Doing ...
Many times we unconsciously make assumptions or choices and then, not knowing we are thinking according to those subjective choices, which may well be contra-factual, we get skewered when our thoughts do not align with our experience. Let me give you an example from natural science. Isaac Newton discovered some "natural laws" of motion, mass, and force. But within his natural laws was embedded an assumption. The assumption was that there was no limit on how fast masses could change their location relative to other masses. When astronomers tried to use Newton’s natural laws to calculate where and when some moons of Jupiter would appear, they got skewered ... they just did not appear there when they were calculated to do so. Later Einstein discarded the notion that there was no limit, and consequently his equations correctly anticipate the appearance of the moons of Jupiter ... Voila, no unconscious assumption, and consequently no skewer
.*{ This morning i discovered what may well be a unconscious assumption or a choice that i have been making about myself. That assumption is that I am just one totally unified being. But that assumption seems to contradict my actual experience. What if i am at least three beings: One that thinks, one that feels, and one that acts ? }*
Working with this new theory, with these new equations, let me see if i can better explain my actual experience.
My experience is that i cannot cause myself to act by thinking. That actually is predicted by this new theory ... by definition ... the being that acts is not the being that thinks.
So how does the being that acts inform the being that thinks?
Does the being that thinks command the being that thinks?
No, actually that does not match my experience, for i have commanded with thought my body to move this way or that way, and it has not so obliged.
seth 2014-03-26 08:17:57 17217
Well usually I do speak only for myself because that is the only way i know how to write true sentences. However in 2014-03-26 07:46:41 above i spoke as "we" just because i was speaking from the point of view of my knowledge of the history of natural science and reasoning. The sentences still ring true to me. If they do not also ring true to you, then perhaps you should say specifically where they do not match your experience of the history of natural science and reasoning.
But in the context of this item you have brought up a new question. Since i am going on the new theory that i am multiple interacting beings, when i speak or write which being am i speaking for?
I am going to leave that question in pursuit of a
.
Einai 2014-03-26 08:02:01 17217
Maybe be careful & use "I" instead of "We"
Well usually I do speak only for myself because that is the only way i know how to write true sentences. However in 2014-03-26 07:46:41 above i spoke as "we" just because i was speaking from the point of view of my knowledge of the history of natural science and reasoning. The sentences still ring true to me. If they do not also ring true to you, then perhaps you should say specifically where they do not match your experience of the history of natural science and reasoning.
But in the context of this item you have brought up a new question. Since i am going on the new theory that i am multiple interacting beings, when i speak or write which being am i speaking for?
I am going to leave that question in pursuit of a
. source: PR’s advise
"What is meant by the correct method of body and function? The answer is the consciousness commands and the body obeys. Carefully examine what the ultimte purpose is. If you do not seek carefully in in the direction indicated above, your time and effort will be spent in vain and you will have cause to sigh with regret."
"What is meant by the correct method of body and function? The answer is the consciousness commands and the body obeys. Carefully examine what the ultimte purpose is. If you do not seek carefully in in the direction indicated above, your time and effort will be spent in vain and you will have cause to sigh with regret."
... which i reject !
Rather I find that no such commands work. The only thing that seems to work for me is where the three parts of my being cooperate and harmonize. Then and only then do i do what I wilt.
Note that PR may not have intended the negative aspects of the word "command", so that what he meant may well have been the same thing as i am now saying.
Rather I find that no such commands work. The only thing that seems to work for me is where the three parts of my being cooperate and harmonize. Then and only then do i do what I wilt.
Note that PR may not have intended the negative aspects of the word "command", so that what he meant may well have been the same thing as i am now saying.
source: Einai
I probably would not go shizophrenic into multiple beings, but more toward one being with many components & behaviors.
I probably would not go shizophrenic into multiple beings, but more toward one being with many components & behaviors.
Well this "schizophrenic stigma" is, in fact, quite possible just an assumptions which I have been carrying around. Separate, for a moment, the stigma judgement from the analysis, and perhaps a new gestalt will emerge.
Bear in mind the new assumption and don’t go beyond it. Let me state that new assumption more precisely integrating your objection. The (part) of my being that thinks, is not the same (part) of my being that acts.
In a way they do what each of them does quite independently of each other, yet they harmonize (or not) as one cooperative being ...
Er, just like you and I do,
.
I must admit that describes how it happens over here far better than the old theory which holds me to be just one unified being with perhaps separate functional parts. The major distinction is that that old theory does not seem to allow any discrepancy of purpose or intent between the parts. My new theory allows such.
Now, i anticipate that you will be thinking that you are not that way ... that i am, in fact schizophrenic (as diagnosed) ... and have just now become acutely aware of the details of my condition. Well that may well be the case. You tell me, for i can not know. But another situation may instead obtain. It may just as possibly be that the thinking part of all humans is not the same as the acting part. The differences being how the two parts learn to harmonize or not harmonize.
Bear in mind the new assumption and don’t go beyond it. Let me state that new assumption more precisely integrating your objection. The (part) of my being that thinks, is not the same (part) of my being that acts.
In a way they do what each of them does quite independently of each other, yet they harmonize (or not) as one cooperative being ...
Er, just like you and I do,
.I must admit that describes how it happens over here far better than the old theory which holds me to be just one unified being with perhaps separate functional parts. The major distinction is that that old theory does not seem to allow any discrepancy of purpose or intent between the parts. My new theory allows such.
