The World


This item represents the world uninterpreted by us.  It represents the web of actuality which we experience and share ... yet exists apart from our apprehension of it

Note, this item does not necessarily represent just "nature and the physical universe" as Wikipedia defines it in Natural Philosophy.  Rather it defines it as "the web of actuality which we experience and share".  So that private subjective experience is not part of The World ... nor are the interpretations of the metaworld

Incidental when i use the word "share" in this context, i am talking about shared experiences ...not shared things.   When people are present at an event and have similar subjective experiences, i would say that they "shared the experience". 

Actually this view of "The World" may be fundamentally flawed ... for the web of actuality apart from our interpretation presents to our experience as static.  The world is not static. We cannot apprehend that which we do not interpret.  In fact the very process of apprehending, of becoming aware, must needs be the same process as that of interpreting.  Consequently i need to change my definition of "The World".

Tags

  1. world
  2. mother nature
  3. philosophy
  4. the world
  5. outsides
  6. spiritual vs material
  7. item 17564

Comments


Seth says
Note the, perhaps, novel association of concepts in my definition.  This is not pointing at the thing that many people have been taught to call "the physical world" ... it is not just the world which we perceive with our 5 classical senses.  And, i doubt that dolphins, or a honey bees, or a intelligent aliens could experience or care about it

Seth says
Mark, please note my definition here .... you cannot stray from that and call yourself focused on the same thing.  I have defined the world here as "the web of actuality which we experience and share ... yet exists apart from our apprehension of it."   Hence it is not something "interpreted by seth".   Of course this term, "The World", has been defined by seth right here in this item.  Please respect that distinction.

Now i expect that you define what you would call "The World" quite differently.  I actually would be rather interested in how you would thoughtfully define "The World". 

Mark de LA says
Your first sentence, speaking for US (birdie), is just your interpretation. You can't be present to my experience of the web only your own.


Seth says
....

source: mark
The Earth didn't suddenly grow a brain.
pml
... ... er, why not? 

Shades of Bozo's conjecture raises its ugly head. 

Ask yourself what this thing is in and of itself ... what does it do?  Then if you do that, me thinks, it will be hard for you to distinguish between what your brain does for you, and what our communication (enhansed by the Internet) does for humanity.  Of course the relationship between humanity and Gaia needs to be understood since you are calling it the Earth's brain.  Maybe call it humanities brain and you won't need to even delve into that thorney question.

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-07-25 09:25:43 17564
M 2014-07-25 09:06:18 17564
? - so?


well this is just my way of pointing to, of referring to a particular web of actuality.  of defining it.  of being aware of it.  perhaps even that we can talk about it and be talking about the same thing.
Enjoy - I have no quarrel with that. I think of all this new technology as a natural extension of ancient means of communication (like books & telephones) only now via electronics. The Earth didn't suddenly grow a brain.
pml

Seth says
M 2014-07-25 07:44:06 17564
Your first sentence, speaking for US (birdie), is just your interpretation.


Not my interpretation, rather my definition.  

I actually thought long and hard about using "I" there and then finally decided to use "we" instead.  It was not an easy choice ... especially since i hold that speaking in the first person is the only way to be completely honest. 

So note that my definition would not logically work using "I" ... for then "The World" would be "the web of actuality which I experience and share".   Or in other words just my own experience.  But that is laughably not the world that i am talking about ... especially when i am defining it as that which "exists apart from [my] apprehension of it".  

Look "we" is a perfectly good word to use ... without it i fear our communication about this kind of topic can not happen.  Please get over your "birdie" prejudices.  Perhaps contemplate: "without us there is not any you, nor even a me".  The question is not whether I can speak for you, rather it is can i refer to us ... and yes, i believe that i can ... er, so can you .... er, we can refer to us. 

mark

You can't be present to my experience of the web only your own.
Yes, that is absolutely true .   Yet i can refer to our experience ... and those experiences which we shared.  Remember the time in Morongo Valley when we watched a thunder storm and the lightening hit extremely close to us?



Seth says
source: mark
Anthropomorphism reigns In Bozo's brains.
PML
... well yes certainly ... thanks for noticing.  To think that we don't project our being outside ourselves is ... er, not to think at all ... er PML.

Seth says
M 2014-07-25 10:43:29 17564
M 2014-07-25 10:38:56 17564
seth 2014-07-25 10:26:23 17564
source: mark
Anthropomorphism reigns In Bozo's brains.
PML
... well yes certainly ... thanks for noticing.  To think that we don't project our being outside ourselves is ... er, not to think at all ... er PML.
Not too far from the ancient Greeks & Zeus .

