Shared Consequences



work in progress ...

see shared consequences

consider top down/bottom up re GW's document.

in particular GW's attitude twards what is usually called "physical"



Incidentally i am using the term "shared consequences" just because it minimizes the baggage,  and assumptions, and attitudes that people associate with other terms that are used to refer to this important aspect of our existence.

One thing that i feel is true about shared consequences:  they are specific. 

Tags

  1. shared consequences
  2. specificity
  3. generalizations
  4. item 18335
  5. malkuth
  6. item 18332

Comments


Seth says
Eiam 2015-05-16 08:03:00 18333
seth 2015-05-15 17:13:05 18333
"specificity" is another topic, not directly related here ... no?
You recently repeated a respect for it. I was wondering where was it going to show up in your comments. As a topic it has only a general nature.


yes, this is more on topic here ... also in this G+ train. ... and of course there is specificity.

this is actually a long standing realization with me.  it really is quite revolutionary in relationship with GW's and RS spiritualism.  it is not a perspective  that i expect you will be able to appreciate.  it looks in the opposite direction from what you guys call "spirit" and finds there what you might call "God".

Seth says
Eiam 2015-05-15 15:37:59 18335
Eiam 2015-05-15 15:22:42 18335
seth 2015-05-15 15:08:39 18335
Eiam 2015-05-15 13:54:41 18335
obscure tag is something you want to argue about?

Mark please believe me when i tell you that i never want to argue about anything. 

The context defined by shared consequences, which now linked just two items, is a point of view that i do want to express ... and yes i do want others to hear that view and interact with it. 

many people, as in the example text here from GW, have an attitude towards what they sometimes call "the material world" and other times "the physical world".  i have coined a different phrase, "shared consequences", to refer to that same world ... but from a different perspective ... a perspective that does not automatically carry a negative connotation into one's consciousness.
Perhaps I should use the word debate instead of argue, but argue is not necessarily negative.
The material/physical world is not negative in my mind - Earth & human evolution require it.

Shared consequences is not just a physical world phenomena. See the rs lrcture of 18333 for more.

well "debate" still implies a adversarial process ... i am more into a meeting of minds.  My intention is for cooperative understanding.

I think that which is called "physical" is part of the consequences that we share.  So yes it is true, "shared consequences is not just a physical world phenomena".   Perhaps one reason I think they are worth listening to.

Seth says
Eiam 2015-05-16 10:03:36 18335
seth 2015-05-16 09:59:26 18335
contemplate this: { "that which is because it is shared"  is the opposite of  "that which is not because it cannot be shared". }  Now do you remember what cannot be shared?
jibberish?


nope, honest communication. 

what is between {} is a triple.  it could be mentographed.  and actual binary logic could be applied to it. 

The question is for you to answer ... the answer yielding the meaning of "that which is not because it cannot be shared".

Mabe tease out all the assumptions bundeled in my statement ... and grock why yours are different.

Seth says
source: mark
This is probably a good place to point out that adversarial processes disappear when you agree with ME!

...

there being several ways it can happen, me with you, you with me, you improving mine, or me improving yours.  i actually like the 3rd one the best.   disagreement is never a real problem where deep honesty is present on both sides, because it hints at where minds can be improved.  i think communication is amazing, the deeper the more amazing.

Seth says
i can be even clearer.  You said it yourself, your direct experience cannot be shared.  But here  is where our contrary assumptions will trip up your understanding of what i am proposing and make you think they are gibberish.  You assume that because your direct experiences are so very true in you, that they must be experienced the same in me ... and were i to claim they do not, then that would be just my error ... which, of course, could be corrected by my doing the appropriate exercises.  I, on the other hand, must go with my own experience ... i can not go with yours ... impossible.  So the fact is that your direct experiences cannot be shared.  That itself is a consequence which we do share.  Only those experiences which can be shared exist in our brotherhood, which must be our reality. 

With a lot of work i could probably say that even more honestly and directly ... but for the moment it should serve to communicate to you the drift of my thinking.  But the rwg in relationship to this is not the message at all ... might be better to go back to the original triple and work out the logic objectively now that you know the meaning of the words.

Seth says
Eiam 2015-05-16 09:20:40 18335
seth 2015-05-16 08:59:14 18335
Eiam 2015-05-16 08:03:00 18333
seth 2015-05-15 17:13:05 18333
"specificity" is another topic, not directly related here ... no?
You recently repeated a respect for it. I was wondering where was it going to show up in your comments. As a topic it has only a general nature.


yes, this is more on topic here ... also in this G+ train. ... and of course there is specificity.

this is actually a long standing realization with me.  it really is quite revolutionary in relationship with GW's and RS spiritualism.  it is not a perspective  that i expect you will be able to appreciate.  it looks in the opposite direction from what you guys call "spirit" and finds there what you might call "God".
A good Anthroposophist expressed to me once , after I invited him to one of Michael Hadley's (TR coo at the time) open events that what Michael (& PR) call being is what Anthroposophists call spirit. At the human level such works for me. Once you talk about God it is anyone's guess what you are really talking about; mostly stuff in your mind.  GW did a fine piece of work with Liber M with the etymology of the word God & the rest of the God Mythos. Overview in ZZv3 p.343.
Consequences are just things that come with sequence. Sequence may be in the eye of the beholder or not.  Time sequence is a hard thingy to remove from NOW - see Eckhart Tolle . Math has other kinds of sequences.  Enjoy!


hmmm ... lots there in that paragraph ...the topics explode.  

