The Illusion of Doing Something

Politicians produce the illusion that they actually do something. But is mostly their mouth moves & chatter comes out & they direct the spending of other people’s money.  Smoking can be hazardous to health.
laughing
Notice how well it is done in the singing  & otherwise talent shows.
 

Comments


Mark de LA says
dA 2016-01-29 12:55:13 [item 19801#43981]
So I guess you are saying that you justify your steadfast doing of nothing as being like what politicians do?
Mark 2016-01-29 13:34:21 [item 19801#43982]
I am I & you are you & your judgments are not helpful nor valid.  I do what inspires me & you do whatever.
You seem this morning to be more into RWG than LOA – both attract – this morning RWG is stronger in YOU.
 
dA 2016-01-29 14:00:28 [item 19801#43983]
You seem perpetually fascinated with what is inside butt holes. Like in the picture above.
Mark 2016-01-29 14:19:48 [item 19801#43985]
Google picture retrieved from the phrase “ blowing smoke up your ass” – take the hint.
dA 2016-01-29 17:19:13 [item 19801#43991]
You want to smoke what comes out of my ass? Did I get it right?
Nope! You might have gotten it from the lefthand cartoon but you can get that I won’t blow smoke up your ass from the following http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blowing+smoke+up+your+ass laughing 

Holmes says
seth 2016-02-01 04:19:44 [item 19801#44096]
i call for another node in your group which represents the actual doing of happenings.  The way it is now, seems totally unbalanced and uninteresting.
Mark 2016-02-01 06:48:50 [item 19801#44104]
Write one! The group title is not biased & it is the key. yes
seth 2016-02-01 06:53:41 [item 19801#44106]
i can not write or edit a node in your closed group.  all i can do is comment on one.  not really the same thing.
dA 2016-02-01 06:59:30 [item 19801#44110]
It will be nice when a group can be closed but still allow new thoughts by identified authors.
seth 2016-02-01 07:00:31 [item 19801#44111]
shucks we do that now … all mark has to do is give the password to selected individuals … no new feature necessary.
dA 2016-02-01 07:02:13 [item 19801#44112]
Seth. We talked about this fully the other day. There are lots of reasons for this feature, not just this. And no, it is also not the same thing even in this case. Someone with a password can do anything in a group including delete other’s stuff. This only allows adding new thoughts. It is an important addition for lots of reasons, as we discussed already.
seth 2016-02-01 07:04:11 [item 19801#44113]
yeah you are talking about there being an owner of a group who has special prividledges.   surly that is a good idea idea… you just need to specify what the special prividledges are.
dA 2016-02-01 07:11:02 [item 19801#44114]
Yes. And one of the primary features of that will be a feature of closed groups, so that not everyone can curate, change sticky header thoughts, delete, edit other’s thoughts, etc, but open adding of thoughts, so anyone can add to the discussions without being in the group and having to track down an owner and get a password.
seth 2016-02-01 07:19:42 [item 19801#44115]
i could make a table … colums could be: guest, person, member, owner, administrator … then vertically we could list the various prividledges, like commenting, deleting thoughts, deleting cments, changing things, editing tags, etc, etc …. good idea idea ?
Yes! Good idea. I actually added the feature yesterday. It’s called “rights” and is stored under quads/user and right now the only actual right is right-edit-scripts which is a very high level right for only super trusted people. It allows creating live pages, like admin pages and test pages. The right’s feature is fully integrated with editing and display now. And it would be good to start a table of rights.

For instance, go over and try to edit thought 19812  

Seth says
dA 2016-02-01 07:26:16 [item 19801#44117]
p.s. Group prototype is same password as group fbi.
seth 2016-02-01 08:06:59 [item 19801#44125]
ok … i am going to be behind your timimin of things today … lots happening … including fixing a sick computer.
dA 2016-02-01 08:09:32 [item 19801#44126]
No problem. This move quickly anyway on windy days. Tiggers are made of wind.
What is nice is that now that editing scripts is a right instead of group based I can let you into prototypes this way, even if others come in too, because what needs protecting is protected by user rights.
seth 2016-02-01 08:16:09 [item 19801#44128]
does that mean that the right comes from the person and not the group?
dA 2016-02-01 08:17:13 [item 19801#44129]
Yes, not to be snarky, but that is why it is called “user rights”.
seth 2016-02-01 08:19:17 [item 19801#44130]
laugh … i like to think of these thingies as people … each one is a person.   i would like to doc it that way and have that reflected in the language of the site.  … good idea ?
dA 2016-02-01 08:25:32 [item 19801#44131]
Not really. Actually I was going to write that somewhere. I like the name “author” much better than person and people. Authors are important, people are just minions.

