Let a network do its thing!

By nature of their structure, networks can do things. 

Sometimes i think we need to stand back and let them do their thing.

I'm looking for a clear cut example of that ... i will post when i find it.

I think this occurred to me when we were studying food distribution networks at the regional food hub meeting.   People were worrying about some pesky personal problems that might occur in the new distribution system ... but it was clear to some of us that the network itself solved those problems for everybody.  So i thought, just let the network do its thing. 
Perhaps later i can remember exactly what problems were solved just by nature of the netwok ... and did not need a rule based legislated solution. 

I guess the question is which kinds of networks we consider do things (act, or are actors), and which are do not do anything but rather are passively acted upon.   A rock is not a network, it just does not have the property of multiple interacting elements.  The Earth is a network for it does have the property of multiple interacting elements. 

By "network" I am referring to arrangements of elements (nodes) that "display substantial non-trivial topological features, with patterns of connection between their elements that are neither purely regular nor purely random" ... see Wikipedia on networks.

In other words, the question becomes:  if something is one of these networks,  assembled in some network arrangement, for some purpose ... should we not just rely on it to complete its purpose?  The idea being that the nature of netorks themselves allows for the solution of problems that micro-managing situations would not

A good example of that would be where we allow markets to solve economic problems where legislative solutions would fail. 

------------------------------------------------

And then we ask how it feels to be in a network ?
 

One thing i think is logically clear ... and almost undeniable ... , is that if you are not in the network, you will not be able to feel how it feels to be part of the network.  Or, perhaps said differently, you cannot feel what the network feels unless you are the network. 


←  That last paragraph is/was quite a revelation to me .  I got it years ago and it has stuck with me.  It is actually quite logical.  And, yes, it is part conjecture ... and er, part that i can almost feel happening. 

Then i can further conjecture that feeling is consciousness. 
 
new from a slightly different context we discover an attitude towards “ Freedom and Ability” re control and trusting the network from alan watt’s words …
 

Tags

  1. network is tool
  2. consciousness
  3. item 17474
  4. networks
  5. not in your network
  6. ego

Comments


Seth says
regarding your network not actor

There is certainly a sense in which we credit a person as an actor.  We say he did this, and acted that role.   But a person is a network.  All of his parts interrelate with each other in a network ... especially the neurons of his brain ... but other unnamed parts as well.  So that is a case where a network is considered to be the actor. 

I guess the question is which kinds of networks we consider do things (act, or are actors), and which are do not do anything but rather are passively acted upon.   A rock is not a network, it just does not have the property of multiple interacting elements.  The Earth is a network for it does have the property of multiple interacting elements. 

By "network" I am referring to arrangements of elements (nodes) that "display substantial non-trivial topological features, with patterns of connection between their elements that are neither purely regular nor purely random" ... see Wikipedia on networks.

In other words, the question becomes:  if something is one of these networks,  assembled in some network arrangement, for some purpose ... should we not just rely on it to complete its purpose?  The idea being that the nature of netorks themselves allows for the solution of problems that micro-managing situations would not

A good example of that would be where we allow markets to solve economic problems where legislative solutions would fail. 

Seth says
Einai 2014-06-13 08:02:51 17474
seth 2014-06-13 05:19:28 17474
Einai 2014-06-12 16:36:54 17474
seth 2014-06-12 16:15:10 17474
Einai 2014-06-12 15:17:55 17474
Governments are examples where things don't work very well.  I think you may be getting close to free market ideas.  One might say, though that the structure of the network ~ some function of dimension & polarity has a good deal of affect upon the success of it.


give me more on "some function of dimension & polarity". 
How many nodes & how far they are separated from each other is similar idea. Some idea is contained in these two articles:
Small town organizations require little aggregation of information & supply lots of 1-1 face time. Larger organizations like the Internet require much, much more. The US Government is mostly aggregation & hierarchy & little solution providers & actual actors.



i think the separation of nodes is not necessarily geographic (f2f or remote), but rather by how intensely nodes interact and communicate and what the quality (polarity) of the communication actually is.  

in a large network there is a great deal of variability in how nodes connect and interact. 

also networks ... or sub networks ... interact with each other.

so that what the boundary is (identity) between networks is blurred. 

understanding how all of that works is facinating ... don't you think?
Yep ....so  ....

so understanding how networks do their magic is part of understanding how this whole thing is going down.   I put more re your pesky "so"  in the end of the body of this item.  I don't expect you will like it, nevertheless it is where my mind has been going.

