Being Offended & What Happens

About: title not given 

& in politics these days the ceremonial piece of shit in the Whitehouse still thinks he is the most powerful man in the world when he opens his mouth & other people steal in his name & murder for? (*) you good folks. laughing

(*) Facebook reminded me of something I wrote 4 years ago.


  1. korzybski


Mark de LA says
ponderingHm mm… didn’t think that Obama was running for popularity in Russia – did you ?  –

Gallup: Just 1% Russians approve of U.S., Obama, far worse than Bush

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-05-30 10:03:39 [item 20975#52463]
well he has a point … nothing happens when you get offended laughing , it is subjective.   which is another reason to go with what happens smug.
Mark de LA 2016-05-30 10:06:42 [item 20975#52464]
I prefer to go with what IS! laughing
Seth 2016-05-30 10:11:36 [item 20975#52465]
well can you distinguish between what-IS and what-happens?  me, i can not.  those are just different maps to the same territory. 
Mark de LA 2016-05-30 10:16:41 [item 20975#52466]
Well, OK if you agree with me, otherwise NOT.  You seem to be trying to brand what-happens as some kind of aha! for you. It is a weak form of IS! for me.
Seth 2016-05-30 10:34:09 [item 20975#52467]
well all is change and one only know of what IS by what changes.   if what IS, does not change, then it is invisible … hence of no use for navigation.

but i do not brand it as an “aha!”.   rather it is a choice of an anchor.  it is that to which other things are relative.   it is like being on a shifting ocean and choosing fixed stars to navigate with. 
Mark de LA 2016-05-30 10:39:12 [item 20975#52468]
Apparently what does not change is your stand & mungefulness.  Anyway

That which is, IS!

Seth 2016-05-30 11:03:17 [item 20975#52469]
and …

That which happens, HAPPENS!

both statements are saying the same thing.   one from a point of view – timeless, the other  timeful. 

no use in aug-u-ing about that.

maybe accept what it means and notice how it affects other parts of the map from different points of view.
Mark de LA 2016-05-30 11:56:20 [item 20975#52470]
IS! just IS! no maps needed to explain it.
Seth 2016-05-30 12:14:38 [item 20975#52471]
huh? so what?    that is true of any territory … no maps are ever necessary for it itself.  the city of San Francisco has it’s streets regardless of whether you have a map of them or not.   the street map is just something for us … something for us so that we know where to go in the city and how to get there.   your comment hangs here to me just as a diverting change of topic.

the question is whether to use what-is (what happens) to navigate our deeds, or rather to use our own subjective perceptions … which is the most important.   that is quite a philosophical choice … and it need not always be made the same way. 
That is of course your question & framing.
That which IS! does not need you nor I nor your maps nor you going with it nor me going with it etc. It doesn’t even need an alias for some part to which some apply the word happening. 
The other stuff you describe is just your choices for what you do or how you act. smug
BTW, it doesn’t mean anying either! laughing

Seth says
Mark de LA 2016-05-30 12:59:04 [item 20975#52473]
IS! is as slippery as NOTHING … 
what-happens for me is quite a bit less slippery … i can always tell whether a thing has happened or not … and i do believe that even you would agree with my call in that regard.   but you and i  are not going to be able to agree on what IS and what is not quite so very frequently.  which is why i tend to anchor in what happens … is it most easily shared.

Mark de LA says
Mark de LA 2016-05-30 12:59:04 [item 20975#52473]
IS! is as slippery as NOTHING … 
nathan 2016-05-30 13:42:16 [item 20975#52474]
That is simply because you create what is with your thoughts. It is as valid to say what is is as slippery as your thoughts!  
Seth 2016-05-30 13:58:29 [item 20975#52476]
again it has to do with what can be shared.   that is how we get from subjective map to objective territory. 
Mark de LA 2016-05-30 14:11:19 [item 20975#52477]
IS! has nothing to do with shared .  It doesn’t need a map.  It doesn’t need a pontificator to clear anything up about  It doesn’t need a zen master or guru to tease it out of you. It just IS! 
Seth 2016-05-30 14:16:01 [item 20975#52479]
well yes of course … quite true.  

yet we know nothing of it without constructing a map.

you see this really is about awareness … about consciousness. 
You know nothing after constructing a map also! laughing

Mark de LA says
Mark de LA 2016-05-30 14:14:46 [item 20975#52478]
IS! is as slippery as nothing in that one can grasp one if you have the other & visa versa – but neither depend upon pontificators, zenmasters, linguists, bloggers nor meaning & words. IS!(ness) is separate from what IS! That which is, ….. ……………… …… IS! – nothing else is going on or happening. smug

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-05-30 15:06:04 [item 20975#52483]
we are like two sailors on the ocean … i look to the stars and say, “let us navigate with those” … you look to the shifting waves and say, “no, let us navigate with those”.  the amazing thing about the stars, is that they will look the same to both of us … we can share our experiences of them … that is what makes them objective and rather than subjectve.
unrelated to IS!