At least they left behind some beautiful sculptures & temples.
- if we survive an EMP something good may come of our own efforts.
I CAN THINK - that's why I can tell that anthropomorphism is imaginary.


Well yes certainly ... anthropomorphizing is imagining ... it is a action in and of the metaworld of mind ... outside of the signs it leaves like here, it is not in The World as i have defined it above.  But we both can experience communication ... and we both can experience what happens in our minds.  I am just asserting here in this communication that both of those experiences are so very similar as not to really be distinguished in any important way. 

Mark de LA says
M 2014-07-25 10:38:56 17564
seth 2014-07-25 10:26:23 17564
source: mark
Anthropomorphism reigns In Bozo's brains.
PML
... well yes certainly ... thanks for noticing.  To think that we don't project our being outside ourselves is ... er, not to think at all ... er PML.
Not too far from the ancient Greeks & Zeus .

At least they left behind some beautiful sculptures & temples.
- if we survive an EMP something good may come of our own efforts.
I CAN THINK - that's why I can tell that anthropomorphism is imaginary.


Mark de LA says
seth 2014-07-25 11:11:54 17564
M 2014-07-25 10:43:29 17564
M 2014-07-25 10:38:56 17564
seth 2014-07-25 10:26:23 17564
source: mark
Anthropomorphism reigns In Bozo's brains.
PML
... well yes certainly ... thanks for noticing.  To think that we don't project our being outside ourselves is ... er, not to think at all ... er PML.
Not too far from the ancient Greeks & Zeus .

At least they left behind some beautiful sculptures & temples.
- if we survive an EMP something good may come of our own efforts.
I CAN THINK - that's why I can tell that anthropomorphism is imaginary.


Well yes certainly ... anthropomorphizing is imagining ... it is a action in and of the metaworld of mind ... outside of the signs it leaves like here, it is not in The World as i have defined it above.  But we both can experience communication ... and we both can experience what happens in our minds.  I am just asserting here in this communication that both of those experiences are so very similar as not to really be distinguished in any important way. 
munging imagination with something else in your mind?

Seth says
M 2014-07-25 11:48:48 17564
seth 2014-07-25 11:11:54 17564
M 2014-07-25 10:43:29 17564
M 2014-07-25 10:38:56 17564
seth 2014-07-25 10:26:23 17564
source: mark
Anthropomorphism reigns In Bozo's brains.
PML
... well yes certainly ... thanks for noticing.  To think that we don't project our being outside ourselves is ... er, not to think at all ... er PML.
Not too far from the ancient Greeks & Zeus .

At least they left behind some beautiful sculptures & temples.
- if we survive an EMP something good may come of our own efforts.
I CAN THINK - that's why I can tell that anthropomorphism is imaginary.


Well yes certainly ... anthropomorphizing is imagining ... it is a action in and of the metaworld of mind ... outside of the signs it leaves like here, it is not in The World as i have defined it above.  But we both can experience communication ... and we both can experience what happens in our minds.  I am just asserting here in this communication that both of those experiences are so very similar as not to really be distinguished in any important way. 
munging imagination with something else in your mind?

nope, why would you say that?   Certainly i am connecting imagination with the other topics of this item.  Do you understand the connections that i made?  If not, then why not? 

Mark de LA says
We don't even experience a communication in the same way - it is all imagination especially using your meta-world as if I would agree to something in that.
My critique about anthropomorphism stands!


Seth says
M 2014-07-25 11:56:56 17564
We don't even experience a communication in the same way - it is all imagination especially using your meta-world as if I would agree to something in that.
My critique about anthropomorphism stands!


Well it is certainly true that we don't experience communication the same ... yet just to the extent that we do experience it the same, we say that we have successfully communicated. 

I have no idea where you got "it is all imagination especially using your meta-world" ... certainly not from anything i said here ... and i don't even know what that would mean.   What i did say was that when one anthromophorsize something, they are imagining.  And anything that you imagine is something that you are doing in your mind ... it is mental behavior ... and i call that "action in the metaworld of mind" as distinguished from "action in The World". 

I still do not understand what your "critique about anthropomorphism" is.  I think there is a lot of wisdom to be gained by recognizing (and/or imagining) that the being that humans comprise collectively behaves substantually like each of its individual members do internally.  If we can recognize that and believe it, then it may well help us improve our society ... er, just like understanding yourself can help you improve your life. 

I mean, come on Mark, what is there to disagree about here with what i have actually said?