Mark de LA says
dA 2016-01-28 12:46:20 [item 17474#43871]
Personally I think a network doing it’s thing is basically equivalent to what you have in a colony of ants. High functionality and ability and even adaptability to serve the joint purpose, and on the other hand low or non existent creativity and evolution.
Yep, I don’t want to be in an ant colony. 

Seth says
dA 2016-01-28 12:46:20 [item 17474#43871]
Personally I think a network doing it’s thing is basically equivalent to what you have in a colony of ants. High functionality and ability and even adaptability to serve the joint purpose, and on the other hand low or non existent creativity and evolution.
well it certainly is true that an ant colony is a network.   but then so it a human colony.  some networks are better than others at “creatitivity” and “evolution”.  i don’t see your comparison as being anything about networks in general.  strange though, in the TED talk, he hinted at what is beyond even network.

Seth says
strange how we cop these augues though.   did you know there is even a fear of holes:  trypophobia.

Holmes says
seth 2016-01-28 13:28:11 [item 17474#43878]
i think another way of looking about this,  and this was brought up in the TED talk too, and that is :  everything networks together.  It is not like we have a big choice here: to be a network, or not to be a network.  
dA 2016-01-28 13:51:57 [item 17474#43881]
Networks are made of connected nodes. You do have a choice in how many nodes, and the nature of the connections.
seth 2016-01-28 13:57:39 [item 17474#43883]
yes certainly yes.   each node chooses which other nodes it connects to.   some connect to more nodes … others fewer but perhaps deeper.   different people function quite differently in the world in that regard … some are natural networkers … others not so very.  smug
dA 2016-01-28 14:06:52 [item 17474#43885]
Yep. I don’t. Networking just reduces my capacity. Probably because my 6 internal Gemini’s are already networked and interfacing with another network just load down my internal one.
seth 2016-01-28 14:15:27 [item 17474#43888]
yep you don’t do much social networking.   unfortunately i don’t do so very much more.  nevertheless everything that you actually do affects others and what they do affects you.  that is a kind of networking.   a person in an isolation chamber does not do so very much of that.   and to a lesser extent nor does a hermit.  then too, your internal network is vast … far vaster than just 6 Genini nodes.
Yes.

Seth says
seth 2016-01-28 16:00:21 [item 17474#43905]
i think people’s egos get in the way of noticing how they are already part of a giant “network” … always have been.   The guy in the TED talk said it better than i have … perhaps with more authority than hearing me say it.   Then too it is strange how many memes floating around pander to the parts of our egos which fight noticing.  And the word “network” has so very many negative things associated with it, which of course are not really important when looking just at the structure that we are talking about.  But if you think about it, the concept of vibrations attracting each other is just about the same thing from a different perspective.  Ask how is it that the boundary between “nodes”  happen … ← i wish there was a better word for “nodes” which had more positive connections to your minds wink.
nathan 2016-01-28 16:16:53 [item 17474#43906]
I listened to the whole TED talk. It had very little substantial in it. Mostly just trying to reframe how people see the internet and point fingers at the future. Invisible networks will become visible? What is that anyway. Just a ghost story.
seth 2016-01-28 16:27:41 [item 17474#43907]
i think its about recognizing the connections and interactions between independent parts that are already happening which people let fade out of their awareness just because they are things that always happen like breathing.  ← there i said that without using the word “network” blush
nathan 2016-01-28 17:08:08 [item 17474#43908]
We each write our own verses. I really have no interest in things being that way. I write differently. Thanks anyway!  
Mark 2016-01-28 17:34:00 [item 17474#43909]
To y’all
thumbs uprosecool
Well sure, we all talk differently about what happens … which is why i don’t get too excited about sombody’s story of it, even my own  … and why i thought All stories obtain .