Now, i anticipate that you will be thinking that you are not that way ... that i am, in fact schizophrenic (as diagnosed) ... and have just now become acutely aware of the details of my condition. Well that may well be the case. You tell me, for i can not know. But another situation may instead obtain. It may just as possibly be that the thinking part of all humans is not the same as the acting part. The differences being how the two parts learn to harmonize or not harmonize.
Thanks Elaine Bawden for the illustration of love
________________________________________________________________
doing it right
doing it wrong
doing it good
doing it bad
doing it correctly
fucking it up
do what thou wilt
don’t do that
just do it.Seth
Tags
- soverign agency
- munge
- deed
- action
- free will
- will power
- trinity of being
- editorial turd
- doing
- just do it
- will
- thinking
- nike
- ends justifies means
- JustDoIt
Comments
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-03-26 07:08:41 17217
... hmmm ... their in lays a tale indeed! I got a bit of a flash this morning while somewhat contemplating hairs from that ... but i will come to that controversy with you from a new perspective not starting at your departure point above.
... hmmm ... their in lays a tale indeed! I got a bit of a flash this morning while somewhat contemplating hairs from that ... but i will come to that controversy with you from a new perspective not starting at your departure point above. If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought. - Liber Legis II,30 
For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect. Liber Legis I,44
ETC. best viewed in Firefox.
For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect. Liber Legis I,44
ETC. best viewed in Firefox.
Seth says
Many times we unconsciously make assumptions or choices and then, not knowing we are thinking according to those subjective choices, which may well be contra-factual, we get skewered when our thoughts do not align with our experience. Let me give you an example from natural science. Isaac Newton discovered some "natural laws" of motion, mass, and force. But within his natural laws was embedded an assumption. The assumption was that there was no limit on how fast masses could change their location relative to other masses. When astronomers tried to use Newton's natural laws to calculate where and when some moons of Jupiter would appear, they got skewered ... they just did not appear there when they were calculated to do so. Later Einstein discarded the notion that there was no limit, and consequently his equations correctly anticipate the appearance of the moons of Jupiter ... Voila, no unconscious assumption, and consequently no skewer 
.
to be continued ....
.to be continued ....
Seth says
Well, yes of course that is exactly what i was intending to do. In particular connecting this new assumption to ...
Einai 2014-03-26 08:20:49 17217
Maybe fold in consciousness & experience feedback [ a la comments PR: item 17210].
Well, yes of course that is exactly what i was intending to do. In particular connecting this new assumption to ...
source: PR's advise
"What is meant by the correct method of body and function? The answer is the consciousness commands and the body obeys. Carefully examine what the ultimte purpose is. If you do not seek carefully in in the direction indicated above, your time and effort will be spent in vain and you will have cause to sigh with regret."
"What is meant by the correct method of body and function? The answer is the consciousness commands and the body obeys. Carefully examine what the ultimte purpose is. If you do not seek carefully in in the direction indicated above, your time and effort will be spent in vain and you will have cause to sigh with regret."
...
source: Einai
I probably would not go shizophrenic into multiple beings, but more toward one being with many components & behaviors.
I probably would not go shizophrenic into multiple beings, but more toward one being with many components & behaviors.
Well this "schizophrenic stigma" is, in fact, quite possible just an assumptions which I have been carrying around. Separate, for a moment, the stigma judgement from the analysis, and perhaps a new gestalt will emerge.
Bear in mind the new assumption and don't go beyond it. Let me state that new assumption more precisely integrating your objection. The (part) of my being that thinks, is not the same (part) of my being that acts.
In a way they do what each of them does quite independently of each other, yet they harmonize (or not) as one cooperative being. Er, just like you and I do,.
I must admit that describes how it happens over here far better than the old theory which holds me to be just one unified being with perhaps separate functional parts. The major distinction is that that old theory does not seem to allow any discrepancy of purpose or intent between the parts. My new theory allows such.
Now, i anticipate that you will be thinking that you are not that way ... that i am, in fact schizophrenic (as diagnosed) ... and have just now become acutely aware of the details of my condition. Well that may well be the case. You tell me, for i can not know. But another situation may instead obtain. It may just as possibly be that the thinking part of all humans is not the same as the acting part. The differences being how the two parts learn to harmonize or not harmonize.
Bear in mind the new assumption and don't go beyond it. Let me state that new assumption more precisely integrating your objection. The (part) of my being that thinks, is not the same (part) of my being that acts.
In a way they do what each of them does quite independently of each other, yet they harmonize (or not) as one cooperative being. Er, just like you and I do,
.I must admit that describes how it happens over here far better than the old theory which holds me to be just one unified being with perhaps separate functional parts. The major distinction is that that old theory does not seem to allow any discrepancy of purpose or intent between the parts. My new theory allows such.
Now, i anticipate that you will be thinking that you are not that way ... that i am, in fact schizophrenic (as diagnosed) ... and have just now become acutely aware of the details of my condition. Well that may well be the case. You tell me, for i can not know. But another situation may instead obtain. It may just as possibly be that the thinking part of all humans is not the same as the acting part. The differences being how the two parts learn to harmonize or not harmonize.
Seth says
This morning i discovered what may well be a unconscious assumption or a choice that i have been making about myself. That assumption is that I am just one totally unified being. But that assumption seems to contradict my actual experience. What if i am at least three beings: One that thinks, one that feels, and one that acts ?
Working with this new theory, with these new equations, let me see if i can better explain my actual experience.
My experience is that i cannot cause myself to act by thinking. That actually is predicted by this new theory ... by definition ... the being that acts is not the being that thinks.
