|
Post by topology on Jul 1, 2013 8:16:40 GMT -5
Greetings.. The word "apply" implies control. Being the over-educated sack of flesh that I am (poetic license please), I've realized that I have no control over whether knowledge comes to me or doesn't. When I sit down in front of a mathematics problem, the accumulated knowledge springs forth (assuming I am healthy and my mind is not obsessed with something else). The application of the knowledge is automatic. The mind goes to problem solving until the perceived problem is solved. I've come to realize it is a process that performs more efficiently the less I'm trying to control it or force it to happen. The more clearly I see and understand a relationship, the more clearly that understanding gets "applied" in the relevant contexts (automatically). "what is" is ever present. The application of that seeing happens automatically. The only point of "control" I've found is perhaps in the willingness to be informed by seeing "what is" clearly. But there are many unconscious and sub-conscious factors vying to fight to stay in control and are unwilling to see clearly (in most folks, including me). Are you seeking approval for what you believe? Be well.. Tzu, you just got done saying you were wanting to engage over the subject of who is applying what and how, and so I engaged. Now you are asking if I'm seeking a pat on the head? Are you going to engage or not? When I observe what is happening, this is what I see happening. Do you have contention with what I wrote? Or is this what you see as well?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 1, 2013 8:34:45 GMT -5
Greetings.. Are you seeking approval for what you believe? Be well.. Tzu, you just got done saying you were wanting to engage over the subject of who is applying what and how, and so I engaged. Now you are asking if I'm seeking a pat on the head? Are you going to engage or not? When I observe what is happening, this is what I see happening. Do you have contention with what I wrote? Or is this what you see as well? You say you 'have no control', that to 'apply' implies control.. yes, i contend with that.. you choose what knowledge comes your way, you choose to be, as you put it, "over-educated", you choose the path of higher education.. you consistently present the same message, then ask if people agree.. to engage with is redundant, you state you have no control and so the engaging seems pointless, but i'll try.. You say the " application of knowledge is automatic", and you say that to 'apply' implies control which you say you don't have.. i don't understand how this mental contortion works.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 10:44:45 GMT -5
Greetings.. Are you seeking approval for what you believe? Be well.. Tzu, you just got done saying you were wanting to engage over the subject of who is applying what and how, and so I engaged. Now you are asking if I'm seeking a pat on the head? Are you going to engage or not? When I observe what is happening, this is what I see happening. Do you have contention with what I wrote? Or is this what you see as well? Tzu wants you to draw your sword so that he can draw blood. It's part of his still mind movement toward peace.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 1, 2013 11:14:48 GMT -5
Greetings.. Tzu, you just got done saying you were wanting to engage over the subject of who is applying what and how, and so I engaged. Now you are asking if I'm seeking a pat on the head? Are you going to engage or not? When I observe what is happening, this is what I see happening. Do you have contention with what I wrote? Or is this what you see as well? Tzu wants you to draw your sword so that he can draw blood. It's part of his still mind movement toward peace. <contains imaginary beliefs> Be well..
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 1, 2013 12:10:41 GMT -5
Tzu, you just got done saying you were wanting to engage over the subject of who is applying what and how, and so I engaged. Now you are asking if I'm seeking a pat on the head? Are you going to engage or not? When I observe what is happening, this is what I see happening. Do you have contention with what I wrote? Or is this what you see as well? You say you 'have no control', that to 'apply' implies control.. yes, i contend with that.. you choose what knowledge comes your way, you choose to be, as you put it, "over-educated", you choose the path of higher education.. you consistently present the same message, then ask if people agree.. to engage with is redundant, you state you have no control and so the engaging seems pointless, but i'll try.. You say the " application of knowledge is automatic", and you say that to 'apply' implies control which you say you don't have.. i don't understand how this mental contortion works.. Be well.. My 'choosing' was automatic, an expression of the preferences that I have and have no control over to change. I wasn't sure if you were using the term "apply" in the active control sense or in the sense of something just happening, a process which happens automatically like a chemical reaction. Given what you've posted previously, I assume you meant the active-control sense and that is the most common interpretation of events. Here is how language works for me and in my mind. Words evoke pictures. In order to get the right picture conveyed a sequence of words can add to or subtract from the picture being built. I used the term "application" to evoke the default meaning, but then I tweaked the picture arising to replace the volitional control presupposition with what I perceive to be actually happening. Look at the following: 1 + 1 = ? ---- Assuming your mind is not anesthetized, the symbols arranged thusly evoke a very ingrained pattern of thought. That there is a whole thought-form to be completed evokes a pressure to fill that missing component and complete the pattern. 