Being in the World

About: being in the world - instant streaming | mangu.tv: watch learn give

Might be nice to watch. It should be up Bozo's alley, but maybe not. Found at FB & it explains a bit about Werner Erhards meaning of "in the world" versus being in one's head.
One of the trailer pics below:

Comments

Eiamme says

seth 2014-10-23 10:25:36 17892

Eiamme 2014-10-23 10:04:22 17892

BTW, How would you describe our polaric differences?

I choose to ground my life in consequences that can be shared by others, see 17803, you seem to ground your life in a (the) spiritual world which cannot be shared.

There were two characters in Herman Hesse's Magister Ludi which i keep flashing upon as quite descriptive of our disparate directions in life. Strange how these stories reflect on our lives.

The whole world of Art is participation in the spiritual world which is sharing.

Eiamme says

seth 2014-10-23 10:05:50 17892

Eiamme 2014-10-23 09:52:32 17892

seth 2014-10-23 09:48:01 17892

Incidentally i have been "into" the kind of being in the world described in this item for quite some time. I can even remember the time i switched. I was standing on the corner of Gary and Leavenworth ... stuck there ... not being able to move ... no relational to think my way ahead ... then i just walked up Gary. That of course is just a memory i am using here symbolically. But it might serve to give you an idea of my commitment to the practice.

Some call that just cosmatosis.

Well i was not "comatose" as i was quite conscious ... almost hyper self aware. Look for a word for an inability to act. Thought, you see, is not a direct motivator ... at least for me. I think i move best where i do not try to find a reason to move. I move best when i overcome my inhibitions to just move.

i certainly describe you in any way suggesting comatose. Cosmatosis (maybe spelled cosmotosis) was a word to describe when the Cosmos offers all options for action to be the same or absent entirely. For example two people approaching on the sidewalk get close enough that they each try first passing on the right & then on the left ad infinitum. Another way to think of it is neutral motivation to any action including no-action & yet the butterfly effect is absent on all domains of action.

I think there is some youtubes on a band of that name.

Eiamme says

seth 2014-10-23 10:54:57 17892

source: mark

occult (GW rational head shit) versus being way out in the open dissolving into the internet & the world (maybe a bit of mismatching to find a self with out there) - your me,I mismatching is kinda a sign that the

is indeed still guarding !

...

lots there to chew upon ... the references being not just a little bit ambiguous.

"occult (GW rational head shit)" ... hmmm .. maybe i better leave that one alone

.

Now the "being way out in the open dissolving into the world" ... yes, certainly that is my intention. Thing is there is always this fear of loosing myself ... of loosing my innermost essence that is just for me. Strangely enough i have not found that happening ... maybe just because of the nature of my perculiar essence that i was trying to get at in 17866.

I have no idea why you associate the linguistic string "me,I" which I use to mismatching ... especially because i specifically told you exactly why i use it ... and i suspect that has nothing to do with what you consider my(?) mismatching. Maybe your associations there have something to do with your famous RWG ... i don't know ... but in any case, me thinks, that is more something deep inside you having almost nothing to do with me. ... so maybe it's your angel that is guarding something there, not mine, eh?

YEP! or maybe your guardian is guarding nicely so that you don't have to look at it.

Eiamme says

Eiamme 2014-10-22 09:46:53 17892

Eiamme 2014-10-22 09:44:41 17892

Eiamme 2014-10-22 09:35:26 17892

See the clip that ends with "a little cup of Gumbo"

Their website link.

See more on Lea Chase here.

See her youtube nexus here.

Eiamme says

seth 2014-10-23 07:40:51 17892

choy 2014-10-22 20:46:53 17892

seth 2014-10-22 13:24:32 17892

yes definitely that is being in the world

. i find that when i "just do it", that is what i get.

thinking about the world is quite different ... other "muscles" are flexed, as it were ... other kinds of rules and methods can be applied ... or not ... maybe just think whatever.

About isn't IT - is more like licking around the outside instead of going inside.

hmmm ... so are you saying that THINKING is of no use to us?

I guess you know that ALL thinking is about the world, rather than being in the world.