So how does the being that acts inform the being that thinks?
Does the being that thinks command the being that thinks?
No, actually that does not match my experience, for i have commanded with thought my body to move this way or that way, and it has not so obliged.
to be continued ...
This morning i discovered what may well be a unconscious assumption or a choice that i have been making about myself. That assumption is that I am just one totally unified being. But that assumption seems to contradict my actual experience. What if i am at least three beings: One that thinks, one that feels, and one that acts ?
Working with this new theory, with these new equations, let me see if i can better explain my actual experience.
My experience is that i cannot cause myself to act by thinking. That actually is predicted by this new theory ... by definition ... the being that acts is not the being that thinks.
So how does the being that acts inform the being that thinks?
Does the being that thinks command the being that thinks?
No, actually that does not match my experience, for i have commanded with thought my body to move this way or that way, and it has not so obliged.
to be continued ...
Seth says
Well usually I do speak only for myself because that is the only way i know how to write true sentences. However in 2014-03-26 07:46:41 above i spoke as "we" just because i was speaking from the point of view of my knowledge of the history of natural science and reasoning. The sentences still ring true to me. If they do not also ring true to you, then perhaps you should say specifically where they do not match your experience of the history of natural science and reasoning.
But in the context of this item you have brought up a new question. Since i am going on the new theory that i am multiple interacting beings, when i speak or write which being am i speaking for?
I am going to leave that question in pursuit of a.
Einai 2014-03-26 08:02:01 17217
Maybe be careful & use "I" instead of "We" 
notwithstanding. Such is a backpocket turdy kind of thingy - henceforth called a birdie. Such birdie assumes you speak for more than yourself.
[distracting picture deleted]
notwithstanding. Such is a backpocket turdy kind of thingy - henceforth called a birdie. Such birdie assumes you speak for more than yourself.[distracting picture deleted]
Well usually I do speak only for myself because that is the only way i know how to write true sentences. However in 2014-03-26 07:46:41 above i spoke as "we" just because i was speaking from the point of view of my knowledge of the history of natural science and reasoning. The sentences still ring true to me. If they do not also ring true to you, then perhaps you should say specifically where they do not match your experience of the history of natural science and reasoning.
But in the context of this item you have brought up a new question. Since i am going on the new theory that i am multiple interacting beings, when i speak or write which being am i speaking for?
I am going to leave that question in pursuit of a
.
Mark de LA says
This is a mungy munge-up cut & paste - too burdensome to untangle from the originals.
Seth is just trying to control the conversation so that he can cut up & cut out what he doesn't like - or something else, as always.
I suspect that Seth is still jousting the windmills of an authority issue with anybody, mostly the ghost of his father & upbringing, but just about anybody that thinks he has "the" answer.
There is consciousness without language!
Can someone communicate such ? Probably not! I say NO but, possibly 1 or 2 exceptions.
Is communication consciousness? Probably not! but then Seth is free to redefine ordinary words if he wants to & see how many others want to sign on to his re-definitions.
Adios! Enjoy. I don't sign on at this time.
Seth is just trying to control the conversation so that he can cut up & cut out what he doesn't like - or something else, as always.
I suspect that Seth is still jousting the windmills of an authority issue with anybody, mostly the ghost of his father & upbringing, but just about anybody that thinks he has "the" answer.
Except himself!
This could possibly be because he is too lazy to do the work required to follow others' instructions or failed to get a quick result after dilly-dallying through them. ... or something else, similarly describable.There is consciousness without language!
Can someone communicate such ? Probably not! I say NO but, possibly 1 or 2 exceptions.
Is communication consciousness? Probably not! but then Seth is free to redefine ordinary words if he wants to & see how many others want to sign on to his re-definitions.
Adios! Enjoy. I don't sign on at this time.
Seth says
Anyway what i am highlighting here is perhaps a somewhat different
(though probably really just the same) conception that could be called
"sovereign independent agency". Clearly you and I are sovereign independent agents. Yet when we interact cooperatively for
some purpose we function as one. I am just saying the same goes for the
sovereign independent agents within my own being.
If you think about it that is obvious, perhaps even trivial, and should not be controversial. But where it is not trivial is where I forget it, unconsciously presuming the opposite is the case. Moreover, should there be productive harmony, it is important for the soverign agents to respect each other ... especially in the case where they are at odds ... which, unfortunately, happens frequently.
The primary reason i like discarding the presumption of there always being unity even between sovereign agents, is that it seems to work the same within my being and between sovereign agents in our society. In other words, understanding myself this way helps me understand society ... and,er .... understating society this way helps me understand myself.
If you think about it that is obvious, perhaps even trivial, and should not be controversial. But where it is not trivial is where I forget it, unconsciously presuming the opposite is the case. Moreover, should there be productive harmony, it is important for the soverign agents to respect each other ... especially in the case where they are at odds ... which, unfortunately, happens frequently.
The primary reason i like discarding the presumption of there always being unity even between sovereign agents, is that it seems to work the same within my being and between sovereign agents in our society. In other words, understanding myself this way helps me understand society ... and,er .... understating society this way helps me understand myself.
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-03-29 05:35:05 17217
Anyway what i am highlighting here is perhaps a somewhat different (though probably really just the same) conception that could be called "sovereign independent agency". Clearly you and I are sovereign independent agents. Yet when we interact cooperatively for some purpose we function as one. I am just saying the same goes for the sovereign independent agents within my own being.
