Representing something changes my awareness of it

Representing something changes our awareness of it.

if you represent it, it will intensify

if not, it will dissipate.

This amplification can be seen happening in the culture at large and not just within a person’s thoughts.

Bozo Faust

The new question today is whether representing something actually changes what happens to it . Notice the changes that happen because of the advent of the representation do not count, unless they can be shown to effect the thing that was represented. To be studied in relation to the double slit experiment and multiverses and perhaps even to LOA.

We have a good example of this with our new tag clouds, on top of the river and even on our front door. They are now represented there. And now notice how that will effect how people tag.

Comments

Seth says

if you don't like the word "representation", just use the word "expression" instead.

Notice something new and never ever express it, even to yourself, don't even think about it ... then notice something new and accurately express it ... see how it changes for you by being accurately expressed ... then express it publicly ... see how it changes. If it doesn't change at all for you, then this phenomena works differently over there.

That's all this item is saying.

Seth says

Iamnai 2015-10-24 16:08:31 18968

seth 2015-10-24 15:16:08 18968

incidentally, it is no coincidence that ISIS is destroying cultural representations.

Some liberals are trying to erase the memory of the Southern Heritage by erasing monuments & making the confederate flag illegal to display in certain places & a whole lot of political correctness prevails.

yep everybody plays this game of destrying the representations (expressions) of things that they do not like in the culture.

thanks for the example

Seth says

choy 2015-10-25 14:34:56 18968

seth 2015-10-25 11:31:27 18968

it is interesting to note how this phenomena is related to the Law of Attraction ... really, i think, just a different view of the same elephant ... you know, that Grand Secret which has gotten so much hype and traction in new aged thinking.

The LOA people who follow Abraham seem to think that swimming upstream against what you don't want tends to get you out of the vortex of attraction & yet Esther's favorite phrase "You know what you don't want therefore you know what you do want" is a clue to getting what you want by letting you know what you want to attract. Attract more of what you want & maybe lessen the complaints about what you don't want is the "Secret".

Well yes, the more we think about what we want, we express that more and more, then the more it will appear to be attracted to us as the more it gets amplified in our awareness. who knows, we may even act to make it happen ... or even act as if it was happening ... providing others a cue to cooperate in its actual happening. a wondrous

feedback loop indeed

Seth says

... well anyway you proved it ... kudos

,

you can make 18857 private again now if you want ... it is ugly beaste after all.

Seth says

Ester's don't swim up stream thingy me thinks is something else. I don't know how that is connected here. Note our previous discussion re upstream.

Seth says

i don't know if you got the drift above ... this phenomena works both ways ... we express to amplify ... and we destroy expression to eliminate.

Seth says

seth 2015-10-24 09:30:58 18968

M 2015-10-24 09:22:20 18968

Yep proof here in 18857 - (;-))

... hmm ... too bad that item is private to you ... can we, perchance, share it ?

oh, ok, so 18857 is your representation of your negativity toward the part of my stuff that you don't understand.

How is that proof of "representing something changes our awareness of it" ? Did your representing that negativity in your blog change anything ... i suppose it did ... it amplified it ... made it worse. Well crank it up bro .. get your fill ... me i have other work to do.

Seth says

source: mark

KUDOS! Great munge

... but notice

... you're actually doing it right here

. You are attempting to destroy, not the similarity itself, but rather my representation (expression) of it.

if you actually wanted to find error in the similarity and relationship between LOA and Amplifying Awareness by Expresson, you would have expressed something tangible about their distinction.

Mark de LA says

seth 2015-10-24 09:49:16 18968

... well anyway you proved it ... kudos

,

you can make 18857 private again now if you want ... it is ugly beaste after all.

Yep - did before you suggested it. The RWG is always ugly except when the automaticity sucks you in to contribute one more deviant slice [see: item 4413]

Seth says

thing is, representing can amplify positive changes as well as negative changes.

Do you have something that will prove that as well?

Iamnai says

I guess what bothers me about this is in my studies of zen ontology i got a whole different task out of experience - to get as close to truth & what's so as possible rather than play with the abstractions & representations. In 3976 experience showed up as a sequence of encounter not requiring the diagram to work since anyone mostly could find in nature & personal experience the same nodes of experience. Since then, I have found things that can't be represented, but I know exist because I also have a sense that I have encountered them before - mostly in the will domain. Then too some people generalize language to be anything that communicates & Seth seems to be generalizing with the word representation. I suspect that underneath it all there is a rwg of some kind to make some kinds of representations or communications wrong. Destroying the past is impossible The new obsession with representation doesn't add much to what the word communication already covers. Experience is my focal point.