1 + 1 = 3 The thought form now is askew from the standard pattern which creates cognitive dissonance. 1 + 1 = 2 There is no cognitive dissonance here. ----------- None of this took volition, choice or control, it was all automatic. I writing this post, I am not choosing the words, they are arising to be said. There is a quality-control feed-back loop which will re-edit what is said until the cognitive dissonance subsides, but the choice in what words to say is not something I control or direct. Do you understand my explanation for why I used the word "application"? It was to directly evoke that concept that has control baked into it so that the image could be modified and corrected, hence the surrounding explanation of the absence of control.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 2, 2013 9:31:07 GMT -5
You say you 'have no control', that to 'apply' implies control.. yes, i contend with that.. you choose what knowledge comes your way, you choose to be, as you put it, "over-educated", you choose the path of higher education.. you consistently present the same message, then ask if people agree.. to engage with is redundant, you state you have no control and so the engaging seems pointless, but i'll try.. You say the " application of knowledge is automatic", and you say that to 'apply' implies control which you say you don't have.. i don't understand how this mental contortion works.. Be well.. My 'choosing' was automatic, an expression of the preferences that I have and have no control over to change. I wasn't sure if you were using the term "apply" in the active control sense or in the sense of something just happening, a process which happens automatically like a chemical reaction. Given what you've posted previously, I assume you meant the active-control sense and that is the most common interpretation of events. Here is how language works for me and in my mind. Words evoke pictures. In order to get the right picture conveyed a sequence of words can add to or subtract from the picture being built. I used the term "application" to evoke the default meaning, but then I tweaked the picture arising to replace the volitional control presupposition with what I perceive to be actually happening. Look at the following: 1 + 1 = ? ---- Assuming your mind is not anesthetized, the symbols arranged thusly evoke a very ingrained pattern of thought. That there is a whole thought-form to be completed evokes a pressure to fill that missing component and complete the pattern. 1 + 1 = 3 The thought form now is askew from the standard pattern which creates cognitive dissonance. 1 + 1 = 2 There is no cognitive dissonance here. ----------- None of this took volition, choice or control, it was all automatic. I writing this post, I am not choosing the words, they are arising to be said. There is a quality-control feed-back loop which will re-edit what is said until the cognitive dissonance subsides, but the choice in what words to say is not something I control or direct. Do you understand my explanation for why I used the word "application"? It was to directly evoke that concept that has control baked into it so that the image could be modified and corrected, hence the surrounding explanation of the absence of control. Look at the highlighted text.. do you see where 'you' exercised control, where 'you' tweaked the picture? have you ever typed a word or phrase, realized a better way to state your understanding, and corrected what you had typed? You may find comfort in believing that you don't have control, but 'that' is you exercising control over your beliefs.. It is my understanding that you have adopted a model, and are intent on fitting what is actually happening into that model.. you are thinking/imagining ways to explain how your model works, and you are a very good 'thinker'.. i suspect that you have difficulties with the still mind condition, that you try to 'think it' into happening.. allow yourself the freedom to stop thinking, freedom from the 'known'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 2, 2013 9:41:17 GMT -5
<thinking out loud> I wonder where this thread would go if it were on the brand spanking new Hell's Kitchen side of the forum.</thinking out loud>
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 2, 2013 10:04:56 GMT -5
My 'choosing' was automatic, an expression of the preferences that I have and have no control over to change. I wasn't sure if you were using the term "apply" in the active control sense or in the sense of something just happening, a process which happens automatically like a chemical reaction. Given what you've posted previously, I assume you meant the active-control sense and that is the most common interpretation of events. Here is how language works for me and in my mind. Words evoke pictures. In order to get the right picture conveyed a sequence of words can add to or subtract from the picture being built. I used the term "application" to evoke the default meaning, but then I tweaked the picture arising to replace the volitional control presupposition with what I perceive to be actually happening. Look at the following: 1 + 1 = ? ---- Assuming your mind is not anesthetized, the symbols arranged thusly evoke a very ingrained pattern of thought. That there is a whole thought-form to be completed evokes a pressure to fill that missing component and complete the pattern. 1 + 1 = 3 The thought form now is askew from the standard pattern which creates cognitive dissonance. 