maybe get the point?
maybe not!


well maybe i should have composed my sentence more directly about people and removed one level of reflection.

source:bozo
thinking of a person in and of themselves, and ignoring the fact that there is a inside private part of that person that you cannot experience yourself, is to disrespect the person, and hence not to know them for themselves.  

so you cannot experience me experiencing you ... you can only imagine that you do.  only i can actually experience my experiences.  if you claim that you can, you would be lying and disrespecting my sovereign self from you.

that is the part of the elephant in the room that you seem to deny.  or rather you seem to do a little diddly dance around it to avoid having to admit that it is there just as plane as the nose on your face.  try just accepting it for what it is (in and of itself), or even refute it, or ack that it is true and trivial, or just ignore it, i dont't care.  but, mark, to feign word salad, and insult my thought just to feel superior, is *your* own ego being an asshole.  take a shit!

that is not just a salad of words.  they actually mean something, quite simple to me.  they can mean something to you too, if you will just parse them objectively.  or not. your choice.  but judge them without parsing them, and i will judge you to be an asshole.
Too bad you never tried the exercise with another person as I did at Cheng Hsin you might have had the possibility of a different kind of experience besides what you limit your mind with.
Maybe not!



Mark de LA says
I think one has to relax personal Ego & be that which one wants to comprehend, grok or understand - if just for a moment - in order to embrace that other being - whatever level of being or consciousness that other being exhibits.

this is not just the trivialities of empathy & sympathy that show up in the epigrams & greeting cards of facebook et al.

Mark de LA says
I got this from the exercises of PR in trying to comprehend a thing as itself for itself & contemplating wou this afternoon .
I would not limit myself.
There is no reason to do so.
The rules of contemplation are something like 17106 from  BofNK


Mark de LA says
M1g0r 2014-02-18 23:11:11 17103
seth 2014-02-18 21:03:30 17103
i think, thinking of a thing in and of itself,  and ignoring the fact that there is a inside private part of it that you yourself cannot experience, is to disrespect the thing, and hence not to know it for itself.
[see: tags word salad]
secrecy?
privacy?
Ego?
wtf?
I have no need for YOU to draw lines for me.
But then you seem to be designing your own universe
Why would I worry?
I don't
Communication in some universes is over-rated.
Try this with someone else
I am experiencing you experiencing me experiencing you
maybe get the point?
maybe not!


Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-18 16:06:30 17103
I think one has to relax personal Ego & be that which one wants to comprehend, grok or understand - if just for a moment - in order to embrace that other being - whatever level of being or consciousness that other being exhibits.

this is not just the trivialities of empathy & sympathy that show up in the epigrams & greeting cards of facebook et al.

Yes definitely

RS described that in detail in his "Practical Training in Thought" book, which is where i first heard it.  The trick being to think about all aspects of the thing in detail and not get distracted by your own wishes and wants in relation to it.  I think  Marcus Aurelius said, "think what a thing is,  in and of itself".

You described it using the analogy, "be that which you want to comprehend",  ... and yes, at its best, that is what it should be like.   I would caution, however, against forgetting that is just an analogy and can almost never be a fact ... especially when one is trying to comprehend another person.

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-02-18 21:03:30 17103
i think, thinking of a thing in and of itself,  and ignoring the fact that there is a inside private part of it that you yourself cannot experience, is to disrespect the thing, and hence not to know it for itself.
[see: tags word salad]

Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-18 23:18:33 17103
M1g0r 2014-02-18 23:11:11 17103
seth 2014-02-18 21:03:30 17103
i think, thinking of a thing in and of itself,  and ignoring the fact that there is a inside private part of it that you yourself cannot experience, is to disrespect the thing, and hence not to know it for itself.
[see: tags word salad]
secrecy?
privacy?
Ego?
wtf?
I have no need for YOU to draw lines for me.
But then you seem to be designing your own universe
Why would I worry?
I don't
Communication in some universes is over-rated.
Try this with someone else
I am experiencing you experiencing me experiencing you
maybe get the point?
maybe not!


well maybe i should have composed my sentence more directly about people and removed one level of reflection.

source:bozo
thinking of a person in and of themselves, and ignoring the fact that there is a inside private part of that person that you cannot experience yourself, is to disrespect the person, and hence not to know them for themselves.  

so you cannot experience me experiencing you ... you can only imagine that you do.  only i can actually experience my experiences.  if you claim that you can, you would be lying and disrespecting my sovereign self from you.

that is the part of the elephant in the room that you seem to deny.  or rather you seem to do a little diddly dance around it to avoid having to admit that it is there just as plane as the nose on your face.  try just accepting it for what it is (in and of itself), or even refute it, or ack that it is true and trivial, or just ignore it, i dont't care.  but, mark, to feign word salad, and insult my thought just to feel superior, is *your* own ego being an asshole.  take a shit!

that is not just a salad of words.  they actually mean something, quite simple to me.  they can mean something to you too, if you will just parse them objectively.  or not. your choice.  but judge them without parsing them, and i will judge you to be an asshole.

Mark de LA says
Thanks for calling people liars.
You used to do that more often.
As if you were the determiner of truth?
Oh you don't grok truth.....
That's your respect for otherness; mine in particular?
You can shove otherness up your ass.
Otherness is just your sham way of protecting your Ego
Is that clear enough?