Seth says

chunks 2015-10-24 11:38:57 18968

nazified (;-((

awareness and the representations that amplify it must be curated else it degenerates into decay.

Seth says

another good example of how representing something amplifies my awareness of it can be seen in how a thought rings truer the more I read it ... see true sentences ... assuming, of course, it was intended to be a true fidenity sentence to begin with.

Seth says

chunks 2015-10-24 13:52:31 18968

.. for some value of the word awareness - mostly Bozo's awareness if he represents/misrepresents something real or imaginary. "Our" is mostly a birdie. Others who encounter a representation are unpredictable in their awareness change if any - sometimes already having awareness of something agreeing or disagreeing with the representation.

yep ... mostly that is the way the ball bounces. A representation will not change your awareness unless you actually absorb it into your mind ... or perhaps make it yourself to be an accurate representation of something you have experienced, imagined, expect, or whatever.

thing is, if you don't represent it, it will dissipate ... if you do represent it, it will intensify.

Another thing that happens is we can obstruct absorption from outside by degrading the representations coming in. That is what you are doing when you obstruct the use of the representation of cooperation by mocking the word "we". you apparently don't want to cooperate or understand others or at least me . Well at least that is the story that i have represented of your behavior. of course, what is actually happening over there, i don't really know. But i could if you actually represent it to me. So yes you can amplify what you want to happen between us by representing that which feels good ... or destroy that which you don't like happening by destroying its representations.

Seth says

Iamnai 2015-10-24 15:47:27 18968

seth 2015-10-24 15:16:08 18968

incidentally, it is no coincidence that ISIS is destroying cultural representations.

Bozo is obsessed with the word representation which is not the thing itself, but something in a mind. Notice the prefix "re-" explained here.

the point is the a person's awareness of the thing itself changes by being expressed.

Seth says

choy 2015-10-25 09:18:23 18968

seth 2015-10-25 08:49:42 18968

& that is supposed to be news to anyone?, me? It is not that I don't like the word it is that is just more abstraction & generalization.
Here is probably the most general one can get:

THAT WHICH IS, IS!
...
No representation needed & everything & anything is an expression of such.

doesn't need to be new to anybody ... and yes this is (or should be) pretty much common knowledge. the only strange thing is how much of our lives is this phenomena. and no it is not talked about as such in our society.

i remember being quite young, pre puberty i believe, when i asked myself and perhaps my partents as well, whether i should voice my thoughts to myself or better try to leave them in their pristine form of recoginition only. i also remember never getting a answer from my parents.

Seth says

choy 2015-10-25 09:56:52 18968

Representation or Expression is long past the point of perception. My take on the former two is:

<==>

yep representation (or expression) is way past perception (or recognition). so we are obviously talking about what happens to the awareness as time progresses ... how it changes.

note the thing recognized (or perceived) could be something outside one's self ... or it could be something inside one's self. Does the phenomena work the same regardless?

Mark de LA says

seth 2015-10-25 16:35:12 18968

choy 2015-10-25 16:14:05 18968

Upstream: Refers to the state of having a preponderance of negative feelings and struggling with life. It is a metaphor for "paddling upstream", "going against the current", and not "going with the flow" while working way too hard at something (figuratively speaking.) In Abraham Hicks circles, when you are upset or angry you are said to be "going upstream".
(**)
FYI

yep, thanks for reading that into the record. nathan is also into the opposite of that which is going with the flow or following excitement ... and i believe he gets that also from Abraham. i perceive it a bit different as synchroncicity coming and going ... but that is another story.

my question is why (how) is that connected to the law of attraction? or is it? is it perhaps another independent story? i don't know ... it was you who put it in this context.

Try a Youtube instead of my munge.

