What process creates consciousness?

Mark de LA says ...

Perhaps study the sequence of encounter a bit from PR – it is a bit more complex than fits here.
The Sequence of Encounter 6: 27 Our experience occurs for us as a process, one that seemingly unfolds automatically and at light speed. Let’s break this down a bit: Direct Experience -> Perception -> Interpretation -> Meaning -> Effect -> Reaction 6: 28 If we start with what is at this point only the notion of direct experience, we have the possibility of being directly conscious of what is. This is like “being one” with what’s there, so there is no process or separation involved. Don’t equate that with enlightenment for the moment and just work to grasp this as a new distinction in what we call experience. We may not have any consciousness of this starting point, but it gives us a place to begin. From here, consciousness separates from “direct” and moves into process and the sequence unfolds.

Ralston, Peter. Pursuing Consciousness: The Book of Enlightenment and Transformation (Kindle Locations 1798-1807). North Atlantic Books. Kindle Edition.
Perhaps you can identify all these things & notice the gaps you speed bye on your way to opinions etc.
Perhaps not.

Comments

Si says
Yay! Nicely said #PR. You rock!

Seth says
alternatively unapprehended, uninterperted, unrepresented happening is nothing at all …. it is just being #UnConscious. not my #thing.

Si says
#huh?

Seth says
my #opinion relates to PR saying ….

If we start with what is at this point only the notion of direct experience, we have the possibility of being directly conscious of what is. This is like “being one” with what’s there, so there is no process or separation involved.

peter ralston

… so if you take away the process that creates consciousness, you end up #unConscious . which is not my #thing … me, i love to be conscious … to represent … to interperte … to be aware. why would i try to eliminate that?

Si says
Nope. Doesn’t work like that.

Seth says
which is your #opinion

Si says
Nope. That is not #opinion. You just ain’t following the breadcrumbs, dat’s all.

Seth says

Si says
👍

Si says
Just because you don’t go down a path, follow a sequence, experience it, does not make a path or a sequence #opinion. It only makes it unexplored by you.

Seth says
currently this statement appears to be false. … the photographer Peter Ralston did not say the things above which you said were nicely said.

Si says
Okay. I get that this is a leading edge concept. But seth, please don’t do a mark #PileOfWords thing and go all wiggy. Sit with it. Let the ideas I presented work into you. You may not get this anytime soon, but it is not the end of reality either. Thanks!

Seth says
i am “sitting with it” and all … inevitably this is what #TagWars are all about. Thing is look at the tag room and the things that me and mark and you have already said with this sign “PR” … now some of those true sentences have become false. That is confusion. How does it get resolved in this game?

Seth says
seems to me that the interpertation of the sign is not correctly scoped yet. #SeriTD needs to do a better job.

Si says
Nothing at all has been made false. Quite the opposite. Now vibrations are sorting out in more truthful ways. Each person creates their own truth … and all those truths don’t always match up. This one simple thing has suddenly provided a path for many vibrations to match up in the verses that were in a dizzy spin before.

Seth says
the person who said the words quoted in this thought does not have the face you associated with the sign “PR” … that is a factual #MisAssociations.

Mark de LA says
Generally speaking PR is saying consciousness IS before all the process instead of the other way around (as an emanation of some process or collection of properties) & is the beginning of PR’s sequence of encounter conversation yet unknown at that point in the discussion. It is similar in disposition to GW’s P.2693 of the Tai Shu a partial quote from:

In our book every Ultimate Particle has Consciousness, a Category concomitant with others such as Unity, Extension, Persistence, Motion i.e. each UP has an Ego, whose function is JUDGEMENT, which is expressed as a "statement" or "equation" properly quantified & qualified.

Of course it does not say what Consciousness IS. Contemplate “What is Consciousness?” for a while & see what you folks come up with. I have done so. Technically you can’t argue about it nor clothe it in words nor is it an #it

Si says
It goes way beyond that seth. Re saying the same basic thing is not looking in new directions for expanded meaning.

Seth says
well if i say that

mark has met #PR

right here in my own group am i even writing a true sentence anymore?