If you think about it that is obvious, perhaps even trivial, and should not be controversial. But where it is not trivial is where I forget it, unconsciously presuming the opposite is the case. Moreover, should there be productive harmony, it is important for the soverign agents to respect each other ... especially in the case where they are at odds ... which, unfortunately, happens frequently.
The primary reason i like discarding the presumption of there always being unity even between sovereign agents, is that it seems to work the same within my being and between sovereign agents in our society. In other words, understanding myself this way helps me understand society ... and,er .... understating society this way helps me understand myself.
If you think about it that is obvious, perhaps even trivial, and should not be controversial. But where it is not trivial is where I forget it, unconsciously presuming the opposite is the case. Moreover, should there be productive harmony, it is important for the soverign agents to respect each other ... especially in the case where they are at odds ... which, unfortunately, happens frequently.
The primary reason i like discarding the presumption of there always being unity even between sovereign agents, is that it seems to work the same within my being and between sovereign agents in our society. In other words, understanding myself this way helps me understand society ... and,er .... understating society this way helps me understand myself.
Maybe you are on your way or not. Abstractness words like agent confuse your communication for me.
GW once opined that one way to look at initiation was to separate the munge of thought, feeling & will into separate & independent thingies & then combine them together under control of the Higher Ego.
I was looking for such statement this AM in the Tai Shu Commentaries, but only found this one so far, albeit cryptick.
I still feel integrated myself but can choose to go with my gut, my heart or my intellect & have free will to maybe choose my battles where there is conflict.
GW once opined that one way to look at initiation was to separate the munge of thought, feeling & will into separate & independent thingies & then combine them together under control of the Higher Ego.
I was looking for such statement this AM in the Tai Shu Commentaries, but only found this one so far, albeit cryptick.
2617 - #41,1 82-12-3-15-13-46 Wed
" HSU, Waiting, Protraction, Binding one's Time, Lingam of Moon, Daath of Yesod, Creative Impulse attracting the Restricted Universe. Snatching Victory from the Jaws of Defeat; kon pp (1867,1617) These references are important; "manna" is a from heaven; a true theory of magic is not derived merely by studying what has been written of it, but rather from experience! ... Sensation & Conception are two sides of the same coin. It's all in the way you look at it. Abstraction can divide unity into numerous categories, but the Reality is still a Unity - see Lib L; "None breathed the Light, etc - & two- I am divided for Love's Sake for the chance of Union - the Break in Continuity is Maya. Surfing is Fun!"
The combinatorics would be interesting to test independence like be able to do something that you do not feel or think congruent with; be able to think something that you do & feel or do congruent with etc.
the 6 permutations - if the independent one is first would yield only 3 or add priority & test all six.
thought feeling will
thought will feeling
feeling thought will
feeling will thought
will thought feeling
will feeling thought
I still feel integrated myself but can choose to go with my gut, my heart or my intellect & have free will to maybe choose my battles where there is conflict.
Seth says
This train of though for me has always been about what i just bolded and put into *{brackets}* above for you. Thing is i used the dialogue with you as a prompting mechinism for me to write about that and its consequences. Then, so that the thrust of the matter did not get lost, i cut the pertinent parts from the dialogue and edited them into the body itself. So, were you to want to get the same grock, or even react to it, or even oppose it, just forget the dialogue entirely and just read the item itself from top to bottom.
To put this into some kind of perspective this wallaby has actually had some non trivial effect on my life these few past days ... for a couple of those i actually was in total sync within myself and with the world i inhabit. Few, if any, of my previous wallabies have had such an instant dramatic effect. Now, of course, that is just me ... i don't think that it would or even could have any actual effect on you at all. But honestly mark, you really should at least respect it for what it is over here apart from yourself, and not take on some agenda to twist it into the kind of shit expressed in your paragraph above.
Einai 2014-03-28 09:54:59 17217
This is a mungy munge-up cut & paste - too burdensome to untangle from the originals.
Seth is just trying to control the conversation so that he can cut up & cut out what he doesn't like - or something else, as always.
I suspect that Seth is still jousting the windmills of an authority issue with anybody, mostly the ghost of his father & upbringing, but just about anybody that thinks he has "the" answer.
There is consciousness without language!
Can someone communicate such ? Probably not! I say NO but, possibly 1 or 2 exceptions.
Is communication consciousness? Probably not! but then Seth is free to redefine ordinary words if he wants to & see how many others want to sign on to his re-definitions.
Adios! Enjoy. I don't sign on at this time.
Seth is just trying to control the conversation so that he can cut up & cut out what he doesn't like - or something else, as always.
I suspect that Seth is still jousting the windmills of an authority issue with anybody, mostly the ghost of his father & upbringing, but just about anybody that thinks he has "the" answer.
Except himself!
This could possibly be because he is too lazy to do the work required to follow others' instructions or failed to get a quick result after dilly-dallying through them. ... or something else, similarly describable.There is consciousness without language!
Can someone communicate such ? Probably not! I say NO but, possibly 1 or 2 exceptions.
Is communication consciousness? Probably not! but then Seth is free to redefine ordinary words if he wants to & see how many others want to sign on to his re-definitions.
Adios! Enjoy. I don't sign on at this time.
This train of though for me has always been about what i just bolded and put into *{brackets}* above for you. Thing is i used the dialogue with you as a prompting mechinism for me to write about that and its consequences. Then, so that the thrust of the matter did not get lost, i cut the pertinent parts from the dialogue and edited them into the body itself. So, were you to want to get the same grock, or even react to it, or even oppose it, just forget the dialogue entirely and just read the item itself from top to bottom.