Seth says
Actually this view of "The World" may be fundamentally flawed ... for the web of actuality apart from our interpretation presents to our experience as static.  We cannot apprehend that which we do not interpret.  In fact the very process of apprehending, of becoming aware, must needs be the same process as that of interpreting.  Consequently i need to change my definition of The World.

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-07-27 05:34:51 17564
Actually this view of "The World" may be fundamentally flawed ... for the web of actuality apart from our interpretation presents to our experience as static.  We cannot apprehend that which we do not interpret.  In fact the very process of apprehending, of becoming aware, must needs be the same process as that of interpreting.  Consequently i need to change my definition of The World.
maybe, maybe not!
I had to decode your use of apprenend (mostly a grasping nature) as in the etymology fragment:
mid-14c., "to grasp in the senses or mind," from Old French aprendre (12c.) "teach; learn; take, grasp; acquire,


One can grasp before cognizing something.
I've done it.  Elsewise how do you know there is something to grasp?

see also 3976


Seth says
source: mark
One can grasp before cognizing something.
I've done it. 

yeah like a baby ... a blissful state indeed

Elsewise how do you know there is something to grasp?

things present to experience, whether or not we know what they are or can interpret them.  of course we may not know whether they are interesting or important to interact with before we do interact with them. 

Anyway i used the word "apprehend" because it was more general and does not refer to what is almost the end of the process of interacting like "cognition" does.  I am not trying to parse out those differences ... not saying they do no exist ... just saying that i'm talking about the whole loop of interacting with the world which yields interpretation or cognition.

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-07-28 06:48:11 17564
source: mark
One can grasp before cognizing something.
I've done it. 

yeah like a baby ... a blissful state indeed

Elsewise how do you know there is something to grasp?

things present to experience, whether or not we know what they are or can interpret them.  of course we may not know whether they are interesting or important to interact with before we do interact with them. 

Anyway i used the word "apprehend" because it was more general and does not refer to what is almost the end of the process of interacting like "cognition" does.  I am not trying to parse out those differences ... not saying they do no exist ... just saying that i'm talking about the whole loop of interacting with the world which yields interpretation or cognition.
Nah! not as a baby nor in a blissful state have I done it. Things present to experience? WTF is that? How do you know whether to interact or not? Are you a random robot that just interacts & figures it out afterwards? (kinda like Pelosi & the Obamacare Bill ) ?


Mark de LA says
I think all we have here is what Gertrude Stein said in 1922 A Rose is a Rose is a Rose -OR- in your context Experience is Experience is Experience.



Seth says
anyway the analysis here must needs be intellectual and definitional so that we know to what is being refereed.  but the actuality of what is being grasped is not.   what is interesting to experience is that qualia themselves change with the conceptions and interpretations of mind.  the end spiral of the loop affecting its beginning. 

every day the world seems different to me ... has a different feel to it .... i guess i am just moody, perhaps bipolar  ... but it does allow me to experience things like change in qualia ... changes in consciousness ... and realize how much is what i am bringing to the moment versus what is there sans my apprehension.  when it comes to social group interacting, those changes in the qualia of how it feels, of what our consciousness is, can be quite dramatic indeed .  seems to me that once that is realized in my gut, that then i can start dealing with the dynamics of the cause and effect magic of it happening.  i can do that quite easily one to one with denise ... with larger more foreign groups ... well not so very much .  doing it with you has become  impossible of course, for reasons that you know only too well .

Seth says
M 2014-07-28 07:10:19 17564
seth 2014-07-28 06:48:11 17564
source: mark
One can grasp before cognizing something.
I've done it. 

yeah like a baby ... a blissful state indeed

Elsewise how do you know there is something to grasp?

things present to experience, whether or not we know what they are or can interpret them.  of course we may not know whether they are interesting or important to interact with before we do interact with them. 

Anyway i used the word "apprehend" because it was more general and does not refer to what is almost the end of the process of interacting like "cognition" does.  I am not trying to parse out those differences ... not saying they do no exist ... just saying that i'm talking about the whole loop of interacting with the world which yields interpretation or cognition.
Nah! not as a baby nor in a blissful state have I done it. Things present to experience? WTF is that? How do you know whether to interact or not? Are you a random robot that just interacts & figures it out afterwards? (kinda like Pelosi & the Obamacare Bill ) ?


Well perhaps if you would describe the context of your actual "grasping without cognizing" we could distinguish it from what babies do when they grasp and look at the world.  Me, i cannot conceive of a difference based on your words here.

Re WTF:   An edge from dark to light presents itself on a retina ... that is experienced ... things do present to experience.  What is your complaint with that?