Seth says

choy 2015-10-25 16:14:05 18968

Seth says

seth 2015-12-31 09:15:20 [item 18968#40092]

reposted today primarily to update HTML styles removing depreciated <font> .

nathan@fbi 2015-12-31 09:16:48 [item 18968#40093]

mark 2015-12-31 09:25:51 [item 18968#40098]

Yeah, glad you explained the reason – was hoping the old

rwg

would fade into the past with the new fbi2. Too many repostings would frustrate such hope, though.

seth 2015-12-31 09:26:33 [item 18968#40099]

there is no rwg in my rep.

mark 2015-12-31 09:28:46 [item 18968#40100]

seth 2015-12-31 09:32:06 [item 18968#40101]

the old way i represented this thought itself was confusing and did not pop out .. i stripped most of tha out and now people can see it (or not) maybe in a better light.

however there is a lot of our rwg in the commentary on this rep here. Mark, do you think i should curate the commentary to remove that ?

mark 2015-12-31 09:38:49 [item 18968#40105]

You can delete the whole thing as far as I am concerned.

It might be nice someday to acknowledge that if you are beholding a representation of something you are not beholding the thing itself! Epistemology examines the basics of all that.

seth 2015-12-31 09:41:40 [item 18968#40107]

well that certainly is true. a representation is not the thing itself. the map is not the territory … same distinction. which truth does not need of my saying it again … it is one of the basic premises of my philosophy.

mark 2015-12-31 09:53:11 [item 18968#40116]

A lot of things like M$ Excel & Word have fonts – lots of them – what makes them depreciated ?

nathan@fbi 2015-12-31 09:56:06 [item 18968#40120]

It’s the <font> tag that is depreciated … because tags are for semantics and a font or color is not semantic, it is a style. Styles are allowed … that’s a bozo thing that they are not included in the editor here … but I think it is good too since styles are not semantic and it’s nice to have mostly semantic content … very nice for the semantic web.

Seth says

dA 2016-01-30 08:15:15 [item 18968#44004]

I expect your real question is.

If LOA is that what you increase your awareness of becomes more in your reality, then is tagging something the same as attracting it?

Well yes it does work that way, doesn’t it

Also whenever we say something … changes it …

Seth says

Mark 2016-01-30 17:14:39 [item 18968#44058]

… i.e. changes your awareness of your representation – not necessarily anything else.

… and your awareness changes your deeds and your deeds change what happens and the beat goes on.

Seth says
people do not seem to appreciate the amazing feedback loop that happens between the world and the meta world … and the interaction between the inside and the outside of each of us. modeling that with linear binary thinking me thinks will never work. it is not just an simple, one rule game. though the beauty of such can be astonding.

of course we can just love it … no need of modeling it at all … not the zen thing to do, eh?

.

but think about this … thinking and modeling and becoming aware in the meta world of our being … is feedback to our consciousness of our consciousness … etc, etc … might help it deepen and/or explode. then too some of us think a meta world is the only world and the world of circumstances is but an illusion. and all these meta stories obtain.

Seth says
in response to @mark in a thread about consciousness here http://www.fastblogit.com/thought/21366#57729

its really much simpler than that … me thinks you are not looking at the same aspects of this than i am.

i think of a idea that has not formed completely in your mind … it is there but it has not been represented there. now I represent it … in words, music, pictures, feelings, deeds … whatever media is appropriate. after representing i claim i am more keenly aware of that idea.

if you can honestly tell me that it remains the same after you represent something, then you are quite different inside than am i.

← which is a specific example of how representing something changes my awareness of it.

Is it not the same with you folks too?

Si says
The Secret is based on Abraham Hicks LOA … little known fact because the company that produced the movie the Secret would not allow the association to be publicized believing it would reduce sales … also the word “vibration” was stricken from the movie wherever possible because the term has not been an allowed phrase by the powers that run mainstream media production since the early 1900’s. The powers do not want the public to realize the power vibration has in our experience. J. P. Morgan was one of the instigators of this policy.

But the truth is that Rhonda Byrne spent many hours interviewing Jerry and Esther Hicks before she started on the movie … Abraham was the primary source of the material and had a big part in the original cutting of it.

Si says
👍

Si says
Yes. Passing a thought through “will” does amplify our experience of it.

Seth says
👍

Seth says
#sethhmmm … well “passing a thought through #will” may well be a good way to think about #representing … perhaps a description or a definition of the same thing

but i think there may well be more to it than that … see Why we represent ...

Representing something changes my awareness of it

Tags

Comments

See Also