To put this into some kind of perspective this wallaby has actually had some non trivial effect on my life these few past days ... for a couple of those i actually was in total sync within myself and with the world i inhabit. Few, if any, of my previous wallabies have had such an instant dramatic effect. Now, of course, that is just me ... i don't think that it would or even could have any actual effect on you at all. But honestly mark, you really should at least respect it for what it is over here apart from yourself, and not take on some agenda to twist it into the kind of shit expressed in your paragraph above.
Mark de LA says
Here is a permutation generator if you want to choose your own words:
http://textmechanic.com/Permutation-Generator.html
http://textmechanic.com/Permutation-Generator.html
Seth says
source: mark
GW once opined that one way to look at initiation was to separate the munge of thought, feeling & will into separate & independent thingies & then combine them together under control of the Higher Ego.
GW once opined that one way to look at initiation was to separate the munge of thought, feeling & will into separate & independent thingies & then combine them together under control of the Higher Ego.
... . Well that is almost exactly what i am doing here. Thanks for the confirmation.
But i would not quite say it that way ... i see no necessity or value in having some other agent *control* the situation. Rather all that is necessary is for each to respect and cooperate with the others that are already there. Nothing more needs obtain ... imho. But let's say, just for the sake of argument, that some other agent does step in and coordinate the cooperation and respect ... well so be it ... but then are we not just calling that cooperation and respect the "higher ego" ? I mean in that sense is not the distinction just one embedded in the language and nothing really of being?
. Well that is almost exactly what i am doing here. Thanks for the confirmation.But i would not quite say it that way ... i see no necessity or value in having some other agent *control* the situation. Rather all that is necessary is for each to respect and cooperate with the others that are already there. Nothing more needs obtain ... imho. But let's say, just for the sake of argument, that some other agent does step in and coordinate the cooperation and respect ... well so be it ... but then are we not just calling that cooperation and respect the "higher ego" ? I mean in that sense is not the distinction just one embedded in the language and nothing really of being?
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-03-29 12:59:53 17217
well this "tremble" word may be a bit of an exaggeration in most cases. suffice it to say that there are physiological markers for anger and we all can perceive them ... thought i will bet the awareness of that is not evenly keen in all individuals. the cause is the anger, the adrenalin pumping the effect, and then then that causes trembling. But i do not think anger ... my thinker cannot think anger, that is not what it does ... my feeler felt the anger ... probably in response to a contradiction between my expectations and what happened in the world (ie otherness). Now how and why that happened between my sundered parts is, of course, simply a question their relationships. That is just about as far as i have gotten with my analysis.
Incidentally i am sooo over that event. I just love how excellent of a example of interpersonal interactions it is. So, no need over here to duke it out .
Einai 2014-03-29 11:20:39 17217
Einai 2014-03-29 11:18:00 17217
I think the trembling is a side-effect of adrenalin pumping - depending upon how long the flight or fight context is held with/without resolution.
Usually I copy GW's shouting in anger model. Last time I remember the trembling as you call it, was the incident in the sushi cafe on the Venice circle with you.
Usually I copy GW's shouting in anger model. Last time I remember the trembling as you call it, was the incident in the sushi cafe on the Venice circle with you.
Someday maybe we should put on some oversized boxing gloves & suit up in a gym some place & resolve that one, eh?
well this "tremble" word may be a bit of an exaggeration in most cases. suffice it to say that there are physiological markers for anger and we all can perceive them ... thought i will bet the awareness of that is not evenly keen in all individuals. the cause is the anger, the adrenalin pumping the effect, and then then that causes trembling. But i do not think anger ... my thinker cannot think anger, that is not what it does ... my feeler felt the anger ... probably in response to a contradiction between my expectations and what happened in the world (ie otherness). Now how and why that happened between my sundered parts is, of course, simply a question their relationships. That is just about as far as i have gotten with my analysis.
Incidentally i am sooo over that event. I just love how excellent of a example of interpersonal interactions it is.
So, no need over here to duke it out . Yeah, so am I except our interpretations of the moment yet differ & what's so is in dispute. It might be fun anyway. As far as anger goes BofNK 23:38 crisps it up for me:
- Anger is about something that has passed [maybe a second ago - but not NOW]
- Anger is based on a feeling of hurt
- .. which is revealing a core sense of incapacity
- Regenerating a sense of capacity through a destructive intent or feeling reaction
Much more is in the chapter itself. I suspect the trembling is not ALL about anger. I suspect something else like a duality or incongruity of a different flavor.
Mark de LA says
Well it doesn't make any difference how you language such things, what's so is that Seth has an "I" underneath that emerging pile of horse shit.
Mark de LA says
Extending the metaphor a bit further in the picture the horse's ass is Seth.
Seth says
well this "tremble" word may be a bit of an exaggeration in most cases. suffice it to say that there are physiological markers for anger and we all can perceive them ... thought i will bet the awareness of that is not evenly keen in all individuals. the cause is the anger, the adrenalin pumping the effect, and then then that causes trembling. But i do not think anger ... my thinker cannot think anger, that is not what it does ... my feeler felt the anger ... probably in response to a contradiction between my expectations and what happened in the world (ie otherness). Now how and why that happened between my sundered parts is, of course, simply a question their relationships. That is just about as far as i have gotten with my analysis.
Einai 2014-03-29 11:20:39 17217
Einai 2014-03-29 11:18:00 17217
I think the trembling is a side-effect of adrenalin pumping - depending upon how long the flight or fight context is held with/without resolution.