No i am not … not currently … #SeriTD is seriously messing with my ability to write #RingsTrue sentences … plesase girl … stop that!

Si says
👍

Si says
You have been working with #RingsTrue for a while. Lately you have really been getting it down. You are a bit of an expert. #SeriTD says it is time to #LevelUp and expand your knowledge about what is and can be true. No good concept remains static, all can be taken to the next level once you have become proficient where you are.

Seth says
look, rearranging my concepts is great … combining and separating them in different ways is sublime … and finding and naming the new concepts that emerge with different signs is great evolution.

but let us not confuse that with allowing others to switch and scambel the signs with whitch i must communicate and think of those concepts.

i say find a better way of scoping and navigating … i want no part of that kind of confusion. Show something working … so far you have just made statements false.

Mark de LA says
The #moral-or-the-story on #TagWars is use complete English sentences with real words instead of tags if you want #truth otherwise #GameOn

Si says
Then perhaps your idea of what is true and what is false needs a bit of a housecleaning. Worth looking into anyway right? Now that you can #ringTrue things, what’s next? What is the next level of understanding truth?

Seth says
well yeah if it is going to be just a game of people corrupting other people’s words … i would have to agree on that.

Seth says
re consciousness … i do have a different take on it than Peter Ralston and GW. It is almost like we ware talking of different things entirely. To me being conscious is a very real and direct consequence of what i do … it is not some kind of ether given apart from my deeds.

Si says
Clearly it is not “just a game of people corrupting other people’s words”. We have had the glossary for nearly a week now and nearly everyone has liked and agreed with the choices, except for a few, which are playfully being worked toward a consensus, like #MeThinks.

This #PR thing happens to be a very important leap of understanding for me and so I am willing to own it and stay with the leveling up I recognize. But even then, I can’t override it in other groups that desire to own it on their own or even globally if I am not diligent.

So it is not some big “everything will be corrupted” thing. It’s just a little one-case evolutionary tugging … and #meThinks that is quite healthy!

Seth says
but last time i looked … if i go #PR right here in my group, i get your definition which points to the wrong face … and not my own. I call that a corruption.

Si says
Right. Different subject. And we clearly disagree on that. I simply think you are not following the very clear trail of breadcrumbs. Have a story to illustrate the breadcrumbs for this one … but not the right time to write it down. Now that I can easily #bookmark this place, I can do it later!

Mark de LA says
PR & GW did hot have it as an ether either !

paronomasia notwithstanding. (*)

Si says
If you want it so “in your group”, put yours there in your group. Mine is only the taken one globally where groups don’t decide on their own … and only if I keep republishing mine over everyone else’s too! It is very fair. The last person to publish gets the global.

Seth says
why would your group overide the common glossary definition in my group ?

and we talk of #PR in many groups … the common glossary define it for all of them. Your definition in your own group is just your concern … and should not affect what others are saying and meaning.

Si says
It cant override one “in your group”. It can only override the previously published one in any other group … like the group glossary which is where your’s is (was anyway).

Si says
See there, you republished yours in the glossary, so for a minute yours won global. Then I republished mine and I have global again. In all cases, one “in your own group(s)” would always override the global one.

Si says
👍

Seth says
so with this scheme a person could come in and scambel all of our words. and our only recourse would be to redefine them in every form in which we talk. ← #ShirleyYouJest

Si says
No, if your memory serves you, I do plan a feature whereby the domain wizards can designate a group (in our case it would naturally be group glossary) to be inserted in precedence between group and global.

I just don’t trust you with that yet and I wanted to see how that was going to play out. I have gained a fair degree of trust in this playing out, because although you did grandstand a bit, you did not get up on your crusade horse … and I love that!

Seth says
anyway the current scheme as it is last time i looked favors disagreement and fighting over signs … i prefer one which favors agreement. i would make group glossary open or game it … let the fight happen there equal to equal for global. other than that works for me. i wonder if mark will play the game.

Si says
Okay. These are the things that are needed to continue the gaming of the feature. Very good run today!