1 + 1 = 2 There is no cognitive dissonance here. ----------- None of this took volition, choice or control, it was all automatic. I writing this post, I am not choosing the words, they are arising to be said. There is a quality-control feed-back loop which will re-edit what is said until the cognitive dissonance subsides, but the choice in what words to say is not something I control or direct. Do you understand my explanation for why I used the word "application"? It was to directly evoke that concept that has control baked into it so that the image could be modified and corrected, hence the surrounding explanation of the absence of control. Look at the highlighted text.. do you see where 'you' exercised control, where 'you' tweaked the picture? have you ever typed a word or phrase, realized a better way to state your understanding, and corrected what you had typed? You may find comfort in believing that you don't have control, but 'that' is you exercising control over your beliefs.. It is my understanding that you have adopted a model, and are intent on fitting what is actually happening into that model.. you are thinking/imagining ways to explain how your model works, and you are a very good 'thinker'.. i suspect that you have difficulties with the still mind condition, that you try to 'think it' into happening.. allow yourself the freedom to stop thinking, freedom from the 'known'.. Be well.. What is control, Tzu? When I say "I tweaked the text" you'll have to grant poetic license. That's how the word generator operates. If the word generator were to try to sanitize speech to be maximally reflective of what is perceived from the perspective of observing it would look something like this: An image comes to mind and the word generator boots up to translate that image into text. As the word generator types, the word reader checks that the image generated from reading is structurally a match to the image that the words are trying to model. If there is a discrepancy between the image stimulating the word-generator and the image rendered by the word-reader, the word generator re-edits the stream of words until the word-reader renders a close enough image. That is accurately descriptive of the experience from pure-observation of what is happening. "I tweaked the text" is not only shorter (very convenient) it is also more acceptable to say when conversing with other thought-streams. Already you are giving me social-feedback saying that the way I talk about things and see things is not acceptable. If I talked the way I actually experience things, I would be locked up for sounding crazy. Society and personally identified people require that I identify myself with the mind, personality, word-generator, word-reader, body, etc. If I identify myself as consciousness itself or as the experiencer, I start to get funny looks and become more irritating to peeps than I already am. Your invitations to me to stop thinking are a veiled way of asking me to shut up because you don't like the images that your word-reader renders when it reads my (and certain other people's) text.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 2, 2013 10:08:01 GMT -5
<thinking out loud> I wonder where this thread would go if it were on the brand spanking new Hell's Kitchen side of the forum.</thinking out loud> It would be better to just start new threads there or let Peter move them over as he sees fit. There is momentum here. As long as the discussion is not getting personal, there's no reason to move it.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 2, 2013 10:13:14 GMT -5
<thinking out loud> I wonder where this thread would go if it were on the brand spanking new Hell's Kitchen side of the forum.</thinking out loud> It would be better to just start new threads there or let Peter move them over as he sees fit. There is momentum here. As long as the discussion is not getting personal, there's no reason to move it. Ok...but he won't move them over there - I don't think - unless and until someone requests it (?) (Sometimes, like on this last page, seems it gets sorta borderline on the personal...*shrug*)
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 2, 2013 10:41:41 GMT -5
Greetings.. Look at the highlighted text.. do you see where 'you' exercised control, where 'you' tweaked the picture? have you ever typed a word or phrase, realized a better way to state your understanding, and corrected what you had typed? You may find comfort in believing that you don't have control, but 'that' is you exercising control over your beliefs.. It is my understanding that you have adopted a model, and are intent on fitting what is actually happening into that model.. you are thinking/imagining ways to explain how your model works, and you are a very good 'thinker'.. i suspect that you have difficulties with the still mind condition, that you try to 'think it' into happening.. allow yourself the freedom to stop thinking, freedom from the 'known'.. Be well.. What is control, Tzu? When I say "I tweaked the text" you'll have to grant poetic license. That's how the word generator operates. If the word generator were to try to sanitize speech to be maximally reflective of what is perceived from the perspective of observing it would look something like this: An image comes to mind and the word generator boots up to translate that image into text. As the word generator types, the word reader checks that the image generated from reading is structurally a match to the image that the words are trying to model. If there is a discrepancy between the image stimulating the word-generator and the image rendered by the