Usually I copy GW's shouting in anger model. Last time I remember the trembling as you call it, was the incident in the sushi cafe on the Venice circle with you.
Usually I copy GW's shouting in anger model. Last time I remember the trembling as you call it, was the incident in the sushi cafe on the Venice circle with you.
Someday maybe we should put on some oversized boxing gloves & suit up in a gym some place & resolve that one, eh?
well this "tremble" word may be a bit of an exaggeration in most cases. suffice it to say that there are physiological markers for anger and we all can perceive them ... thought i will bet the awareness of that is not evenly keen in all individuals. the cause is the anger, the adrenalin pumping the effect, and then then that causes trembling. But i do not think anger ... my thinker cannot think anger, that is not what it does ... my feeler felt the anger ... probably in response to a contradiction between my expectations and what happened in the world (ie otherness). Now how and why that happened between my sundered parts is, of course, simply a question their relationships. That is just about as far as i have gotten with my analysis.
Seth says
Well yes certainly that is exactly the way i hold it. Not quite sure why you would think otherwise.
The question is why you would point to that in response to my saying the higher ego may be just the cooperation and respect between parts, rather than a soverign agent that "controls" that cooperation and respect ?
Of course the elephant in the room is that, (er, me thinks) you believe this higher ego does in fact control and in fact has a sovereign separation from the thought, feeling, and action parts of your being. Now whether you actually do believe that and/or whether i believe it also ... is irrelivant at this point. My question is what does how sovereign the separate parts are (ie schezophrenia), have to do with whether the higher self controls them or not?
Now i realize that may well be a bit deep ... but it does seem to me to be a reasonable question ... especially because it was you who asked it ... and trust me you did.
Einai 2014-03-29 11:13:02 17217
seth 2014-03-29 11:05:26 17217
But why specifically do you say that? Come on Mark be specific.
Incidentally don't forget this thing that i am doing here ... that I am trying to understand how the same cause/effect situation obtains between my internal parts and, out there in society, between different people. Whether you particularly like that idea or not, it still is very definitely an integral part of this understanding. In fact that is pretty much just why i called it "agent" because that same word can very accurately refer to the sovereign parts in both cases. No?
Then too, Mark, please if you are going to stigmatize me with this diagnosis ... tell me specifically how is relates to this exact situation ... beyond the obvious that we already know.
Also, please note, that the communication between us could be obscuring some facts here ... and you would never know ... just because you cannot be in my skin. For example, your parts could be operating over there just like mine are over here ... just as schizophrenically ... but you may not be quite so aware of their interaction as am I of mine. May not be so ... but you can not know that ... nor can I.
Well just for example take the emotion anger. Now me i think anger is never a rational thing for my feeling part to do. Yet i get angry. When i get angry i almost always tremble. I got angry today. I watched myself tremble. Do you ever get angry? When was the last time?
But why specifically do you say that? Come on Mark be specific.
Incidentally don't forget this thing that i am doing here ... that I am trying to understand how the same cause/effect situation obtains between my internal parts and, out there in society, between different people. Whether you particularly like that idea or not, it still is very definitely an integral part of this understanding. In fact that is pretty much just why i called it "agent" because that same word can very accurately refer to the sovereign parts in both cases. No?
Then too, Mark, please if you are going to stigmatize me with this diagnosis ... tell me specifically how is relates to this exact situation ... beyond the obvious that we already know.
Also, please note, that the communication between us could be obscuring some facts here ... and you would never know ... just because you cannot be in my skin. For example, your parts could be operating over there just like mine are over here ... just as schizophrenically ... but you may not be quite so aware of their interaction as am I of mine. May not be so ... but you can not know that ... nor can I.
Well just for example take the emotion anger. Now me i think anger is never a rational thing for my feeling part to do. Yet i get angry. When i get angry i almost always tremble. I got angry today. I watched myself tremble. Do you ever get angry? When was the last time?
Hold not the word schizophrenia as an official or non-official psychological diagnosis of anything ... hold it as inherent in the meaning of what you self-identify as different parts of yourself being independent of each other without something to integrate them like an "I" . More than 2 in psychological terms would be MPD
Well yes certainly that is exactly the way i hold it. Not quite sure why you would think otherwise.
The question is why you would point to that in response to my saying the higher ego may be just the cooperation and respect between parts, rather than a soverign agent that "controls" that cooperation and respect ?
Of course the elephant in the room is that, (er, me thinks) you believe this higher ego does in fact control and in fact has a sovereign separation from the thought, feeling, and action parts of your being. Now whether you actually do believe that and/or whether i believe it also ... is irrelivant at this point. My question is what does how sovereign the separate parts are (ie schezophrenia), have to do with whether the higher self controls them or not?
Now i realize that may well be a bit deep ... but it does seem to me to be a reasonable question ... especially because it was you who asked it ... and trust me you did.
Seth says
But why specifically do you say that? Come on Mark be specific.
Incidentally don't forget this thing that i am doing here ... that I am trying to understand how the same cause/effect situation obtains between my internal parts and, out there in society, between different people. Whether you particularly like that idea or not, it still is very definitely an integral part of this understanding. In fact that is pretty much just why i called it "agent" because that same word can very accurately refer to the sovereign parts in both cases. No?
Then too, Mark, please if you are going to stigmatize me with this diagnosis ... tell me specifically how is relates to this exact situation ... beyond the obvious that we already know.
Also, please note, that the communication between us could be obscuring some facts here ... and you would never know ... just because you cannot be in my skin. For example, your parts could be operating over there just like mine are over here ... just as schizophrenically ... but you may not be quite so aware of their interaction as am I of mine. May not be so ... but you can not know that ... nor can I.