We frequently do NOT "know" whether to interact or not to interact.  I think one could be said to know whether to interact or not just when one is following a story ... acting according to some conception.  So just because there is no conscious (or unconscious) story in ones mind, does not mean that one does not act in a situation.  Somewhere in that spectrum is an instinct like, "wtf is that, oh i'll stick my finger in it and see". 


Mark de LA says
seth 2014-07-28 08:46:02 17564 

Well perhaps if you would describe the context of your actual "grasping without cognizing" we could distinguish it from what babies do when they grasp and look at the world.  Me, i cannot conceive of a difference based on your words here.

Re WTF:   An edge from dark to light presents itself on a retina ... that is experienced ... things do present to experience.  What is your complaint with that?


We frequently do NOT "know" whether to interact or not to interact.  I think one could be said to know whether to interact or not just when one is following a story ... acting according to some conception.  So just because there is no conscious (or unconscious) story in ones mind, does not mean that one does not act in a situation.  Somewhere in that spectrum is an instinct like, "wtf is that, oh i'll stick my finger in it and see". 

In silent meditation maybe even za-zen something can come up & I can sometimes reject it as something coming up without cognizing it & getting side-tracked.
You don't really experience but only intellectualize dark-light on the retina. You don't even know you have a retina from experience you just remember the abstraction of the school story about eye physiology.  I say that once you become conscious of your retina you probably have a disease much similar to once you feel a pain in your stomach or your head.
Yeah curiosity may power persuit of some qualia if it even is a qualia yet. Other consciousnesses exist where you can hang out genuinely in not knowing.



Seth says
M 2014-07-29 09:07:36 17564
I am basically saying that edges are cognizings - something you make up.


yeah i tend to agree.   but the cause of the experience from which the edges were cognized existed in The World ... not in ones being.   else we are just imagining all of this ... the old solipsistic world view would prevail.   I look at it as a channel ... on one end are the causes in The World ... on the other end is our highest consciousness of that.   Philosophically it makes little difference where you slice the channel.   That the channel exists from World to Being is the salient edge that i am trying to get an agreement on here.

Seth says
M 2014-07-29 08:45:24 17564
seth 2014-07-29 08:38:43 17564
source: mark
You don't really experience but only intellectualize dark-light on the retina.
Nope ... not true at all.  A change from dark to light is experienced.  Now that it happens on something that we call a "retina" is an intellectualiziation ... that is an after the fact analysis ... but the experience itself still exists ... we can truly say the edge from dark to light presents itself to our experience.  That edge is in The World.

You make up the edge. If you look under a microscope you notice that an edge is not distinct. If you really focus on your observed edge you may notice it is not as clear as you think since your focus is not as clear as it could be. etc.  You win the argument no need to go much further.


well it is not a matter of winning an argument ... er, that would be an edge that you are making up ... me i am trying desperately to ignore those edges that you keep bringing up as if they were important.

But sure we make up the edge then proceed to a higher perception of the object.  The point being merely that something presented (effected) our experience from The World.   This is even more dramatic when it comes to the sound channel.   sounds present to our ear and we learn how to recognize the edges in them ... er, what is important in those sounds to us.  we learn early on when we are still babies to filter out changes that our culture does not use.

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-07-29 08:51:45 17564
source: mark
Other consciousnesses exist where you can hang out genuinely in not knowing.


I tend to agree.  I have found that where my so called knowledge and prejudices are not actively shouting at me, then all manner of other signals from The World and even my own being tend to present themselves to my experience. 
& even without all those words & the implied listening another has, consciousnesses will appear amongst the silence.


Seth says
M 2014-07-29 10:18:54 17564
seth 2014-07-29 09:18:30 17564
M 2014-07-29 09:07:36 17564
I am basically saying that edges are cognizings - something you make up.


yeah i tend to agree.   but the cause of the experience from which the edges were cognized existed in The World ... not in ones being.   else we are just imagining all of this ... the old solipsistic world view would prevail.   I look at it as a channel ... on one end are the causes in The World ... on the other end is our highest consciousness of that.   Philosophically it makes little difference where you slice the channel.   That the channel exists from World to Being is the salient edge that i am trying to get an agreement on here.
RS just calls them percepts & goes on from there. You can play years with how a distinction is made. The edges are yours.  You have to have the distinction edge in some context to find one.
Maybe start here:


Yep the concept of "percepts" has been around for a long time ... i guess i just like to call them "edges" ... that word seems to imply some important details and feels more specific and less intellectual than the usual word. 