word-reader, the word generator re-edits the stream of words until the word-reader renders a close enough image. That is accurately descriptive of the experience from pure-observation of what is happening. "I tweaked the text" is not only shorter (very convenient) it is also more acceptable to say when conversing with other thought-streams. Already you are giving me social-feedback saying that the way I talk about things and see things is not acceptable. If I talked the way I actually experience things, I would be locked up for sounding crazy. Society and personally identified people require that I identify myself with the mind, personality, word-generator, word-reader, body, etc. If I identify myself as consciousness itself or as the experiencer, I start to get funny looks and become more irritating to peeps than I already am. Your invitations to me to stop thinking are a veiled way of asking me to shut up because you don't like the images that your word-reader renders when it reads my (and certain other people's) text. No, Top.. i'm asking you to "stop thinking" for 'your own' benefit.. we've had great discussions, up and until you chose 'this model', i'm interested in 'you'.. look at the text walls of 'thinking' you need to explain your 'model', it's 'you' trying to 'control' how others perceive 'you'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 2, 2013 11:00:13 GMT -5
Greetings.. What is control, Tzu? When I say "I tweaked the text" you'll have to grant poetic license. That's how the word generator operates. If the word generator were to try to sanitize speech to be maximally reflective of what is perceived from the perspective of observing it would look something like this: An image comes to mind and the word generator boots up to translate that image into text. As the word generator types, the word reader checks that the image generated from reading is structurally a match to the image that the words are trying to model. If there is a discrepancy between the image stimulating the word-generator and the image rendered by the word-reader, the word generator re-edits the stream of words until the word-reader renders a close enough image. That is accurately descriptive of the experience from pure-observation of what is happening. "I tweaked the text" is not only shorter (very convenient) it is also more acceptable to say when conversing with other thought-streams. Already you are giving me social-feedback saying that the way I talk about things and see things is not acceptable. If I talked the way I actually experience things, I would be locked up for sounding crazy. Society and personally identified people require that I identify myself with the mind, personality, word-generator, word-reader, body, etc. If I identify myself as consciousness itself or as the experiencer, I start to get funny looks and become more irritating to peeps than I already am. Your invitations to me to stop thinking are a veiled way of asking me to shut up because you don't like the images that your word-reader renders when it reads my (and certain other people's) text. No, Top.. i'm asking you to "stop thinking" for 'your own' benefit.. we've had great discussions, up and until you chose 'this model', i'm interested in 'you'.. look at the text walls of 'thinking' you need to explain your 'model', it's 'you' trying to 'control' how others perceive 'you'.. Be well.. I've had this model even during our great discussions on SF. You perceive me however you want, but please acknowledge the fact that you are asking me to change because you are rejecting how I am currently expressing. You don't like the way I'm talking. Perhaps could you explain more about what you feel like I'm missing out on, what loss you perceive, that you have this concern for me?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 2, 2013 12:17:14 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. No, Top.. i'm asking you to "stop thinking" for 'your own' benefit.. we've had great discussions, up and until you chose 'this model', i'm interested in 'you'.. look at the text walls of 'thinking' you need to explain your 'model', it's 'you' trying to 'control' how others perceive 'you'.. Be well.. I've had this model even during our great discussions on SF. You perceive me however you want, but please acknowledge the fact that you are asking me to change because you are rejecting how I am currently expressing. You don't like the way I'm talking. Perhaps could you explain more about what you feel like I'm missing out on, what loss you perceive, that you have this concern for me? Freedom from your incessant need to 'think', freedom from 'knowing'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 2, 2013 12:28:55 GMT -5
Greetings.. I've had this model even during our great discussions on SF. You perceive me however you want, but please acknowledge the fact that you are asking me to change because you are rejecting how I am currently expressing. You don't like the way I'm talking. Perhaps could you explain more about what you feel like I'm missing out on, what loss you perceive, that you have this concern for me? Freedom from your incessant need to 'think', freedom from 'knowing'.. Be well.. My freedom your your freedom from my "incessant need to think"? You're the one that's asking for freedom, I already feel free.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 2, 2013 14:21:06 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Freedom from your incessant need to 'think', freedom from 'knowing'.. Be well.. My freedom your your freedom from my "incessant need to think"? You're the one that's asking for freedom, I already feel free. Great!! Be well..
|
|