Mark de LA says
source: mark
Personification of a network is bizarre for me. A person is not a network. They may have a network or have access to a network or perform duties which service a network of people.
Unless you have something like the Borg in mind you are stretching the term, imho
 
seth 2014-06-12 15:17:18 [item 17474#31736]
well what i am saying is not about the words that i am using to say it.  rather it is about appreciating what networks in and of their structure of interacting and intersected parts can do, which individual elements acting alone cannot.  

It is asking when will a network solve a problem that cannot be solved otherwise.   When do we look to a network to effect some change?  When do we appreciate that the network is solving our problem ... rather than just some element on its own.

 
Mark 2016-01-28 14:32:19 [item 17474#43896]
Borg boogie woogie! ideanew
dA 2016-01-28 14:37:28 [item 17474#43897]
Oddly. In a lot of ways I agree. Networks have a tool use, but I am not interested in plugging into one. We already are in a sense through our vibrational connections to the multiverse … but I don’t think physical networks for people are the way to go.
Mark 2016-01-28 14:43:21 [item 17474#43899]
Well with that comment looks like we should roll this sucker up into a tostada & put some sunt sauce on it & shove it.  
dA 2016-01-28 14:55:34 [item 17474#43902]
I don’t see that. Individuals can use this stuff just fine.
seth 2016-01-29 08:19:50 [item 17474#43921]
yes yes they can smiley.  
Mark 2016-01-29 08:28:44 [item 17474#43922]
dA’s comment is almost a double-negative with a weird twist. I wonder what he means?pondering
dA 2016-01-29 08:51:34 [item 17474#43926]
Don’t wonder Mark. Go uptime and know.
Mark 2016-01-29 08:55:43 [item 17474#43929]
Go uptown & snow.  Snowjobs can be had.
dA 2016-01-29 08:59:58 [item 17474#43932]
Your experience is your entire creation Mark. When you are in (from NLP) uptime, or in flow state, or in the  vortex … all basically similar things, you have access to the why and the were and the how of all that you create. It works.  Bandler showed the way years ago.
Just like the old joke goes “ What is a coolie? It is a quickie in snow!”  These dA answers are snowjobs – i.e. a sleeve-job in the snow. laughing

Mark de LA says
dA 2016-01-29 09:01:48 [item 17474#43934]
and p.s. … you have no business calling anything a “snow job” until you have tried it for yourself. Then you can call it what you want. Before that, it’s not your call.
Mark 2016-01-29 09:04:40 [item 17474#43938]
Same goes with a sleeve-job! smug
dA 2016-01-29 09:05:50 [item 17474#43939]
Well stick a sock in it until you have actually done things. Just shut up.
LOA teaches it’s people to say such things ? laughing

Seth says
strange how this peculiar node attracts such vicious rwg.   recently i tried to delete a bunch of it which  went totally off track.   above it happens again.  wired.   maybe it is because this node is really about ego.  and it is hard to talk about that with others and not end up defending it.   i guess it is a ticklish subject … it can make you blush and giggle and twist and turn. 

Si says
Well. I’ll have to say that seeing it come back up doesn’t make me excited. I’m not sure what the value in networks are. There may be some and I don’t want to down them unilaterally even though that is the feeling that comes up when I look at this page.

One thing I am sure about is that often networks are just a way for people to step out of their own power and let a larger system take care of them. To a degree, at leas for some people, networks are a cop out. A way to get lazy and not be responsible for what we create and what we believe and being everything we can be.

If everyone was tuned in, tapped in, turned on and being all that they could be and then they generated networks, then perhaps networks could do something cool. But as it is, networks are as much a safety net and a cop out as anything else. They take the spice out of being an individual and dreaming your own dream. They let you settle comfortably into the easy feeling of just being a cog in the system and letting others do the dreaming and big thinking for you. Like a borg. 

Networks may have some kind of value. But what I say here is how this page makes me feel. So I am not surprised it attracts the vishous rwg you noted in the last comment.

Holmes says
MR of group mark 2016-02-29 08:15:50 [item 17474#47200]
one wonders why bring it up again if you folks didn’t like it in the first place.thumbs down
?