The point of course is that the edges are not necessarily just "mine" ... they are effects from The World which we all share ... else they are just mine and nobody can share them.  Both kinds of edges exist of course.  The fun part is to know which are which. 

Of course your advise here, "maybe start here", is your deed sired perhaps from an edge percieved inside of your being ... not in mine.  to me it feels just like you mocking me as usual.  it is not something of which i can make anything useful ... although if you become more specific ... who knows (not I) ... maybe i could.

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-07-29 11:20:16 17564
M 2014-07-29 10:18:54 17564
seth 2014-07-29 09:18:30 17564
M 2014-07-29 09:07:36 17564
I am basically saying that edges are cognizings - something you make up.


yeah i tend to agree.   but the cause of the experience from which the edges were cognized existed in The World ... not in ones being.   else we are just imagining all of this ... the old solipsistic world view would prevail.   I look at it as a channel ... on one end are the causes in The World ... on the other end is our highest consciousness of that.   Philosophically it makes little difference where you slice the channel.   That the channel exists from World to Being is the salient edge that i am trying to get an agreement on here.
RS just calls them percepts & goes on from there. You can play years with how a distinction is made. The edges are yours.  You have to have the distinction edge in some context to find one.
Maybe start here:


Yep the concept of "percepts" has been around for a long time ... i guess i just like to call them "edges" ... that word seems to imply some important details and feels more specific and less intellectual than the usual word. 

The point of course is that the edges are not necessarily just "mine" ... they are effects from The World which we all share ... else they are just mine and nobody can share them.  Both kinds of edges exist of course.  The fun part is to know which are which. 

Of course your advise here, "maybe start here", is your deed sired perhaps from an edge percieved inside of your being ... not in mine.  to me it feels just like you mocking me as usual.  it is not something of which i can make anything useful ... although if you become more specific ... who knows (not I) ... maybe i could.
Chips appear on all kinds of shoulders these days.  I was not mocking you except in your listening.  This was an interesting picture of the Tao symbol whose edge is more interesting than the white-black one you may be used to.  The edge is difficult to define & the pattern is the thing not the edge if you could identify one.
IMHO, the point of view coming from you is tap-dancing around the old dualism problem about what is reality? that which is out of the spirit or that which is out of the material; both claiming supremacy . The church battles the physical-material world.  Along came the skeptics & invented Science as the great mediator. That  could also be looked at as the mood of empiricism (see RS & the zodiac of philosophical outlooks).
PR in BofNK 25:9 ssq disposed of that trichotomy & went on to ontology & zen & direct experience & consciousness. Whatever is coming from seth seems mostly reinvention or resurrecting of the old arguments.
 

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-07-29 13:51:18 17564
source: Mark
Chips appear on all kinds of shoulders these days.  I was not mocking you except in your listening.  This was an interesting picture of the Tao symbol whose edge is more interesting than the white-black one you may be used to.  The edge is difficult to define & the pattern is the thing not the edge if you could identify one.
IMHO, the point of view coming from you is tap-dancing around the old dualism problem about what is reality? that which is out of the spirit or that which is out of the material; both claiming supremacy . The church battles the physical-material world.  Along came the skeptics & invented Science as the great mediator. That  could also be looked at as the mood of empiricism (see RS & the zodiac of philosophical outlooks).
PR in BofNK 25:9 ssq disposed of that trichotomy & went on to ontology & zen & direct experience & consciousness. Whatever is coming from seth seems mostly reinvention or resurrecting of the old arguments.


Well what i am dealing with here, should actually be  quite new, even to you ... i have never actually heard others say it ... and is not accurately characterized as "the old dualism problem".  You see i think the whole "spirit or material duality"  is nothing but a story.  There is no edge there that i can experience.  It is just something that people talk about conceptually.  To me the edge is where one experiences something or not ... and whether that experience can be shared or not.  if I experienced it, then it becomes part of my being ... otherwise it is otherness.  Perhaps people will tell me grand stories about what is otherness to me.  There is nothing that i can see that is gained by me conceptualizing the World into spirit and material. 

Now you may suppose that this is what you would relegate to the "old materialist" point of view ... but it is not,  for whatever I experience in what you call "the spiritual world" is quite on equal footing within this view as that which i experience in the mundane world ... no ontological difference whatsoever.  That only difference is just a story that has been made up and propagated down the ages.
That's what a self would say.  Everything is a story.  No need to pursue truth. Can't find it anyway. Can't be wrong that way - always right cuz you can make up your own story. Anyway, try pursuing the edge of a rainbow or the colors within the next "real rainbow" you see & I'll get back to you when I get .....