So, hopefully that is not your conclusion. There is practical thinking and then there is licking around ... we need more of the former and less of the latter. And one way to get more practical thinking is not to let our thinking get too far ahead of what we are doing with our hands ... and part of that is finding tangible examples of what we are thinking about.

Well, at one time along this journey we switched sides apparently (maybe not). It seems to me that your primary objection to the occult & GW was it was not out in the World. Then you began your meta-meta etc. stuff - very abstract as a temporary residence (I hope) - thinking maybe but clothing it with your own definitions & now you are returning to what? All domains of thinking, feeling & will & consciousness are valid swimming pools for me. At one time GW said that the task of this part of human evolution is to separate the thinking, feeling & will so they can operate separately or independent & then recombine as we choose in freedom. We must be able to choose a thought & freely act upon it without feeling opposing action or being able to choose feelings which support it etc. All other combinatorics may be explored at leisure. Such should also be explored for threefoldness as we expand outward.

Seth says

Eiamme 2014-10-23 11:14:20 17892

seth 2014-10-23 10:25:36 17892

Eiamme 2014-10-23 10:04:22 17892

BTW, How would you describe our polaric differences?

The whole world of Art is participation in the spiritual world which is sharing.

well that which can be shared, art included, is just quite in the world of consequences

as far as i am concerned.

But that which cannot be shared but is exclusively in that world referred to as "the spriitual world" is specifically that in which i can not ground my life. there is no bug here.

RS himself talked about this grounding impossibility saying things about the spiritual world that to me spoke loud and clear about its nature. Maybe you remember the book. I think he was talking of the Rosecrutians and why they were not capable of describing the experiences they had in the depths of the spiritual world. But I am sure he described that in other places too. There are also certain Occult practices and almost unspoken rules about NOT sharing experiences from the spiritual world. For example, did you ever know GW to profess he was an Initiate? Would you yourself say so? I suspect not, you would follow the Occult practice in that regard of being opaque.

Eiamme says

seth 2014-10-23 09:48:01 17892

Some call that just cosmatosis.

Eiamme says

seth 2014-10-23 09:30:18 17892

Eiamme 2014-10-23 08:01:20 17892

seth 2014-10-23 07:40:51 17892

choy 2014-10-22 20:46:53 17892

seth 2014-10-22 13:24:32 17892

yes definitely that is being in the world

About isn't IT - is more like licking around the outside instead of going inside.

hmmm ... so are you saying that THINKING is of no use to us?

All domains of thinking, feeling & will & consciousness are valid swimming pools for me. At one time GW said that the task of this part of human evolution is to separate the thinking, feeling & will so they can operate separately or independent & then recombine as we choose in freedom. We must be able to choose a thought & freely act upon it without feeling opposing action or being able to choose feelings which support it etc. All other combinatorics may be explored at leisure. Such should also be explored for threefoldness as we expand outward.

Well i am certainly with you on that

. All domains are swimming pools for me too ... see 17301

. I even like GW's thought that we should learn to do each separately then recombine as we choose ... i did not know he said that.

source: mark's introductory remarks

Well, at one time along this journey we switched sides apparently (maybe not). It seems to me that your primary objection to the occult & GW was it was not out in the World. Then you began your meta-meta etc. stuff - very abstract as a temporary residence (I hope) - thinking maybe but clothing it with your own definitions & now you are returning to what?

... i almost wish you had not said all of that, because to me, it just expresses *your* confusion about what i am doing. It is your thoughts about my thoughts and strangely enough all of your thoughts about what i am doing over here do not match up with my experience of same.

But that said, sure i have evolved in my thinking and inner life. Balanceing my inner private living with consequences in the world and my family and community within those three domains has become a full time job for me and is continually in a state of flux. I am not surprised that what i can say of my peculiar solutions will seem strange to you. But, Mark, they are just for me ... maybe you are able to appreciate that.

But i am still curious, what were the sides that were switched specifically? Maybe give an example.

occult (GW rational head shit) versus being way out in the open dissolving into the internet & the world (maybe a bit of mismatching to find a self with out there) - your me,I mismatching is kinda a sign that the

is indeed still guarding !