Seth says
nathan, i think your conception of what is called “network” is quite a bit smaller than mine.   to me a network is any kind of interacting happenings.  Now that is th e first time that i have used the term  google interacting happenings … but to me it explains why you depreciate what i refer to as a  “network”.

you claim complete control of th e happenings with which you interact … even those of which you know nothing until they come into your senses.  I do not.  When i sense my body healing, i do not suppose that i completely controlled that.  I know from studying natural science most of that process happened without me even being involved with it.  My life relies upon all of those interacting happenings … that is what this thought is saying.

Holmes says
Poe of group da 2016-02-29 08:58:38 [item 17474#47212]
You misrepresent a lot of what I claim. Just because I claim I create my whole verse does not mean at all that I claim control of what is not in my senses and especially does not mean that I control others. I create my experience and my experience is reality, there is no distinction between them. What awareness I have of that process is entirely dependent on my current beliefs and my general state of being … so what ends up in my experience is much more like what you think happens when you believe your experience has components created outside of you … that is the nature of having a physical experience. That we are creating the whole thing notwithstanding … knowing that opens some doors, that’s all.
seth of group seth 2016-02-29 09:08:59 [item 17474#47214]
well i distinguish between what happens, and what i experience of what happens.   i have never heard you clearly make that distinction.   “There are components of what happens that i do not create … and there are components of what i experience that i do not create.  I gave an example of my body healing … but i am swimming in those components which i can only sense and do not entirely create myself.”   I doubt that you can honestly say that, given your beliefs as i understand them.
I do say that there is no difference between what happens and my experience of it. Very true. They are completely the same thing. When my body heals, I am not always having an experience of it. There is no reason to believe that there is some happening there which I am not experiencing. It is just as valid to believe that happening ends where I stop having an experience of it and pick back up where I have an experience of it again. That actually makes more sense logically, resource wise, and in many other ways. I simply select where in the matrix of all possibilities where to start my experience in any moment. In truth I can jump anywhere I want and experience any kind of happening I want … but I don’t do that much more than anyone else, just a bit, because that is all my current belief structures support … and is the experience I am here to have.

Don’t see what any of that has to do with networks however. No matter how you define them. And it also has nothing to do with me controlling others or otherness. Selecting where I am changes my experience as I do it … your experience is what you select.

Mark de LA says
Fascinating word “happen” … the word has always seemed to me like it meant to most people something like karma (although I don’t think of karma like that) – like I am not really there except to observe & deal with it – almost like a victim: (etymology)
happening (adj.) Look up happening at Dictionary.com
1520s, "occurring," present participle adjective from happen (v.). Compare incident.
happenstance (n.) Look up happenstance at Dictionary.com
1855, from happening + ending from circumstance.
happen (v.) Look up happen at Dictionary.com
late 14c., happenen, "to come to pass, occur, come about, be the case," literally "occur by hap, have the (good or bad) fortune (to do, be, etc.);" extension (with verb-formative -n) of the more common hap (v.). Old English used gelimpan, gesceon, and Middle English also had befall. In Middle English fel it hap meant "it happened." Related: Happened; happening. Phrase happens to be as an assertive way to say "is" is from 1707.

Seth says
seth of group seth 2016-02-29 08:51:24 [item 17474#47211]
Interesting the first result of google interacting happenings is …

what really exists is a giant net or complex causal network of constantly changing and causally interacting happenings or events or processes.
 

nathan of group nathan 2016-02-29 09:47:44 [item 17474#47222]
If you read right after that quote you will come upon where he talks about reality as we represent it being entirely false and it is actually the larger network that exists.

This is actually the way I talk. If you want to define reality as an interacting network of all possibilities like this, then it is the same as my “matrix of all possibilties” and dovetails right back into the holodeck model, which reading further into that article starts sounding eerily the same. 

But I don’t think that is really what you mean when you talk about network. I think you and others mostly mean the concept which at it’s highest expression is how a colony of ant’s operate. And not that it is wrong, but it is different than the human experience and what humans are about and is why humans throw monkey wrenches into networks whenever they can … because they intuitively feel that those structures are not what we are about. We are individuals first, building new possibilities into the multiverse co-creativly from our indivdual reality perspectives. Ant’s don’t do that, they only adapt, perfectly mind you, but it is only adaptation and that, if anything, is what networks are good at, adapting.
 