Seth says
incidentally you can try this on yourself and achieve intimacy ... works best when you rub to fingers on the same hand together and feel the result.  in that case it is almost impossible for me to distinguish the feeling in one finger from the feeling in the other finger and all the 4 feelings kind of merge into just one experience.  still and all they can be distinguished ... just takes a lot more attention than when you touch your palm with a finger from the other hand.  obviously see insides and outsides.

Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-19 07:00:09 17103
seth 2014-02-19 00:10:08 17103
M1g0r 2014-02-18 23:18:33 17103
M1g0r 2014-02-18 23:11:11 17103
seth 2014-02-18 21:03:30 17103
i think, thinking of a thing in and of itself,  and ignoring the fact that there is a inside private part of it that you yourself cannot experience, is to disrespect the thing, and hence not to know it for itself.
[see: tags word salad]
secrecy?
privacy?
Ego?
wtf?
I have no need for YOU to draw lines for me.
But then you seem to be designing your own universe
Why would I worry?
I don't
Communication in some universes is over-rated.
Try this with someone else
I am experiencing you experiencing me experiencing you
maybe get the point?
maybe not!


well maybe i should have composed my sentence more directly about people and removed one level of reflection.

source:bozo
thinking of a person in and of themselves, and ignoring the fact that there is a inside private part of that person that you cannot experience yourself, is to disrespect the person, and hence not to know them for themselves.  

so you cannot experience me experiencing you ... you can only imagine that you do.  only i can actually experience my experiences.  if you claim that you can, you would be lying and disrespecting my sovereign self from you.

that is the part of the elephant in the room that you seem to deny.  or rather you seem to do a little diddly dance around it to avoid having to admit that it is there just as plane as the nose on your face.  try just accepting it for what it is (in and of itself), or even refute it, or ack that it is true and trivial, or just ignore it, i dont't care.  but, mark, to feign word salad, and insult my thought just to feel superior, is *your* own ego being an asshole.  take a shit!

that is not just a salad of words.  they actually mean something, quite simple to me.  they can mean something to you too, if you will just parse them objectively.  or not. your choice.  but judge them without parsing them, and i will judge you to be an asshole.
Too bad you never tried the exercise with another person as I did at Cheng Hsin you might have had the possibility of a different kind of experience besides what you limit your mind with.
Maybe not!



well actually i have done that exercise with another person, though not perhaps in a setting where a certain result was expected of me.  intimacy is a hard thing to achieve, but it can be done.  minds can feel as one.  me thinks that both parties need to practice radical honesty for that to happen.  none the less i still know that the quality and substance of the other's experience can never be actually experienced except by that other.   rather their experience is specific unique particular and peculiar to the context that has appeared to them in that particular moment ... that just is not something that i can duplicate in myself no matter of how hard i try.  it is quite impossible.  it is not a limitation, notwithstanding that you are trying so very hard to frame it as such.

Mark de LA says
I think there are only 2 experiences when there are two finger doing it on the same person. There is only one observer.


Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-19 19:17:07 17103
I think there are only 2 experiences when there are two finger doing it on the same person. There is only one observer.


Well can you not count all 4 experiences that i identified here at "2014-02-17 17:56:03"? 

I think is one observer who has access to all 4 experiences.  All 4 experiences are public to that observer.

Where there is one person touching another, that same observer has access to only 2.

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-02-19 20:32:40 17103
M1g0r 2014-02-19 19:17:07 17103
I think there are only 2 experiences when there are two finger doing it on the same person. There is only one observer.


Well can you not count all 4 experiences that i identified here at "2014-02-17 17:56:03"? 

I think is one observer who has access to all 4 experiences.  All 4 experiences are public to that observer.

Where there is one person touching another, that same observer has access to only 2.
Describe exactly what it feels like for you .. exactly what the submodalities such as pressure, warmth & where you are in the attention which you call the experience. For each of the 4 ways.  I say on repeated trys that 2 are redundant.  In my case I am in all the experience & it is a matter of focus.


Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-20 00:45:08 17103
seth 2014-02-19 20:32:40 17103
M1g0r 2014-02-19 19:17:07 17103
I think there are only 2 experiences when there are two finger doing it on the same person. There is only one observer.


Well can you not count all 4 experiences that i identified here at "2014-02-17 17:56:03"? 

I think is one observer who has access to all 4 experiences.  All 4 experiences are public to that observer.

Where there is one person touching another, that same observer has access to only 2.
Describe exactly what it feels like for you .. exactly what the submodalities such as pressure, warmth & where you are in the attention which you call the experience. For each of the 4 ways.  I say on repeated trys that 2 are redundant.  In my case I am in all the experience & it is a matter of focus.

Interesting, i think i see what you mean, good catch .

I want to simplify the exercise: trying just one finger touching some inanimate object.  The question then is there one or two experiences: 1) the surface being felt, and/or 2) what the finger feels inside by touching it.  When i examine that i must admit that i have not been able to experience simultaneous both the surface and being touched and how the finger feels inside by touching it.   Rather it seems like i can only feel one or the other depending, like you say, on what i am focusing upon.  It is like the gestalt here where you either see the faces or the vase, but not both. 

So does that description better match your experience?

Incidentally some places on the body are radically different in this regard that others.  For example, the finger tips almost always feel the surface being touched ... the pecker head how it feels inside being touched. 

See Also

  1. Thought about: TED talk on Cosmology with 0 viewings related by tag "cosmic joke".
  2. Thought Ontologically Speaking.. with 0 viewings related by tag "cosmos".