I agree and have always thought that PR's being was the same as Steiner's spirit.

I used the word "God" begrudgenly more to point a direction than to point to anything particular.  And i lied ... i should have said, "it looks in the opposite direction from what you guys call "spirit" and [expects] there what you might call "God".  So i assure you that i have not found it.   And note that i hedged the bets by saying what you might "call" God. 

Thanks for the reference to ZZv3 p343 ... sounds like well worth a read in this context.

In my usage of "consequences" in the phrase "shared consequences" the sequence is not the most important implication.   Think instead "shared happenings" ... that which is because it is shared ... then think "do what thou wilt is the only law" ... sorry reaching here to bump you off of what it is not er, "math and other kinds of sequences".

Seth says
contemplate this: { "that which is because it is shared"  is the opposite of  "that which is not because it cannot be shared". }  Now do you remember what cannot be shared?

Seth says
seth 2015-05-18 07:13:02 18336
source: Steiner

every thought and every feeling is a reality

... certainly not in the same way as a shared consequence.  I can think whatever thought, and if it has no consequences outside of my private mind, it would be a lie for me to think that  it counts as reality. 

Of course, my thoughts have consequences on my behavior and those affect the consequences which i share with others.  An amazingly deep feedback spiral happens, most of which i know nothing, but there is a final edge where consequenes bite ... me i don't look away from that edge to a reality of which i know nothing.  Sorry, just not what i i have decided to do in my life.

this is on topic here.

Seth says
source: mark

Read the Book:
(***) -OR- watch the current sleeve job here.

... well i have read enough of that book to suspect that it does not bite here. 

... and since your roots in PR's thoughts are not real enough to connect his context to mine here in your own words, i do not trust your recommendation. 

Seth says
seth 2015-05-16 11:35:43 18335
[...] You assume that because your direct experiences are so very true in you, that they must be experienced the same in me ... and were i to claim they do not, then that would be just my error ... which, of course, could be corrected by my doing the appropriate exercises.  I, on the other hand, must go with my own experience ... i can not go with yours ... impossible.  [...]

Eiam 2015-05-16 12:08:37 18335
[...] Where you claim impossible, I claim maybe, maybe not - it's the Not Knowing Thingy.   [...]

Each specific person will feel according to the specific situation and history of their beings.  But sure, your right, to the degree that persons have similar histories and beings they will feel similar ... hence the need of the exercises to obtain similarities and synchronizations.

That which is in you of which i know not, certainly contributes to how you feel and think differently.  Outside of that what do you mean by "it's the not knowing thingey" ?

Seth says
source: TW, this introductory page to book G-W has nothing to do with shared consequences. But it is your poo & you can label it anything you want - including chocolate icecream.
... well do we not share the consequences of what GW calls "the material world, or Malkuth ... material foundation ... earthly material, equipment, tools, & methods ... the bottom up" ?

Seth says
No need to mince words.  I think spiritualism has a distinct negative attitude towards shared consequences.  I do not share that attitude.  I started this item with GW's words expressing that negative attitude.  In the train with Nathan that same negative attitude comes out as statements like "physical reality is an illusion".  But me i look in the opposite direction and that is why i love specificity

Seth says
Eiam 2015-05-18 15:17:41 18335
seth 2015-05-18 08:49:57 18335
No need to mince words.  I think spiritualism has a distinct negative attitude towards shared consequences.  I do not share that attitude.  I started this item with GW's words expressing that negative attitude.  In the train with Nathan that same negative attitude comes out as statements like "physical reality is an illusion".  But me i look in the opposite direction and that is why i love specificity
None of this is true so am ceasing interest in this poop.


Well perhaps you didn't notice that those sentences were spoken honestly by me in the first person.  That is the only kind of truth that such a paragraph could ever possibly have.   Imho, I think  your interest and judgement about them should remain your private affair unless your are telling me something informative in the context.  Unfortunately the only consequence your last words have here is to resonate your negative attitudes in my regard. Not anything that improves or informs my life or yours.   Usually i just delete those kind of farts from you, but in this case they can serve as a example of the use of shared consequences as opposed to waving at the "poop" in your own mind. 

Seth says
seth 2015-05-20 06:43:36 18339
seth 2015-05-19 11:58:48 18339
Eiam 2015-05-19 11:33:04 18339
seth 2015-05-19 11:14:10 18339
well of course, the point is that consequences *are* shared regardless of thoughts of "unified dialectical contradiction".  yet consequences are those things that cannot be denied except with willfull stubbornness.  a hard reality which needs of madness to ignore.