Well when i talk of a network i am talking about  “a network of constantly changing and causally interacting happenings or events or processes”.   Unlike ants,  each human is an individual who can “build in new possibilities from their individual perspective”.   Ants build ant colonies.  Humans build human cultures and societies … which, last time i looked, were not so fixed and always the same as an ant colonies … but rather were continually evolving into new possibilities. 

This particular thought here, reference, was thunk just for those situations where the solution to a problem can not emerge for single individuals.  The example i was dealing with at the time was food distribution … getting good food luciously delivered into the mouths of families in Renton.  Individual choices are not doing it  … however growing a network will make it happen.  That entails making the transactions between people involving good food work so well that they will happen again and again … then, yes, we can sit back and let the network deliver.   Individuals going to the super market and getting processed foods in plastic containers are already transacting  in a giant network.   Right now that network is the only game in town.  I want another one that feels better. 

Holmes says
Poe of group da 2016-03-01 05:24:21 [item 17474#47299]
I don’t know. It seems to me this network idea is getting overused and blown out of proportion. I don’t think the network should be what is focused on. It shouldn’t be looked at as a solution, but rather just an aspect of something.

Most animals have noses. But noses are not something that needs to be emphasized about an animal. It is just what an animal smells with. When something has an aspect of a network, it should be the same. We shouldn’t be calling out the network aspect any more than we call out noses. Like you say, a network aspect is simply an aspect of things that exist, or happen.
seth of group seth 2016-03-01 07:36:38 [item 17474#47305]
it is an important aspect of what is happening because by networking we can make things happen that otherwise we can not.  it is not one of those things, like smelling with the nose on your face, that you cannot do by yourself. 
Not seeing it. Where it happens, it is natural. No need to call it out. Emphasizing it is more like putting cybernetic implants on people to connect their brains.

Holmes says
seth of group seth 2016-03-01 07:49:56 [item 17474#47309]
i like the new reference … it automatically changes when that thought changes its title smileyyes
Well of course. You taught me that trick many years ago with CyberMind.

Holmes says
i.e. why would I ever even what someone to know it is a reference? It still appears as one when you edit the page. It is mainly to allow us to create automatic links. If you have some real reason to need to show that it is a reference, then there should be another reference that does that, but why?

Seth says
seth of group seth 2016-03-01 07:52:41 [item 17474#47311]
i like the new reference … it automatically changes when that thought changes its title smileyyes

it looks like a simple hyperlink, which of course it is, yes would’t it be nice if when we view it we can know that it is a live reference … maybe put quotes around it … “this is a live reference” … just a thought.
Poe of group da 2016-03-01 07:54:15 [item 17474#47312]
I would not like that. It would make it ugly and would really muck up my presentation in contents etc.

What is wrong with it looking like a hyperlink? That is what I would normally want.
seth of group seth 2016-03-01 08:01:24 [item 17474#47315]
yes it is fine … doesn’t need it.  an author can always style around it like this, reference, if they wish.
Poe of group da 2016-03-01 08:03:55 [item 17474#47317]
Well sure.

But what is the point? All hyperlinks are references. That is their very nature. What’s the point of double denoting a reference? If it is a “quote” maybe, but in general?
seth of group seth 2016-03-01 08:09:39 [item 17474#47318]
the point is that this is the author’s expression.  look i am agreeing with you … let an author style around the reference if they happen to want to to adapt the convention that a title of an opus is put in quotes, see “Grammerly handbook”.
Poe of group da 2016-03-01 08:15:00 [item 17474#47319]
Okay, cool. Because from that “reference” the rules have changed anyway. We would have to italicize titles and “only put quotes around short works”. Novels and manuals would have to be without quotes. That would be very hard to know automatically!
?

Holmes says
MR of group mark 2016-03-01 07:55:58 [item 17474#47313]
Anthropomorphism & some of it’s synonyms  including representational process & deep into morphism itself. 
p.s. Heroku chased me all the way to the power synonyms site. 
seth of group seth 2016-03-01 08:20:09 [item 17474#47321]
ok it just dawned on me that when you use “Heroku” you are talking about a different website.  whereas I have been using that same word to refer to “reference”.  