But also, as always, I don’t have your aversion to things being named many times … because that is English and the computer environment should be more like English. The code has author and user and identity all the same and interchangeable in many places. So should the doc and the world. It is the truth and not a problem. Same with tags and references and items and so forth. They all have many names, as long as one isn’t usurping a generic name for a specific purpose, the more the merrier and modern people will be just fine with it. (there Mark. i said modern people, not old fashioned, happy?)
seth 2016-02-01 08:58:26 [item 19801#44134]
well “author” works for me … even though some people here will not consider themselves authors, but all of the people here will consider themselves persons.  Of course we actually do want to attract the author type of people more than just run of the mill people laugh.

i understand what you say about the natural way people call the same thing by different names.  Each different name for the same thing usually implies a different context of usage … or sombody is confused about what their culture traditionally calls it or they are leaning a new context and are making a mistake.  Being consistent in naming things is very important for people learning the screens and interperting what to enter when it is their chance to type.   I hate it when some screen just says “user” … what are you to put there, your email address,  your name, an account number, or some user name that you forgot already.  Your sign up screen did it right … it asked directly for the person’s email address.   
dA 2016-02-01 09:07:34 [item 19801#44136]
Well author then. For your reason there and more, it’s good!

I don’t agree about context and all of that. I think that is just people being control freaks unnecessarily. Communication does not actually break down for those reasons, it breaks down for other reasons exactness of language not withstanding. But it also, by that very fact, does not matter, “do as thy wilt” is fine.
seth 2016-02-01 09:12:43 [item 19801#44139]
i think you misunderstood.   what i said has nothing to do with “control”.   it has to do with the mental background of what a word means and implies.  that is the context in which i used the word “context”.  had nothing to do with people changing context or flowing from focus to focus within a specific place.  for example if i do to a bank i might expect to set up an account … then i am dealt with as an account holder.   but if i go to a place to write my thoughts as a person,  then i am not a account holder to that place … no, i am a person. 
dA 2016-02-01 09:17:20 [item 19801#44141]
I do understand. I say all of that is becoming less and less important. Other factors that are the true underlying points upon which communication actually pivots are becoming more and more emphasized as time goes this way in the verses.
seth 2016-02-01 09:23:18 [item 19801#44144]
nope, i do not see that changing at all.   people still understand what something means withing some context … against some background.   and you have given no reasons why that way our minds and brains work is suddenly changing.   i am sure there are some subjective changes that you (and maybe others that you have interacted with) have gone though … but i doubt that is going to instantly change for everybody just because you wave at it in a conversation.   i suggest untill you can make this other wierd universe shareable by others we stick with what is already working well for us.   at least in terms of how we move together here.
dA 2016-02-01 09:30:28 [item 19801#44146]
Well that is true that it is not instant, it is a process with many cycles. As I have said before, I talk from the leading edge. I think you have a long row to hoe if you want to present the case that “communication works well for people” right now though. All the books, courses, people going to psychologists, studies, and rants and blogs about how it is not working well say otherwise. It’s been a commonly thought issue for a long time. And I say that one of the reasons communication has not been working well is linguistics. Linguistics is not at the root of communication and those thinking that it will better communication are always battling uphill. True communication is purely an act that takes place between a person’s identity (ego) and the vibrational aspects of the multiverse. Linguistics is just a reflection in the physical, and not even a very good one, just a controlled one.
well … lol … when i say communication works well i was talking about that particular aspect of it .. viz interpertation against a mental backgroud.   “working well” is certainly a spectrum … if you have actually understood anything that i have said in the context of language, especially problems like 18467 and even Blank To Each Other you will know that i am counted among those who know that we can communicate much better.   But really, we have no practical Vulcan Mind Meld yet … and untill i can experience that myself … i will be going with what i can actually experience happening. 