But p.s. I did not specifically choose this #PR thing with that in mind. It came up all on it’s own. Everything I have said about it is 100% true and part of my excitement and evolution!

Seth says
i doubt that you guys are understanding what i mean by #aether here. i am saying that if you do not do it, it does not happen. the #aether way of looking at consciousness says that it happens whether we do it or not … so it would be just there. #MeThinks that is a important difference in #attitude about what this #thing is.

Seth says
“consciousness” should be a verb … it is a name for something that we do. It is not some state of what exists.

Seth says
👍

Seth says
yes #PR was an excellent example … i enjoyed it

Mark de LA says
seth you seem to be still locked in binary thinking. Ether was an old chemical concept before atoms were invented for the fine substance of materiality – not to be confused with the etheric of RS or materiality at all. Furthermore that which is consciousness is not an electronic substance or vibration or ….. it is more fundamental. I liked the notion of #CenterOfConsciousness collecting consciousness to a focal point somewhere or within something, more like (using an analogy) shining a light on something for attention to grasp.

Seth says
woopse i have been spelling it wrong … i meant #aether … as in what the Michelson-Morley esperimet proved did not exist.

Mark de LA says
It has been spelled both ways. Their concept of ether/aether is purely material not to be confused with anything such as consciousness.

Seth says
anyway i #agree “that which is consciousness is not an electronic substance or vibration”.

rather it is something that we do.

but doing it certainly does a lot of what could be called “vibrating”

Mark de LA says
Rather, casting aside any binary notions, consciousness is more fundamental like being which is not something we do.

Seth says
and for me to say to myself that “Their concept of ether/aether is purely material” would be for me to say to myself nothing at all. In my ontology there is no material/spiritual duality. I find that distinction useless and contra productive. So yes, in your thinking i have #munged them together. just a #FYI if you want to understand the things that i say.

Seth says
thing is mark … i can tell whether you are doing it or not … and you can tell whether i am doing it or not. Does that fact match with your conceptions of #consiousness ?

Mark de LA says
The Michaelson-Moreley experiment assumed that they were testing as if ether was a refined physical substance. Otherwise their experiment proved nothing. Their instruments only operate in that realm or their observations only did such.

Si says
Lots of things happen which don’t make it into your personal experience. I don’t see how “you doing it”, or even “it being done in your awareness” has anything to do with existance.

Si says
Conversation forked to thought 21842

Mark de LA says
#WTF? nathan – I don’t think you said anything related to my sayings. If you are trying to prove something to me it better be demonstrated in my awareness otherwise it is just hearsay & only as good as your #ethos which is not constant anyway.

Si says
My response was to seth’s thought 21833%252362702. What you just said is unrelated.

Mark de LA says
Maybe the entire thought here is unrelated to any reality ! Way to go! #GameOn

Si says
Why is “everything” actually “not something” in your experiences mark? What’s that about?

Mark de LA says
Didn’t say that – where did I – are you hallucinating d’A ?

Si says
Just go look. More than 90% of your comments about anything are about why or how something is not something. The comments where you state what something IS are extremely sparse. You seem to live in a world that is not, or should not be, what it is most of the time, and once in a great while is something that it should be.

Mark de LA says
Or that is just your OPINION! mostly hearsay & attempted mind reading with an already-always listening of whatever . Enjoy the #juice

Si says
No mind reading needed, just look. I just scanned all your comments on this thought for instance. Only two are not of this nature … which is high on average for you, possibly because the topic of the thought itself was a positive statement by #PR (which I still like a lot #btw) by you.

Mark de LA says
Your conversation, characterization etc is all your own stuff. enjoy!

Si says
Well, as I am saying, for those who enjoy “objective” reality as part of their belief system, it is quite objective. You, or anyone, can look and see for yourself. The comments are there and I don’t muck with them to skew the objectivity. They are all yours.

Mark de LA says
Your meaning about them is your already-always listening about me & what I say:

Si says
Oh? Then you say you don’t say what you say? Interesting!