Anyway there is certainly a lot of anthropomorphism and morphism involved in “feeling the network” do its thing … a facinating topic … and as you know i have been all over it for some time now. 
What is this other Heroku, other than the web platform?

Seth says
MR 2016-04-03 07:42:18 [item 17474#50710]
Let a jar of honey do it’s thingy ! coolthumbs up
Seth 2016-04-03 09:19:22 [item 17474#50728]
did you pick up on how Watts was saying the same thing i am here … from a slightly different point of view?

i don’t care if your not interested, but if you are interested with beginners mind and don’t grok what i am saying, i will be glad to transcribe watts specific words and compare them for you. 
MR 2016-04-03 09:25:39 [item 17474#50729]
do as you will .. it will compete with other thoughts & ideas I have for attention … this headline continues to surface but seems silly as I have basically said in my last statement. enjoy 
Seth 2016-04-03 09:30:09 [item 17474#50730]
i guess the question to you then is … if the way i said it seems so very silly to you … does the way Watts says it seem so very less so silly ?  ← laugh
MR 2016-04-03 09:34:30 [item 17474#50731]
I watched mostly the short youtubes of Alan Watts & maybe a long one & read a book or so … tweaked the interest for a bit but nothing lasting … I find PR more zen, less profound, more amusing & more direct & clear. 
fine so no stickey edges with you on this topic

Seth says
nathan 2016-04-03 13:19:52 [item 17474#50747]
The thing a network does is to organize and control the collective. For communication systems, that can be a good thing. For human systems, that is Borg.
true,  a computer network can do that yes … and is used twice daily and three times on Sunday to control the chaotic whims of human beings … especially in business and government.  You can trust me on that one … i’ve done it for my clients my entire life’s career … and i was quite aware of what i was doing. 

But when i use the word “network” i am talking about “a collection of independent human beings freely interacting” …see my meme  “Network”.   That is just about as far from the Borg as one can get.

There is more to the free will of “control” oh chaos than the rwg vibrations of our subjective egos  … especially as the abilities afforded by computers emerge.  The network of which  i speak is not the Borg … that would be  a confusion … a distraction … a flim flam of signs.   Rather the network is our very own human civilization extended by our tools … it is what we have become and are becoming … it is what we are doing … it is what is happening.   It is , me thinks, best seen from a vantage  closer to  “independent human beings interacting” … and not from a solitary “me generation’s view” of *I* create my own verses.  ← that’s where we seem to disagree.

Si says
nathan 2016-04-03 13:19:52 [item 17474#50747]
The thing a network does is to organize and control the collective. For communication systems, that can be a good thing. For human systems, that is Borg.
MR 2016-04-03 13:26:56 [item 17474#50750]
Not really – maybe half right. 
nathan 2016-04-03 13:53:05 [item 17474#50754]
I think you will find that half is sufficient.
MR 2016-04-03 14:09:07 [item 17474#50756]
or maybe just insufficient for the emptyness of some idea wherever it went or whatever it was? 
That would be sufficiently sufficient for insufficiency, yes.  

Seth says
nathan 2016-04-03 15:36:53 [item 17474#50761]
Nice idea in principal, not actionable in most verses (though as it can be imagined, it does exist, in difficult and forced balance). The forces that drive networking are nearly the opposite forces that drive independence. A collection of independent human beings freely interacting is truly an oxymoron. It will either look like a tightly controlled network, or random chaos. Either the collective force will eventually win out, and become Borg, or the independent force will win out, and the network will dissolve into independent and self driven components. Co-existence of both forces is futile, and unnecessary for harmony. Excitement is a natural force that harmonizes and does not have any network like components.  