Seth says
source: Mark
Chips appear on all kinds of shoulders these days.  I was not mocking you except in your listening.  This was an interesting picture of the Tao symbol whose edge is more interesting than the white-black one you may be used to.  The edge is difficult to define & the pattern is the thing not the edge if you could identify one.
IMHO, the point of view coming from you is tap-dancing around the old dualism problem about what is reality? that which is out of the spirit or that which is out of the material; both claiming supremacy . The church battles the physical-material world.  Along came the skeptics & invented Science as the great mediator. That  could also be looked at as the mood of empiricism (see RS & the zodiac of philosophical outlooks).
PR in BofNK 25:9 ssq disposed of that trichotomy & went on to ontology & zen & direct experience & consciousness. Whatever is coming from seth seems mostly reinvention or resurrecting of the old arguments.


Well what i am dealing with here, should actually be  quite new, even to you ... i have never actually heard others say it ... and is not accurately characterized as "the old dualism problem".  You see i think the whole "spirit or material duality"  is nothing but a story.  There is no edge there that i can experience.  It is just something that people talk about conceptually.  To me the edge is where one experiences something or not ... and whether that experience can be shared or not.  if I experienced it, then it becomes part of my being ... otherwise it is otherness.  Perhaps people will tell me grand stories about what is otherness to me.  There is nothing that i can see that is gained by me conceptualizing the World into spirit and material. 

Now you may suppose that this is what you would relegate to the "old materialist" point of view ... but it is not,  for whatever I experience in what you call "the spiritual world" is quite on equal footing within this view as that which i experience in the mundane world ... no ontological difference whatsoever.  That only difference is just a story that has been made up and propagated down the ages.

Seth says
source: Mark
Chips appear on all kinds of shoulders these days.  I was not mocking you except in your listening.  This was an interesting picture of the Tao symbol whose edge is more interesting than the white-black one you may be used to.  The edge is difficult to define & the pattern is the thing not the edge if you could identify one.
IMHO, the point of view coming from you is tap-dancing around the old dualism problem about what is reality? that which is out of the spirit or that which is out of the material; both claiming supremacy . The church battles the physical-material world.  Along came the skeptics & invented Science as the great mediator. That  could also be looked at as the mood of empiricism (see RS & the zodiac of philosophical outlooks).
PR in BofNK 25:9 ssq disposed of that trichotomy & went on to ontology & zen & direct experience & consciousness. Whatever is coming from seth seems mostly reinvention or resurrecting of the old arguments.


Well what i am dealing with here, should actually be  quite new, even to you ... i have never actually heard others say it ... and is not accurately characterized as "the old dualism problem".  You see i think the whole "spirit or material duality"  is nothing but a story.  There is no edge there that i can experience.  It is just something that people talk about conceptually.  To me the edge is where one experiences something or not ... and whether that experience can be shared or not.  if I experienced it, then it becomes part of my being ... otherwise it is otherness.  Perhaps people will tell me grand stories about what is otherness to me ... some of those things they can share with me ... others they just cannot.  Thatis the edge that i actually experience.  But there is nothing that i can see that is gained by me conceptualizing the World into spirit and material. 

Now you may suppose that this is what you would relegate to the "old materialist" point of view ... but it is not,  for whatever I experience in what you call "the spiritual world" is quite on equal footing within this view as that which i experience in the mundane world ... no ontological difference whatsoever.  That only difference is just a story that has been made up and propagated down the ages.

Seth says
M 2014-07-29 21:55:28 17564
Too many levels of words between you & what you say & what I find in my experience.  Lets leave at that .


Well that is what honest communication is for.  Those levels can be transcended.  It does take effort and focus.  But without that honest communication what actually are we, Mr Island?

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-07-30 04:50:38 17564
M 2014-07-29 21:55:28 17564
Too many levels of words between you & what you say & what I find in my experience.  Lets leave at that .


Well that is what honest communication is for.  Those levels can be transcended.  It does take effort and focus.  But without that honest communication what actually are we, Mr Island?
Well maybe you are still missing the point. From my perspective you words are many, many levels separate from anything I can call reality. While I feel & get closer to reality following an ontological train of persut all I get from you seems to be just a fuzzy intellectualism.  Have you gotten any feedback from other friends from words you have expressed here?  I for one would like you to digest in a paragraph what you are talking about & post it to Facebook & see what kind of feedback you get.  I will refrain from posting to it there as & until you get a decent amount of feedback.

My second question is how does any of it help you live your life any better & how?