A consequence is a story you create in your mind that explains why something happens.  It may or not have any connection with what IS or what's so.  Not scientific method proof just because a consensus thinks it is. It is not even necessarily shared any more than any other story you make up in your mind as important to you & your selfie.


My use of the word "consequence" points to that which actually happens or causes something to happen.  it points to what IS in your sentence above.  It does not refer to a story in a mind or even a persons awareness of the consequence.  The word refers to the territory not the map in a mind.  For in this context is it the territrory that is shared ... not the map.  As far as i can tell it is the same in that regard as what you call your "direct experience" ... except that experience cannot be shared.

i really don't want to figure out what the rest of your paragraph means in this context ... for whatever it means to you it was apparently based upon a misunderstanding of where the head of an arrow was pointing.

i wonder what distracted you from this train of thought?  ... then later thinking that  'root in sequence was ignored'.

We may have a confusion going between us about what terms like "actually happens" mean.  

Let us say that A causes B ... always ... verifiable so ... then if we both can verify that sequence in what actually happens, i say we have here "a shared consequence".   Isn't that clear?


Seth says
Eiam 2015-05-20 07:32:09 18335
 
 your distaste for the occult.


yes, i am rebelling against the attitude expressed in GW's paragraph.  Notwithstanding his term, "material world", can also refer to various other social habits in which I also do not want to become "absorbed" (viz consumerism etc) .  Whereas it is the social habits which support brudershaft in which i do want to become absorbed.  It is against GW's suggestion of "attaining Heaven" that i rebel.  Rather i  want to focus on living within consequences that i can share with my fellow man.

Seth says
Regarding physical objects and consequences:

It is interesting to note that every physical object is subject to the consequences of gravity.  Yet if any object was totally and absolutely isolated from the rest of the universe, it could have no such consequences.

Seth says
Note that the term "shared consequences" does not depend on any assumptions or illusions of space, time, matter, spirit, or mind. 

... er, that is why i chose it

The only assumptions it is dependent on are those necessary to define "sharing" and those necessary to define "consequences".

Seth says
Eiamistic 2015-05-28 08:55:06 18335
Eiamistic 2015-05-28 08:37:08 18335
seth 2015-05-28 08:15:49 18335
Regarding physical objects and consequences:

It is interesting to note that every physical object is subject to the consequences of gravity.  Yet if any object was totally and absolutely isolated from the rest of the universe, it could have no such consequences.
You might have more fun with quantum entanglement which recently suggested that gravity & space are not the primary thingies but are the result of such.

The concept kinda fucks with NOW, space-time,  & gravity; it being noted that it is a concept.

well yes, i would be very interested in an article that makes the case that gravity and space are a result of quantum entanglement ... do you know where it is?

incidentally Eric does not believe in quantum entailment.  i was considering the possibility that i might go down to LA in August to watch his presentation.

See Also

  1. Thought Thoughts are singular and unique to the person thinking with 505 viewings related by tag "specificity".
  2. Thought Buddah Lied with 346 viewings related by tag "specificity".
  3. Thought How very unique we are ... with 240 viewings related by tag "specificity".
  4. Thought Tools in my peculair bag ... with 101 viewings related by tag "specificity".
  5. Thought A New Respect for The Specific with 17 viewings related by tag "specificity".
  6. Thought about: vitamin k: jamming the transmissions with 13 viewings related by tag "specificity".
  7. Thought TZU & the Law of Peacock with 11 viewings related by tag "generalizations".
  8. Thought about: what’s so scary about caitlyn jenner? with 4 viewings related by tag "specificity".
  9. Thought Moving Parts create Possibilities. with 2 viewings related by tag "specificity".
  10. Thought about: are space and time an illusion? | iflscience with 1 viewings related by tag "shared consequences".
  11. Thought What consequences ... with 1 viewings related by tag "specificity".
  12. Thought Autoinculcated Ignorance = Willful Stupidity = shared condsequences with 1 viewings related by tag "item 18332".
  13. Thought phrases are more specific than single words with 1 viewings related by tag "specificity".
  14. Thought Towards My Rational Morality with 0 viewings related by tag "specificity".
  15. Thought My Declaration of Soverign Individuality with 0 viewings related by tag "specificity".
  16. Thought I go with what happens - a qualia with 0 viewings related by tag "shared consequences".
  17. Thought aka ... foood with a soul with 0 viewings related by tag "specificity".
  18. Thought Political Correctness IS Cultural Consciousness with 0 viewings related by tag "shared consequences".
  19. Thought Provenance by C.F. Russell with 0 viewings related by tag "specificity".
  20. Thought R.S. on Lies, Thoughts & Feelings with 0 viewings related by tag "shared consequences".
  21. Thought consequences bozo shares with a TV comedy with 0 viewings related by tag "shared consequences".
  22. Thought LOA is not an excuse to blame the victim with 0 viewings related by tag "shared consequences".
  23. Thought about: quantum entanglement verified: why space is just the construct that gives the illusion of separate objects with 0 viewings related by tag "item 18335".
  24. Thought blogging is making an external mind with 0 viewings related by tag "specificity".
  25. Thought being as a sustaining process with 0 viewings related by tag "generalizations".