You could keep generalizing your network definition until it becomes a collective of independent human beings following excitement … but then, it simply won’t have enough network defining attributes to be called a network anymore. A network really is a specific thing … generalize it enough, it is no longer a network. Keep enough of what makes a network a network inside a human system, and it will become Borg if it survives.
the balance is not “difficult and forced” any more than it is in a natural ecology without the human animal … and in fact it already exists, else our human civilization is rapidly decaying … your SciFi fears notwistanding.  i think it is just hard for you to acknowledge from your peculiar perspective. 

but you are certainly right when you say, “ a collection of independent human beings freely interacting is truly an oxymoron”, … an amazing paradox upon which our very humanity depends ← or least that is the way i am painting mine →  yours is incredible too ← so there we are doing it smuggrinheart ← the fear that we cannot, notwithstanding. 
 

See Also

  1. Thought Thought, Feeling, and Will with 382 viewings related by tag "Ego".
  2. Thought cognitive dissonance with 258 viewings related by tag "Ego".
  3. Thought Interesting Pages on G+ with 215 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  4. Thought You are part of my SubConscious with 207 viewings related by tag "Ego".
  5. Thought Teasing out the "will" with 188 viewings related by tag "ego".
  6. Thought Wht is consciousness? with 170 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  7. Thought Win Win Interactions with others with 166 viewings related by tag "ego".
  8. Thought Thoughts re freedom & Christ ... i don't want to forget ... with 161 viewings related by tag "Ego".
  9. Thought about: one of the best dialogues ever written! ever! the egg. | spirit science with 159 viewings related by tag "networks".
  10. Thought about: The #RWG - comment 67967 with 159 viewings related by tag "ego".
  11. Thought The ego bubble plane with 152 viewings related by tag "Ego".
  12. Thought Contemplation: what is my ego? with 140 viewings related by tag "ego".
  13. Thought Agreements are vunerable to lies with 126 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  14. Thought Inquiry: what isolates us? with 124 viewings related by tag "Ego".
  15. Thought [title (23904)] with 119 viewings related by tag "ego".
  16. Thought Consciousness as "transactional relative relivance" reares it's ugly head for the first time here with 87 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  17. Thought Eropa with 79 viewings related by tag "Ego".
  18. Thought about: Unhacking Wars - comment 67183 with 70 viewings related by tag "ego".
  19. Thought Bring it ... with 49 viewings related by tag "ego".
  20. Thought The trick is to enjoy the prick with 38 viewings related by tag "ego".
  21. Thought A recognition ... with 35 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  22. Thought Socrates Cafe July 12 2017 with 28 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  23. Thought Changes are comming! with 24 viewings related by tag "networks".
  24. Thought Consciousness Work with 23 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  25. Thought Contrast ... with 18 viewings related by tag "ego".
  26. Thought Fascinating Consciousness with 15 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  27. Thought Divided Souls in Consciousness with 15 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  28. Thought Conscience with 14 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  29. Thought A most Fascinating Conversation with 12 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  30. Thought One Person's Idea of Consciousness with 10 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  31. Thought Is nothing by an oobey feeling of death with 7 viewings related by tag "ego".
  32. Thought Contemplation with 7 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  33. Thought Awareness, Attention is the function of the Ego with 5 viewings related by tag "ego".
  34. Thought Life is boring repitition ... with 5 viewings related by tag "ego".
  35. Thought Esoteric Cosmology with 5 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  36. Thought Autolagnia with 5 viewings related by tag "ego".
  37. Thought about: how to use parallel realities - shift into an alternate universe! - youtube with 4 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  38. Thought Towards a recognition ... with 4 viewings related by tag "ego".
  39. Thought Different types of Facts with 4 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  40. Thought Will of Consciousness with 4 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  41. Thought about: mark's inquiry on facebook with 4 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  42. Thought An Amusing Thought Leap-Frogged into my Head this AM with 3 viewings related by tag "ego".
  43. Thought Word Salad Dressing with 3 viewings related by tag "ego".
  44. Thought Facebook Linguistics with 2 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  45. Thought Good vs Evil with 2 viewings related by tag "ego".
  46. Thought Ego with 2 viewings related by tag "ego".
  47. Thought Multi Level Consciousnesses with 2 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  48. Thought about: REpresentation - comment 57743 - comment 57813 with 2 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  49. Thought Being awake is being conscious with 2 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
  50. Thought Not in my network with 1 viewings related by tag "item 17474".