Seth says
Seth 2016-05-30 14:30:39 [item 20975#52482]
mark:  You know nothing after constructing a map also! laughing

except that is what we humans do … have learned to do … and despite those who care not to do it, we do it quite well indeed … better and better in fact … that is what has been happening.
Mark de LA 2016-05-30 15:47:20 [item 20975#52484]
.. pellick! 
Mark de LA 2016-05-30 15:57:11 [item 20975#52486]
Actually while at informatics I took a course in map-making – dropped it half way (it was boring & not what I thought it was going to be was taught by my old highschool drafting teacher) – they had encouraged me to take extra curricular classes for some strange reason.  So your “nothing” is a lie! I also learned to be a navigator in the navy & how to use the stars, sextant & navigate the harbor as well. thumbs down


your reciting your skills at cartography lead me to this cartoon laughing via my context of {"map is not the territory" korzybski} … ironic grin


Mark de LA says
Kinda like your skills with the English language, ontology & prevarication reminds me of:

Si says
nathan 2016-06-13 08:14:59 [item 20975#52811]
Clearly he is mistaken. I am!  
Seth 2016-06-13 08:21:15 [item 20975#52812]
who is mistaken about what … you are what?   this is a really old item and i have no idea to what your response refers to. 
Mark de LA 2016-06-13 08:29:22 [item 20975#52816]
nathan 2016-06-13 08:50:22 [item 20975#52824]
Use your intuition instead of logic. You will understand with ease.  
Mark de LA 2016-06-13 09:18:42 [item 20975#52830]
riddles & rhymes & rhythm signifying nothing!
nathan 2016-06-13 09:22:00 [item 20975#52832]
Well, you are creating this. You are creating a version of me writing these words. With your intuition, you can tune into that creating and intimately experience it’s meaning. 

Like in Peter Rolstons Cheng Hisin book (which you sent me and I loved even if I didn’t spell all that correctly). He reached the point where he easily knew the moves his opponents would make before they physically did anything.  In other words, he reached the point of experience where he was aware of his creation at the level where he was creating it.  
Mark de LA 2016-06-13 09:24:55 [item 20975#52833]
I think you misinterpreted what he said. “… The mind commands & the body obeys” etc. The Art of Effortless Power last page.
It wasn’t what he was creating it was his intuition about movement, dynamics, grafity & effortless power. You are still stuck in your beliefs about creating.
nathan 2016-06-13 09:27:26 [item 20975#52834]
I agree. I agree with everything I have experienced of his teachings too. I see no conflict with anything I have said, unless I drag in contemporary ideas from my parents and peers. As it stands, Peter’s teaching is very clear and clean and compatible with my experience and understanding.  
Mark de LA 2016-06-13 09:38:55 [item 20975#52835]
Nice! & you are of course free to believe whatever you choose & in whatever context you choose it – doesn’t make it true or special; personalities of pontification notwithstanding.smugthumbs up
nathan 2016-06-13 09:42:16 [item 20975#52836]
My belief of it does make it true. That is the only thing in all of creation that can make it true. It could not possibly be any other way. Simple unbiased contemplation of that will make it clear and evident to you as well. 

Mark de LA 2016-06-13 09:58:53 [item 20975#52837]
Yep, you are free to believe that for yourself. You can’t believe for someone else. (without perhaps a gun to their head) laughing
Seth 2016-06-13 10:04:52 [item 20975#52838]
the trick here, me thinks, is the distinction between belief and happens …  nathan is absolutely correct … belief is what makes it true for anyone … “it can be no other way” … but happens must be shared else it does not happen and belief alone cannot do that.
nathan 2016-06-13 10:07:40 [item 20975#52840]
Well Mark, one might wonder, why would I ever want to believe for someone else? I am here for my experience. That is what is important. What would believing for someone else ever do for me? That’s like eating someone else’s food for them. It would leave my tummy quite unsatisfied!
Mark de LA 2016-06-13 10:40:12 [item 20975#52847]
Yet you keep pontificating as if what you say is true & you believe is true is so for other people. I call bullshit!
I have never said that. I have always said for you to believe what you want, think what you want, create what you want, experience what you want. In fact, in saying that I am giving you absolute freedom from all of my beliefs. It is your reality, create it. That is total freedom for you to believe your own thing, not what I believe. If you wish to take my beliefs and ponder them, that is your business. I know they are true because I believe them. I ask nothing else of you.  