Well just for example take the emotion anger. Now me i think anger is never a rational thing for my feeling part to do. Yet i get angry. When i get angry i almost always tremble. I got angry today. I watched myself tremble. Do you ever get angry? When was the last time?
But why specifically do you say that? Come on Mark be specific.
Incidentally don't forget this thing that i am doing here ... that I am trying to understand how the same cause/effect situation obtains between my internal parts and, out there in society, between different people. Whether you particularly like that idea or not, it still is very definitely an integral part of this understanding. In fact that is pretty much just why i called it "agent" because that same word can very accurately refer to the sovereign parts in both cases. No?
Then too, Mark, please if you are going to stigmatize me with this diagnosis ... tell me specifically how is relates to this exact situation ... beyond the obvious that we already know.
Also, please note, that the communication between us could be obscuring some facts here ... and you would never know ... just because you cannot be in my skin. For example, your parts could be operating over there just like mine are over here ... just as schizophrenically ... but you may not be quite so aware of their interaction as am I of mine. May not be so ... but you can not know that ... nor can I.
Well just for example take the emotion anger. Now me i think anger is never a rational thing for my feeling part to do. Yet i get angry. When i get angry i almost always tremble. I got angry today. I watched myself tremble. Do you ever get angry? When was the last time?
Seth says
well this "tremble" word may be a bit of an exaggeration in most cases. suffice it to say that there are physiological markers for anger and we all can perceive them ... thought i will bet the awareness of that is not evenly keen in all individuals. the cause is the anger, the adrenalin pumping the effect, and then then that causes trembling. But i do not think anger ... my thinker cannot think anger, that is not what it does ... my feeler felt the anger ... probably in response to a contradiction between my expectations and what happened in the world (ie otherness). Now how and why that happened between my sundered parts is, of course, simply a question their relationships. That is just about as far as i have gotten with my analysis.
Incidentally i am sooo over that event. I just love how excellent of a example of interpersonal interactions it is. So, no need over here to duke it out .
Einai 2014-03-29 11:20:39 17217
Einai 2014-03-29 11:18:00 17217
I think the trembling is a side-effect of adrenalin pumping - depending upon how long the flight or fight context is held with/without resolution.
Usually I copy GW's shouting in anger model. Last time I remember the trembling as you call it, was the incident in the sushi cafe on the Venice circle with you.
Usually I copy GW's shouting in anger model. Last time I remember the trembling as you call it, was the incident in the sushi cafe on the Venice circle with you.
Someday maybe we should put on some oversized boxing gloves & suit up in a gym some place & resolve that one, eh?
well this "tremble" word may be a bit of an exaggeration in most cases. suffice it to say that there are physiological markers for anger and we all can perceive them ... thought i will bet the awareness of that is not evenly keen in all individuals. the cause is the anger, the adrenalin pumping the effect, and then then that causes trembling. But i do not think anger ... my thinker cannot think anger, that is not what it does ... my feeler felt the anger ... probably in response to a contradiction between my expectations and what happened in the world (ie otherness). Now how and why that happened between my sundered parts is, of course, simply a question their relationships. That is just about as far as i have gotten with my analysis.
Incidentally i am sooo over that event. I just love how excellent of a example of interpersonal interactions it is.
So, no need over here to duke it out .
Seth says
i probably should just delete this one ... it really does distract ... and quite possibly is totally off topic.
It might be interesting to note that i have as yet to include ego in the discussion here ... only a thinking thing, a feeling thing, and a doing thing. You, however, did propose something you called a "higher ego" to cordinate, "control", my sundered parts. My lower ego is presumably what you are illustrating here.
I don't know ... i think my ego may well be something that i feel ... i don't see how i do it ... or think it. You of course are not going to go along with that ... having what you call direct experience of some (i presume) sovereign part there.
My question is why you flash this horse shit here and now in response to something that i said.
That to me is like totally baffeling. The only thing i can guess as to what you really ment was to ... omg, i won't even say it.
So, please, can you be more specific?
Einai 2014-03-29 12:01:03 17217
Well it doesn't make any difference how you language such things, what's so is that Seth has an "I" underneath that emerging pile of horse shit.
i probably should just delete this one ... it really does distract ... and quite possibly is totally off topic.
It might be interesting to note that i have as yet to include ego in the discussion here ... only a thinking thing, a feeling thing, and a doing thing. You, however, did propose something you called a "higher ego" to cordinate, "control", my sundered parts. My lower ego is presumably what you are illustrating here.
I don't know ... i think my ego may well be something that i feel ... i don't see how i do it ... or think it. You of course are not going to go along with that ... having what you call direct experience of some (i presume) sovereign part there.
My question is why you flash this horse shit here and now in response to something that i said.
That to me is like totally baffeling. The only thing i can guess as to what you really ment was to ... omg, i won't even say it.
So, please, can you be more specific?
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-03-29 13:41:25 17217
i probably should just delete this one ... it really does distract ... and quite possibly is totally off topic.
It might be interesting to note that i have as yet to include ego in the discussion here ... only a thinking thing, a feeling thing, and a doing thing. You, however, did propose something you called a "higher ego" to cordinate, "control", my sundered parts. My lower ego is presumably what you are illustrating here.
I don't know ... i think my ego may well be something that i feel ... i don't see how i do it ... or think it. You of course are not going to go along with that ... having what you call direct experience of some (i presume) sovereign part there.