Seth says
M 2014-07-29 15:50:45 17564
P.S. I haven't a clue as to what you are saying nor what it implies then. It is mungy & murky & means very little as far as my own world outlook. But hey ... enjoy the taste.
I will shorten my comments on this item to WTF with it's usual meaning & save us both time.


yep a simple, "i don't know what you mean", is more honest to say when that is the case.  Strangely enough after going back and rereading i don't understand why you don't know ... even with assuming that you look at it quite differently.  Of course you could always ask questions, however, if you are just not interested that is completely fine with me. 

Seth says
M 2014-07-29 13:57:02 17564
seth 2014-07-29 13:51:18 17564
source: Mark
Chips appear on all kinds of shoulders these days.  I was not mocking you except in your listening.  This was an interesting picture of the Tao symbol whose edge is more interesting than the white-black one you may be used to.  The edge is difficult to define & the pattern is the thing not the edge if you could identify one.
IMHO, the point of view coming from you is tap-dancing around the old dualism problem about what is reality? that which is out of the spirit or that which is out of the material; both claiming supremacy . The church battles the physical-material world.  Along came the skeptics & invented Science as the great mediator. That  could also be looked at as the mood of empiricism (see RS & the zodiac of philosophical outlooks).
PR in BofNK 25:9 ssq disposed of that trichotomy & went on to ontology & zen & direct experience & consciousness. Whatever is coming from seth seems mostly reinvention or resurrecting of the old arguments.


Well what i am dealing with here, should actually be  quite new, even to you ... i have never actually heard others say it ... and is not accurately characterized as "the old dualism problem".  You see i think the whole "spirit or material duality"  is nothing but a story.  There is no edge there that i can experience.  It is just something that people talk about conceptually.  To me the edge is where one experiences something or not ... and whether that experience can be shared or not.  if I experienced it, then it becomes part of my being ... otherwise it is otherness.  Perhaps people will tell me grand stories about what is otherness to me.  There is nothing that i can see that is gained by me conceptualizing the World into spirit and material. 

Now you may suppose that this is what you would relegate to the "old materialist" point of view ... but it is not,  for whatever I experience in what you call "the spiritual world" is quite on equal footing within this view as that which i experience in the mundane world ... no ontological difference whatsoever.  That only difference is just a story that has been made up and propagated down the ages.
That's what a self would say.  Everything is a story.  No need to pursue truth. Can't find it anyway. Can't be wrong that way - always right cuz you can make up your own story. Anyway, try pursuing the edge of a rainbow or the colors within the next "real rainbow" you see & I'll get back to you when I get .....


But, mark, mark, that does not say that "everything is a story".   Please parse it again and don't erroneously think that it does.   It does say there are stories and there is experience and it breaks down experience to different predicaments. 

... and then you go, "no need to pursue truth" ... mark you are just shitting in my mouth.  Truth and honesty are actually required to take such a view as this. 

May i suggest that you silence the monsters in yourself that are screaming so loudly that you cannot begin to hear what i am actually saying.

Seth says
M 2014-07-29 16:40:15 17564
seth 2014-07-29 15:58:33 17564
M 2014-07-29 15:50:45 17564
P.S. I haven't a clue as to what you are saying nor what it implies then. It is mungy & murky & means very little as far as my own world outlook. But hey ... enjoy the taste.
I will shorten my comments on this item to WTF with it's usual meaning & save us both time.


yep a simple, "i don't know what you mean", is more honest to say when that is the case.  Strangely enough after going back and rereading i don't understand why you don't know ... even with assuming that you look at it quite differently.  Of course you could always ask questions, however, if you are just not interested that is completely fine with me. 
Asserting the same stuff over & over again does not make it any clearer.  When I "shit in your mouth" you mike change that reaction as I have asserted what something you have said means to me. Anyway this is all abstract stuff so your visual metaphors  may be appropriate to make it real.


Well fact is i have varied my responses to you all the time.  But in this last case it was so stark and stunning that it was hard to interpert as anything but that you are changing what my words mean to something else in your mind, apparently so that you can insult me with them.    How can you possibly interpret "a description of different kinds of experience" as meaning that "everything is a story ... no need to pursue truth".   Mark, that does not compute.  That extra stuff is coming from your mind, it is not in the things i have said or even reasonably implied. 

And incidentally this is not abstract ... stories can be abstract ... but i am talking about experience and awareness of same.  This experience can be just as direct  as a Zen meditation yields ... notwithstanding of course that to share it I must use language to merely talk around it.  I can change my qualia of awareness by focusing differently on the communication between me and others ... there is nothing abstract about that qualia ... the only abstraction is perhaps  in the story of it that you are reading.