Seth says
nathan 2016-06-13 10:10:02 [item 20975#52842]
So Seth, if I live in the woods by myself, like Grizzly Adams for instance, and enjoy a wonderful life there, did it not happen just because no one else experienced it? True, we know of Grizzly Adams, but what of all those who lived lives no one knows of? Did those not “happen”?
Seth 2016-06-13 10:26:49 [item 20975#52843]
well if you lived in the woods like Grizzly Adams i am sure you did not do it alone … after all there is the woods not to mention your experience … i would have no doubt if you told me of it that it happened.  it happened whether you told me of it or not … but if you didn’t tell me, then i would not be conscious of it in the slightest  … i would not have entered a consciousness of which we shared.  my complete statement in this regard,  see “I go with what happens”, is that i go with what happens that we can share.  “we” being any spirit who includes themselves in that happening. 
nathan 2016-06-13 10:28:22 [item 20975#52844]
In other words, you go with what you experience. You acknowledge nothing else.  I agree. That is reality.
Seth 2016-06-13 10:33:19 [item 20975#52845]
nope, i obviously “acklowledge things that i do not experience” … otherwise what was all of my talk of otherness.   i need not experience something to acknowledge and respect or even love or detest it.  we know of things by clues … by signs … no F2F necessary.   is not modern humaity great in that regard?
nathan 2016-06-13 10:38:09 [item 20975#52846]
Well, you say “i would not have entered a consciousness of which we shared.  my complete statement in this regard,  see “I go with what happens”, is that i go with what happens that we can share.”

That is simply your experience of it. You even are accurate about that it requires “your consciousness of it”. My experience is not there. What is there is your experience of you, and your experience of what you label as not you … i.e. others.
Seth 2016-06-13 11:04:17 [item 20975#52852]
i meant “it” and not “i” as the subject in my quoted sentence above, but i think you caught that.

i have no trouble with what you are saying here … except perhaps to point out that we are probably not talking about the same thing when we use the word “consciouness”.   Point being that “my consciousness of whatever” does not count in my conceptions as a “happening that we share”.   Pretty much for the same reason you pointed out … we do not (and can not – though that might be debatable) share each other’s subjective consciouness.   i can not feel what you feel … i can not know exactly what something means to you … i can not move your arms and legs … nor you mine.   We both know that, i assume, quite acutely.  So that otherness to me which is in you of which i know merely by its clues and signs is not yet, so i think, human consciousness … no .. not untill we can share it.
nathan 2016-06-13 11:11:18 [item 20975#52853]
Okay. Sounds good.  

Si says
nathan 2016-06-13 10:49:15 [item 20975#52849]
It is you Mark, who say that there are some set of common beliefs that I and others should believe. I don’t say that. You are the one who pushes your chosen beliefs as if they are true for others. I say, believe what you want and reap the experience of it. That is your birthright.
Mark de LA 2016-06-13 11:15:14 [item 20975#52855]
Mark de LA 2016-06-13 11:16:23 [item 20975#52856]
kewl – keep on pontificating yourt beliefs & opinions.
Exactly! That is such a refreshing point of view.  Wouldn’t life be interesting and authentic and fantastic if everyone would just do that?

Si says
nathan 2016-06-13 11:25:24 [item 20975#52858]
BTW … I think Mark your use of the word pontification is suspect. If it is used to mean speaking one’s own beliefs, then it is a good thing as you said above. I often use it for you in what I think it is more commonly known to be, which is to spout the beliefs of others. You do this a lot. Rarely do you stand behind your own authentic beliefs, but most of the time only regurgitate thoughts and ideas of others as a counter point to nearly anything someone else is authentic about, and who even knows if you believe those things or not. That is what I mean when I say you pontificate.
Mark de LA 2016-06-13 12:03:24 [item 20975#52860]
Ditto for you. How surprising you recognize in others what you yourself do. thumbs up
nathan 2016-06-13 16:12:28 [item 20975#52870]
Not so Mark. I state beliefs based on my own experiences and I relate those experiences, one even today, and many over the last several years. I show exactly how my beliefs support the experience and the value of the experience to me.

This is not at all what I have seen you do Mark. You often relate experiences and beliefs of others and cross reference them. Once in a while you relate one of your own experiences, but I have not seen you tell your own experience and show how it is an outcome of one of your own beliefs. That is exactly and only what I do. What we each do is quite different so calling them both pontification seems amiss. Thanks.  
Mark de LA 2016-06-13 16:15:42 [item 20975#52871]
Then this must be a lie or every time you advise that someone else or I created something is a lie. Now we are apparently arguing about the meaning of the word pontification. Enjoy the glow of your Ego.
Not really sure where you are going with that. I am explaining how I think we are using the word pontification differently and why. There is no argument in that. It is a difference, and once understood, allows better communication. If you disagree with my characterization of your use then you are perfectly welcome to supply your own characterization. Then I will understand your world better.  

See Also

  1. Thought The map is not the territory. with 51 viewings related by tag "korzybski".
  2. Thought I go with what happens with 3 viewings related by tag "korzybski".
  3. Thought Models AND Maps are not the Territory with 0 viewings related by tag "korzybski".