My question is why you flash this horse shit here and now in response to something that i said.
That to me is like totally baffeling. The only thing i can guess as to what you really ment was to ... omg, i won't even say it.
So, please, can you be more specific?
Einai 2014-03-29 12:01:03 17217
Well it doesn't make any difference how you language such things, what's so is that Seth has an "I" underneath that emerging pile of horse shit.
i probably should just delete this one ... it really does distract ... and quite possibly is totally off topic.
It might be interesting to note that i have as yet to include ego in the discussion here ... only a thinking thing, a feeling thing, and a doing thing. You, however, did propose something you called a "higher ego" to cordinate, "control", my sundered parts. My lower ego is presumably what you are illustrating here.
I don't know ... i think my ego may well be something that i feel ... i don't see how i do it ... or think it. You of course are not going to go along with that ... having what you call direct experience of some (i presume) sovereign part there.
My question is why you flash this horse shit here and now in response to something that i said.
That to me is like totally baffeling. The only thing i can guess as to what you really ment was to ... omg, i won't even say it.
So, please, can you be more specific?
Ego is an ever unfolding, much like a volcano erupts & crusts over, kinda thingy - the most immediate answer to the question of "Who am I' while in a very ontological mood ... etc; such as PR's comtemplation. RS Uses Ego akin to the spirit when speaking of something eternal, but as the least developed of the 4-fold membered human being which needs purification through life. You really should read the LP as previously referenced. It is short but sum. I grok RS's distinctions best. Personality & temperament are something else - mostly akin to PR's self.
See Also
- Thought Cycle of doing with 783 viewings related by tag "doing".
- Thought Moving from 2 to 3 dimensions with 561 viewings related by tag "Doing".
- Thought Here is with 434 viewings related by tag "will".
- Thought Thought, Feeling, and Will with 401 viewings related by tag "will".
- Thought There is no such thing as freedom with 389 viewings related by tag "deed".
- Thought (clone) Should presidents tweet? with 337 viewings related by tag "thinking".
- Thought Socrates Cafe Question: Should presidents tweet? with 316 viewings related by tag "thinking".
- Thought The art of doing with 289 viewings related by tag "doing".
- Thought New TetModel of Psychology with 246 viewings related by tag "action".
- Thought [title (21093)] with 234 viewings related by tag "munge".
- Thought The Future Supervens on the Past with 234 viewings related by tag "will".
- Thought #static with 222 viewings related by tag "munge".
- Thought Teasing out the "will" with 190 viewings related by tag "will".
- Thought Triangulating ... with 186 viewings related by tag "doing".
- Thought Pure will is what makes plants grow with 174 viewings related by tag "will".
- Thought #JustDoIt with 160 viewings related by tag "JustDoIt".
- Thought The ego bubble plane with 154 viewings related by tag "thinking".
- Thought Thinking in the Public River with 152 viewings related by tag "thinking".
- Thought TetModel of Feedback with 139 viewings related by tag "action".
- Thought about: Megaphone vs Free Speech vs Political Correctness - comment 72579 - comment 72589 with 134 viewings related by tag "doing".
- Thought Why my trains of thought break ... with 127 viewings related by tag "thinking".
- Thought Fallacies and Pallacies with 124 viewings related by tag "thinking".
- Thought A thought causing an action with 111 viewings related by tag "action".
- Thought about: rational and intuitive thinking – marc clifton with 97 viewings related by tag "thinking".
- Thought SeriTD dreams, and dreams of boz. with 97 viewings related by tag "thinking".
- Thought #iSwim with 86 viewings related by tag "doing".
- Thought Crisps up LOA! with 79 viewings related by tag "action".
- Thought about: thought 23251 - comment 74736 with 62 viewings related by tag "doing".
- Thought munging -V- haggling and abstraction with 59 viewings related by tag "munge".
- Thought Deeds collapse Possibilities into Manifestations with 55 viewings related by tag "deed".
- Thought The Dare ! - was: Past Present and Future with 50 viewings related by tag "thinking".
- Thought Context and Juice with 48 viewings related by tag "trinity of being".
- Thought Listening with 38 viewings related by tag "thinking".
- Thought Have you ever wondered .. with 32 viewings related by tag "thinking".
- Thought Tetrahedron with 29 viewings related by tag "will".
- Thought [title (25536)] with 29 viewings related by tag "will".
- Thought Do ends justify means? with 27 viewings related by tag "ends justifies means".
- Thought What does thinking live mean? ... and where might it be going? with 23 viewings related by tag "thinking".
- Thought breathing as a method to effect will with 21 viewings related by tag "will".
- Thought #doing #do #ArtOfDoing #CycleOfDoing with 19 viewings related by tag "doing".
- Thought A big deep mind with 18 viewings related by tag "thinking".
- Thought about: vitamin k: jamming the transmissions with 18 viewings related by tag "action".
- Thought While my dog took a piss on a walk Yesterday with 18 viewings related by tag "free will".
- Thought about: The art of doing - comment 74749 with 10 viewings related by tag "doing".
- Thought Free Will with 7 viewings related by tag "free will".
- Thought The Question is Still Alive! with 7 viewings related by tag "will".
- Thought Act or React with 7 viewings related by tag "will".
- Thought about: Ordered Liberty with 6 viewings related by tag "deed".
- Thought Being .. Doing .. Having - Distinctions Can BE Made with 6 viewings related by tag "doing".
- Thought about: a diagram of the interactions between thoughts, focus, emotions, and experience with 6 viewings related by tag "thinking".