I go with what happens - a qualia

They tell us, if you want to best see a star, don't look right at it, but cast you gaze just beside it. Sometimes i find that all intention is that way. I do something knowing my intention and something happens as an result ... frequently now i feel what occured was better than what i had intended.

if what i intended to do,

is not what i did,
then my intention was in error,
and not what i did.

-- Bozo Faust

Note this feeling, this qualia, started occuring ... it was not always there ... now it frequently occurs. I can find no logical or conceptual reason for its occurrence. I am just trying to describe the situations of its occurance, not trying to concoct a story.

this is peculiar and not frequently talked about in the memes of the day ... but i think CFR talked about it in the bottom of document that i recently read, but now have forgotten where. I'm not so very sure i should intend to collapse this thought untill i retrieve its inspiration in CFR's words ... but it does relate to the dualistic relationship of the metaworld of thought and imagination and possibility to what is - or in my term - what is actually happening.

The thought "i go with what happens" came up in this facebook dialogue with nathan where i said, "problem [with your meme] is that i can write a meme that says, 'if it is memed it then it is not ture ... hence a paradox LOL . me, i go with what is happening ... can't make a shit paradox with that, can you' ".

"happening" and "occurance" may well pont to the same kinds of things for many people. Me, i cannot tell any difference. Who knows, perhaps we could use "happening" for objective events, and "occurance" for any subjective reaction or representation of the objective happening.

[old must be rewritten as the passage of time has made some of these sentences ungrue] Thing is, i intended to write this the day before this item started ... it is what i got up to write then. I tried and i tried but it did not happen. Now i am not so very sure that what i have said here is what i would have said had i written it directly from the gestalt of yesterday. i mean it seems quite ok and all, but i might have missed something important ... or this might be something else entirely. this morning i went with finding CFR's passage as a prerequisite of writing the gestalt. Now this is what it is ... apparently for me there is no going back ... notwithstanding, of course, nathan's multiverses.

-----
Thing is, now that this has been pretty well represented here, will the qualia itself change for me according to 18968 ... ? ...

Now it comes with the way when you are creating something that you haven't before ... when it is all just imagination ... then you must put down a stroke ... you must make a decision that commits the work ... then the work can proceed, but you say to yourself, "

that was not exactly what i imagined" ... yet you go with that instead. It comes mostly with my writing, but also in the deeds of the day.

-----

And if you think about it ... i mean if you really think about it ... what actually happens must necessarily be better !! So my qualia, matches necessity!

How is that for what 'IS' ?

Comments

Seth says

choy 2015-11-27 07:47:39 19080

seth 2015-11-27 03:18:02 19080

choy 2015-11-27 00:18:50 19080

None of this makes any sense to me.

Okay.

Have you noticed that sometimes if you stare right at something, you end up not seeing it as well as if you look very closely beside it? Do you remember reading that or hearing anybody mention it to you? Have you ever verified for yourself that it actually ever happens that way?

Staring at something is different than focusing. If I stare at a bright light eventually the nerves get saturated. Your phenomena I have never experienced.

Well when i say "starring" i did not mean it quite so literally. Just substitute the term "try to see" or "try to focus". So the question becomes ... "Can you sometimes focus on something better, by focusing on what is closely beside it?". But my real question does not relate only to visual focusing, but rather any kind of apprehension.

But if you have never experienced this yourself, or even ever been advised of it ... then perhaps, were you to believe in it, i will need to go do some googeling around to see if i can actually find this elsewhere ... i am almost completely sure that i did not make it up myself. So, do i need to do that for you?

Seth says

incidentally, the real thrust of what i am saying here is just: "frequently now i judge what happened as quite a bit better than what i had intended". And that is not just a abstract made up judgement ... but rather something that i can almost feel in my bones. In other words, "I go with what happens" ... er, not what i intend to happen. Or, said differently ... and perhaps more eloquently ...

if what i intended to do,

is not what i did,
then my intention was in error,
and not what i did.

-- Bozo Faust

Seth says

i (erroniously) put the "

observation today" about how this qualia changes on the (? fact) that representing changes how something occurs to consciousness. that has been fixed ... but just for a moment there i though it was correct, but i think i was confused.

yet, it begs the question - are they in fact the same thing.

... consider the double slit in this regard ... or is this just confusion? ... so no doubt, this question is a result of what actually happened.

I go with what happens - a qualia

Tags

Comments

See Also