Holmes says
dA 2016-02-01 07:26:16 [item 19801#44117]
p.s. Group prototype is same password as group fbi.
seth 2016-02-01 08:06:59 [item 19801#44125]
ok … i am going to be behind your timimin of things today … lots happening … including fixing a sick computer.
dA 2016-02-01 08:09:32 [item 19801#44126]
No problem. This move quickly anyway on windy days. Tiggers are made of wind.
What is nice is that now that editing scripts is a right instead of group based I can let you into prototypes this way, even if others come in too, because what needs protecting is protected by user rights.
seth 2016-02-01 08:16:09 [item 19801#44128]
does that mean that the right comes from the person and not the group?
dA 2016-02-01 08:17:13 [item 19801#44129]
Yes, not to be snarky, but that is why it is called “user rights”.
seth 2016-02-01 08:19:17 [item 19801#44130]
laugh … i like to think of these thingies as people … each one is a person.   i would like to doc it that way and have that reflected in the language of the site.  … good idea ?
dA 2016-02-01 08:25:32 [item 19801#44131]
Not really. Actually I was going to write that somewhere. I like the name “author” much better than person and people. Authors are important, people are just minions.

But also, as always, I don’t have your aversion to things being named many times … because that is English and the computer environment should be more like English. The code has author and user and identity all the same and interchangeable in many places. So should the doc and the world. It is the truth and not a problem. Same with tags and references and items and so forth. They all have many names, as long as one isn’t usurping a generic name for a specific purpose, the more the merrier and modern people will be just fine with it. (there Mark. i said modern people, not old fashioned, happy?)
Mark 2016-02-01 08:47:23 [item 19801#44133]
maybe or maybe not – too many & lack of focus; shell games & sleeve-jobs crop up! laughing

 
dA 2016-02-01 09:09:57 [item 19801#44137]
You encounter more sleeve jobs and shell games in a single day than I have encountered in my entire life. Your focus is supurb mistro!
Mark 2016-02-01 09:15:34 [item 19801#44140]
Your spelling not so much – projecting too fast, eh?smug
dA 2016-02-01 09:18:36 [item 19801#44143]
I don’t claim to speel. The computer does it for me, or not. Makes no difference to your actual understanding, only perhaps to your ego.
Mark 2016-02-01 09:36:12 [item 19801#44148]
in a world where words, meanings, ideas & grammar are just suggestions & kind people talk about eachother’s Egos & mind-read at will,  anything is possible during attempt at communication  – that extra click on the spell-checker notwithstanding nor needed -- focus may be shaky in the country of the blind where the one-eyed cyclops is king or has the game or the biggest megaphone – just saying & said. rose
dA 2016-02-01 09:45:42 [item 19801#44149]
Clear focus is required for good communication. If one is not having a good communication experience, increasing focus (as in going uptime) will help exponentially. Words have little to do with it at all. They are just placeholders and only become important to the degree to which one slows down their mental state and let’s go of one’s ego identities. Real communication is always vibrational, not words. People can often use very exact words and linguistics and have very little actual communication. Others can make words up on the fly and know exactly what is being communicate. Others can communicate fully with only expressions. If words were the hallmark of communication, all the different ways people do communicate well would not happen. Communication is dependent on state of being and awareness of the vibrational information coming in, that is all (not sound vibrations either, you know what I mean)
Mark 2016-02-01 09:48:45 [item 19801#44150]
example s.j’s notwithstanding cool
Nice!