Eiamme says

seth 2014-10-23 11:42:53 17892

Eiamme 2014-10-23 11:14:20 17892

seth 2014-10-23 10:25:36 17892

Eiamme 2014-10-23 10:04:22 17892

BTW, How would you describe our polaric differences?

The whole world of Art is participation in the spiritual world which is sharing.

well that which can be shared, art included, is just quite in the world of consequences

RS also was the source of my statement about Art being participation in the Spiritual World. There are levels of consciousness states like Satori which can't be clothed in words. The opaqueness is in your own mind. Some societies like those of 'crats in the White House regard secrecy as protection of their society & methods. Obviously there is nothing in GW's work which is secret much any longer except doing the work to unconceal it or communication beyond the cremation step.

Eiamme says

I seem to have a unique definition of the word which is variously spelled
cosmatosis, cosmotosis or maybe cosmosis which latter word is in the urban dictionary
~
~
~

cosmosis

To become one with the universe, by just being.

"Dude, you seem so enlightened. Have you studied philosophy or meditation?."

"No, I have become one with the universe simply through cosmosis."

Seth says

Eiamme 2014-10-23 11:09:59 17892

seth 2014-10-23 10:05:50 17892

Eiamme 2014-10-23 09:52:32 17892

seth 2014-10-23 09:48:01 17892

Some call that just cosmatosis.

I think there is some youtubes on a band of that name.

Interesting ... ok, yes i totally got the wrong word ... and still can't google it ... so your coin i am presuming

. Good i like it.

The experience at Gary and Leavenworth, however, was not one of equanimity. It was rather fraught with an extreme lack of will to move ... not a good qualia at all. I don't get that anymore ... now it seem to be more just a matter of timing.

Seth says

Eiamme 2014-10-23 11:57:37 17892

seth 2014-10-23 11:42:53 17892

Eiamme 2014-10-23 11:14:20 17892

seth 2014-10-23 10:25:36 17892

Eiamme 2014-10-23 10:04:22 17892

BTW, How would you describe our polaric differences?

The whole world of Art is participation in the spiritual world which is sharing.

well that which can be shared, art included, is just quite in the world of consequences

Well i did not imagine the unwritten rules about not talking tangeably about spiritual experience. It is even written about by AC, GW, and RS ... though of course not with my peculiar angle. Apparently your intention is to write it off as just my confusion ... well yes, i am sure that case can be made. But for me, the effect, intended or not, of holding experiences as sacrosanct yet not expressible so dominates matters of the spiritual world that i fear i cannot trust the meta information that is being said about it. Obviously I would think differently were that i had been able to follow the exercises and get a direct experience of that world myself. But that i could not, is not necessarily explained by the existence of an objective spiritual world ... but is much more likely to be explained by a spiritual world that is, of its nature, subjective.

source: Bijan Kafi
Steiner’s philosophy fused individual transformation with the need for new institutions built on shared experience of the social world. Inspired by Theosophy and the founder of its offshoot Anthroposophy, Steiner believed in the existence of an “objective, intellectually-comprehensible spiritual world that is accessible to direct experience through a person’s inner development.”

...

Eiamme says

seth 2014-10-23 12:44:41 17892

Eiamme 2014-10-23 11:57:37 17892

seth 2014-10-23 11:42:53 17892

Eiamme 2014-10-23 11:14:20 17892

seth 2014-10-23 10:25:36 17892

Eiamme 2014-10-23 10:04:22 17892

BTW, How would you describe our polaric differences?

The whole world of Art is participation in the spiritual world which is sharing.

well that which can be shared, art included, is just quite in the world of consequences

Well i did not imagine the unwritten rules about not talking tangeably about spiritual experience. It is even written about by AC, GW, and RS ... though of course not with my peculiar angle. Apparently your intention is to write it off as just my confusion ... well yes, i am sure that case can be made. But for me, the effect, intended or not, of holding experiences as sacrosanct yet not expressible so dominates matters of the spiritual world that i fear i cannot trust the meta information that is being said about them. Obviously I would think differently were that i had been able to follow the exercises and get a direct experience of that world. But that i could not, is not necessarily explained by the existence of an objective spiritual world ... but is much more likely to be explained by a spiritual world that is, of its nature, subjective.

...