Seth says
source: mark
Have you gotten any feedback from other friends from words you have expressed here?  I for one would like you to digest in a paragraph what you are talking about & post it to Facebook & see what kind of feedback you get.
Well this morning i saw a meme float by which slightly expressed some of the world outlook that i talked about above.  I think i got enough feedback to say that at least d'A and Katya, and strangely enough even you with your excellent Zen link, found my words understandable and somewhat agreeable. 

Look cutting loose the spiritual/material dichotomy "story" is a hard one ... and deep ... very deep ... er, at least me thinks it is.  More so since it seems to fly in the face of much of RS's teachings.  Then too it can sound like just capitulating everything to a materialistic world view.  But i claim it is not such a capitalization.  It only seem so because then we can no longer talk about what could be called "the purely physical" with sneer and distaste in our voice  , and then turn around and talk of the spiritual with extreme reverence and faith.   outside of that, nothing basically is changed from RS's spirituality ... er, except perhaps some of the more fantastical sounding sagas that require his clairvoyance to experience.  All this "new" weltanschauung does, is to say that "it is all spirit" ... or perhaps, "it is all physical" ... same thing ... just a different experiential focus.

See Also

  1. Thought Moving from 2 to 3 dimensions with 555 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  2. Thought The psychology of Inside Outside Story with 413 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  3. Thought New TetModel of Psychology with 246 viewings related by tag "world".
  4. Thought Outside/Inside VS Belief/Facts with 222 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  5. Thought About Seth with 205 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  6. Thought Sensing ... with 169 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  7. Thought Triangulating ... with 154 viewings related by tag "world".
  8. Thought TetModel of Feedback with 139 viewings related by tag "world".
  9. Thought about: Unhacking Wars with 90 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  10. Thought Socratese Cafe Wednesday at Luther's Table with 88 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  11. Thought Socrates Cafe with 35 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  12. Thought #LoaSwim with 32 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  13. Thought Up Your Ass with Aphorisms with 31 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  14. Thought about: Representationalism with 22 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  15. Thought The World As Person with 15 viewings related by tag "item 17564".
  16. Thought The Fuck with 8 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  17. Thought about: My Inside, My Soul, My Spirit - comment 59016 with 8 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  18. Thought Differing ontology contexts with 7 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  19. Thought Truth with 7 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  20. Thought WE EACH OF US HAVE AN INSIDE AND AN OUTSIDE ... ACCEPT IT AND MOVE ON! with 4 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  21. Thought The wisdom of the natural seperating of being with 3 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  22. Thought about: logically speaking with 3 viewings related by tag "the world".
  23. Thought Being in the World with 3 viewings related by tag "world".
  24. Thought I go with what happens with 2 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  25. Thought Dualism with 2 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  26. Thought Actually there is a solution *** with 2 viewings related by tag "world".
  27. Thought fastblogit trains of thought with 2 viewings related by tag "the world".
  28. Thought Thoughts about ego: The view from inside versus, the view from outside with 2 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  29. Thought Cooperate vs Fight (and/or) Love vs Death with 2 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  30. Thought Fractals with 2 viewings related by tag "mother nature".
  31. Thought [title (17491)] with 1 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  32. Thought Gaia Breathing with 1 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  33. Thought My Inside, My Soul, My Spirit with 1 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  34. Thought Meyers-Briggs Personality Types with 1 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  35. Thought What is ego? with 1 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  36. Thought about: the greening of the self: the most important development of modern times with 1 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  37. Thought An Awful Trick with 1 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  38. Thought about: Alister Crowley speaking in The Equinox with 1 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  39. Thought Recognizing events outside of a sonorous path with 0 viewings related by tag "outsides".
  40. Thought Silent Thought with 0 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  41. Thought mind versus machine discussion with 0 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  42. Thought Logic is great, Survival is better! with 0 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  43. Thought about: the evolution of everything: how new ideas emerge with 0 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  44. Thought The Volcano Effect with 0 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  45. Thought about: How Quantum Mechanics is Compatible with Free Will with 0 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  46. Thought Free Will with 0 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  47. Thought Why some philosophers say we can?t with 0 viewings related by tag "philosophy".
  48. Thought spiritualism vs materialism with 0 viewings related by tag "spiritual vs material".
  49. Thought about: Change Comes From the Margins with 0 viewings related by tag "the world".
  50. Thought A Blog for Seth with 0 viewings related by tag "philosophy".