Seth says
seth 2016-02-01 09:31:49 [item 19801#44147]
incidentally, being able to change context (verses if you want to call it that) is not the same thing as having no context.  whatever verse you are currently in, whatever is experienced there, will be interpreted within/against the background of whatever happened previously there.  and if we are talking about words, then that bacground is how those particular words were previously used there in that context. 
dA 2016-02-01 09:48:54 [item 19801#44151]
Do we really need to redo the whole “context” conversation all over again? It is fully preserved, including final conclusions, over in floodles. Context is a nice little tool for organizing … but it is small compared to state of being and vibrational awareness. (new way to say it)
seth 2016-02-01 10:06:57 [item 19801#44155]
well i am using the word “context” the way people who have studied it in language usage have been using it for centuries.  Apparently that is  not necessarily the way you are using it …. especially if you think it is only “a nice little tool for organizing”.   in fact the more i talk with you about your verses, the more i am hearing your descriptions of verses as being the same thing that most other mental philosophers would call a “context” … especilly when talking about using language.   strange how the context of usage of a word changes its meaning, eh?
dA 2016-02-01 10:15:33 [item 19801#44158]
It all fits together. I guess I am just waiting for you to catch up.

And what you are talking about re parallel verses is important, and only a beginning, a doorway in because it is part of the same larger process, but beyond that simple aspect (your calling context) is more and full quantum jumping to a completely different verse with awareness of having done so is further on the path into that room.
seth 2016-02-01 10:25:42 [item 19801#44160]
yes

yes i expect so.  there was more that i was going to write about my recent experiences and even started a thought with you somewhere about it, but then events happened away from me representing it.   i figure it will all happen when it does.   i do, however,  like to move from where i am at … from what is happening here and now to the next step, … you frequently wave all to vaguely at stuff that is not yet here. 
dA 2016-02-01 10:29:14 [item 19801#44161]
Yea. That’s true. I say it as “speaking from the leading edge” which is true, and saying it makes it all right … it must, because otherwise, I wouldn’t have much to say at all.
winklaugh

Mark de LA says
seth 2016-02-01 09:31:49 [item 19801#44147]
incidentally, being able to change context (verses if you want to call it that) is not the same thing as having no context.  whatever verse you are currently in, whatever is experienced there, will be interpreted within/against the background of whatever happened previously there.  and if we are talking about words, then that bacground is how those particular words were previously used there in that context. 
dA 2016-02-01 09:48:54 [item 19801#44151]
Do we really need to redo the whole “context” conversation all over again? It is fully preserved, including final conclusions, over in floodles. Context is a nice little tool for organizing … but it is small compared to state of being and vibrational awareness. (new way to say it)
seth 2016-02-01 10:06:57 [item 19801#44155]
well i am using the word “context” the way people who have studied it in language usage have been using it for centuries.  Apparently that is  not necessarily the way you are using it …. especially if you think it is only “a nice little tool for organizing”.   in fact the more i talk with you about your verses, the more i am hearing your descriptions of verses as being the same thing that most other mental philosophers would call a “context” … especilly when talking about using language.   strange how the context of usage of a word changes its meaning, eh?
dA 2016-02-01 10:15:33 [item 19801#44158]
It all fits together. I guess I am just waiting for you to catch up.

And what you are talking about re parallel verses is important, and only a beginning, a doorway in because it is part of the same larger process, but beyond that simple aspect (your calling context) is more and full quantum jumping to a completely different verse with awareness of having done so is further on the path into that room.
seth 2016-02-01 10:25:42 [item 19801#44160]
yes

yes i expect so.  there was more that i was going to write about my recent experiences and even started a thought with you somewhere about it, but then events happened away from me representing it.   i figure it will all happen when it does.   i do, however,  like to move from where i am at … from what is happening here and now to the next step, … you frequently wave all to vaguely at stuff that is not yet here. 
seth 2016-02-01 10:30:25 [item 19801#44162]
anyway none of that is an excuse for us to confuse a person with an account holder or a hanker back to an old geeky computer-term “user” … especially when we are describing a system that is designed for a person to talk to and which talks back to that person.
dA 2016-02-01 10:46:02 [item 19801#44166]
That’s fine. On a scale I would agree user is near the bottom and that author is even above person because it will draw a better quality out of people to think of themselves as an author without excluding anyone. And that if it slightly does put someone off, we probably don’t want to hear from that person anyway.
seth 2016-02-01 10:46:37 [item 19801#44167]
like
like the word author – it has a broad spectrum of meanings. (type it in) including similar roots to authentic.yes