Mark de LA says
#MakeShitUp d”A

Seth says
well nathan is interperting mark’s words differently than he is interpreting them himself. i doubt that there is any difference is which words are observed occurring. is that not what is happening?

Mark de LA says
Still your #AlreadyAlwaysListening is out, front & center.

Seth says
well #MeThinks that must always be the case. so what?

Mark de LA says
I know what my words mean. I don’t interpret them . You folks are interpreters into your own #AlreadyAlwaysListening

Mark de LA says
Unless you put some effort into & perhaps watch/listen to the video you will only hear you.
So far I don’t get that either of you have actually heard what the video expresses – even though she is not bad to watch saying it.

Seth says
i watched the video … i get what #AlreadyAlwaysListening means. that does not change the #RingsTrue of “well nathan is interperting mark’s comments differently than mark is interpreting them himself.”

so what are you saying to me in this regard mark ?

Seth says
what you comments mean to you IS your interpertation of them.

Mark de LA says
I’ve said before just because something rings true to you doesn’t mean it is true. It just means that it has a solid already-always-listening foothold in your mind.

Seth says
👍

Seth says
#agree that is the way i see it too

… and yet that is all we have to think with … there being no authority to whom we can consult.

Mark de LA says
no need for authority – not your choice anyway (#bug-a-boo) – give being to the other in communication such that you can hear their being.

Seth says
👍

Seth says
okay fair enough … so you are saying try to interpret anthers thoughts as you think they are interperting them their selves. I will go with that

… a good thing to do.

Mark de LA says
Less of a #jumble & more ontological I would say, al la the movie, that give being to their being the way they are & that is OK & then listen carefully & see if you could repeat what they are saying in their own words & equivalent words without contradictions. Why repeat even? Arguing seems to be a habit within the aura of #RWG .

Seth says
now nathan observed that your comments are usually about something that you are not doing or somebody else is not doing. they are rarely about what you are doing or somebody else is doing. i have observed the same thing.

Mark de LA says
So if it were true so (probably not within just a poll of 2 people) what? He is somehow holding it as NOT OK.

Seth says
i though mostly he was only reporting his observation. but #IDoNotKnow, maybe he was judging your behavior. but so what … after all we judge each other’s behavior all the time.

if sombody saw me scratching my leg, they might say, “that is going to make you soar” … and they would be correct … even though it is totally me that i scratch my leg … i do it quite intentionally. i presume that is the same kind of thing that he was saying.

Mark de LA says
Maybe – maybe not. Anyway arguing , especially about others, is not my favorite form of communication. I don’t need it. I usually have a firm grasp of whatever I am talking about or know my limits in the area. I rarely experience new stuff or insights from stuff argued from others who are not even listening to what I am saying.

Seth says
#AsYouWish

Mark de LA says
I grew up with a hell of a dose of arguments from the older folks. Rarely was it pleasant. The good news is that I am all grown up now & free of it (don’t have to listen to it any more) , mostly only the younger generation remains. I suspect that at least seth would like such to remain in the past or is willing to cut it loose – to rise above it. I once had a dream in which there were 3 or more genesthais in a group – maybe even in the warehouse – where I don’t know. In my dream they were somewhat cooperative – not all at cross purposes .

Seth says
well okay

. but i guess you know that it is your own #AlreadyAlwaysListening that is telling you that we are argueing. that is not what i am intending to do. you should know by now that i am more into the #cooperation end of things … and how our thoughts usefully interact.

Si says
All I did was ask “What’s that about?”. I didn’t spin it … don’t have a judgement. Asking what the thing I observe is about.

Now, you got all defensive about my asking. What’s that about? Psychology 101 says that people get defensive when they are judging something wrong about themselves. Are you? Your the one who is claiming high degree of consciousness about yourself. These should be easy answers for you.

Mark de LA says
Yep, still at it. Happy Hallowe’en .

Si says
I did watch the fun video. And now I am really starting to get this #AlreadyAlwaysListening thing. It is what you do with everything I say, especially if it is about #LOA

What process creates consciousness?

Tags

Comments

See Also