Yeah .... direct experience (notion shared by PR as well) - may not necessarily be communicated to another, but nothing says it can't be shared by more than one person.

... "of its nature, subjective " .... nah!

Eiamme says

seth 2014-10-23 14:10:40 17892

source: mark

Yeah .... direct experience (notion shared by PR as well) - may not necessarily be communicated to another, but nothing says it can't be shared by more than one person.

... "of its nature, subjective " .... nah!

Well a single example of different people having the exact same experience with the exact same qualia of it, and knowing that they did, would serve to justify your opinion. Everybody's Nirvana is not the same place ... each experience, me thinks, is peculiar to the context of the experiencer. Or, in other words, Nirvana is subjective. Your actual experience with this will, of course vary, but then there is no way you will tell me about it ... i mean, after all, it is Occult.

You are the one making it occult & putting limits on what can happen for, with & by you. I make no such barriers. The other day while G - grand niece - was in the car & I had to bend over from the outside I found myself locked in a gaze in her eyes for a few minutes - she nor I diverted for even a second. It was wonderful. There was no need for words. There was no separation. Finally I said "You have pretty eyes" (she's ~ 5yrs old I was there on her birthday) .. Her mother was in the car as was my brother-in-law.
Now you can argue all you want, but you will just be pissing in the wind.
Here is a very emotional, one of my favorite pieces of music which always makes me shed a tear depending upon whom & how I project the words & my Ego.

Eiamme says

seth 2014-10-23 14:18:14 17892

Incidentally, i am in no way degrading subjective experience .... after all that is what's in it for me. I just like to be clear about it being mine and mine alone ... peculiar to me. I don't like to presume that you can, (or should), be able to do it too.

In the famous zen story about the 5 blind men & the elephant - each with one leg & one with the trunk, as a metaphor for direct experience, I would say that I would be talking about the elephant as the direct experience & you probably would claim the trunk as yours!

Eiamme says

seth 2014-10-23 15:33:51 17892

Eiamme 2014-10-23 14:42:24 17892

seth 2014-10-23 14:10:40 17892

source: mark

Yeah .... direct experience (notion shared by PR as well) - may not necessarily be communicated to another, but nothing says it can't be shared by more than one person.

... "of its nature, subjective " .... nah!

well nobody is doubting the beauty (or substitute your favorite superlative) of subjective experience!

All i am claiming is that it is, in fact, subjective ... er, for your eyes only. And, yes, that is a limitation that i accept for all experience that I cannot share with others. For example, you had a beautiful experience looking at G's eyes ... and she had a corresponding experience as well. But there is no evidence that your two experiences were even remotely similar or even about the same thing.

... & there is no evidence that they were different!

Eiamme says

seth 2014-10-24 08:00:04 17892

Eiamme 2014-10-23 15:52:43 17892

Consciousness is not necessarily limited to your physical body or any body at all.

i tend to agree. What's telling for me is how we determine, from outside, how a person is conscious ...er, we interact with them. So i theorize that: consciousness is the subjective qualia of human interaction. Human interaction is not something that you will find limited to one body.

So to study consciousness, we could perhaps study the subjective qualia of it within one person ... or we could study the human interaction from which, i theorize, it springs.

So quit theorizing & have some instead.

Eiamme says

... & yet your response seems to have an edge on it . Maybe more study needed here at YouTube on Alan Watts prickly goo.

This item is getting a bit long & deeply nested.

Seth says

Eiamme 2014-10-24 08:09:02 17892

I like this post shared by Tina on Facebook here as describing our interaction in a humorous way.

yeah too fucking true

Seth says

Eiamme 2014-10-24 08:37:44 17892

... & yet your response seems to have an edge on it . Maybe more study needed here at YouTube on Alan Watts prickly goo.

This item is getting a bit long & deeply nested.

huh? well of course i expressed the edge that i felt on it. more study will not remove the edge. the edge, it is not, me thinks, a thing to be gestalted away. thought does need an audience.

strange thing started happening from my reference to the extensional stance, i started communicating with Longley again. now i'm getting it from both directions

OMG.

Being in the World

About: being in the world - instant streaming | mangu.tv: watch learn give

Tags

Comments

See Also