A New Respect for The Specific

(this item was written originally in such a way that it suggested that i never wanted advise from others ... but that is very definitely not what it was about ... i barely got to the essence of what i was saying ... except perhaps the last sentence ... and more in the comment section ... note the bolded "work in progress" warning)
 
 
Anyone who really knows me might know that i struggle.   My intentions are honorable ... my deeds, well not always so very.   Please now spare me your judgments and your advises.  You Maharishis, you Tony Robbins, you Dr Phils, you Laura Schlesingers, please do keep your mouths shut.  

I am sure that you have discovered some deep secret about life  ...  you have found your piece of mind; and, your desire of my profit notwithstanding, might even have a  workable resolution of my struggle.  My problem with that is simply it is not me ... it is not mine ... and it is not at all specific to my struggle.  You have there a mere generalization that you are peddling to me.   And it is way way too general ... for it does not respect the depth of my specificity ... it has absolutely no respect for that.  It is a bludgeon, where a sensitive wand is required.  Please, please, i really would rather do it my specific self.

a work in progress ...

#ThereIsOnlyOneOfMe #particular #unique #identity

Comments


Maybe the uniqueness mythology is part of the ego's survival strategy, eh?  There are so many egos who spend their entire lives trying to be unique & different from anyone else that they become the same as everyone else, eh? It's a Tao kind of thingy, eh?

 ... ... ...

source: M above
There are so many egos who spend their entire lives trying to be unique & different from anyone else
I have no agenda or intention or effort to be different from anyone else.   Where i am the same i feel great about that sameness. There is a lot of that sameness. 

That said, then this is not about that ... please to get over it ... but thanks for bringing it up ... it clarifies what this thought is not about .

I am unique just because of my unique heritage, my unique history, and my unique current predicament.  There is no struggle to make that be the case ... and there is no change necessary for that to be so.  This case is also true for you.



M 2010-09-09 06:50:31 thought 14275
It would probably be more zen not to comment at all & yet I choose not always to be zen. For a title as grand as A New Respect for the Specific you seem to have fallen in a pot of generalism without much specific. The tone is somewhat familiar to the old Billy Joel song.
I guess communication doesn't always work! OTOH, NLP says that the results of your communication is the response you get. That is, after all, the holistic approach ... so perhaps I should just make this disappear .... later ....
Well yeah ...
source: Billy Joel
I don't need you to worry for me cause I'm alright
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life
Go ahead with your own life, []
... certainly is part of the theme of the first paragraph, but there is no [leave me alone] message in it. 

That said, and digested, perhaps i should go on with the thought.  

This  thought is not really about you or even your relationship to me.  (The "you" here is a variable and can stand for anyone.)  NO!  This though is about me and my  attitude towards myself.   That at least i know this morning about this illusive thought that is hard to come back to.  Do i respect myself as a unique particular thingey or do i generalize and adopt some attitude twards myself that i got from my upbringing or from some guru or some book or some main stream media production ... i.e. some generalization on what a human is supposed to be? 


There is an old adage: "the exception proves the rule".  Which is a strage way of saying it ... but what is very true is that whatever general thing you know, there is always some exception, which according to the rule should apply, but does not.  What we have here is not just an expression of the limitation of modus ponens, but rather ... when it applies to me (you too lol) ... its complete overthrow.

Ask yourself ... when you talk to yourself, do you talk to a generalization ...  do you talk some instance of general classes in your particular ontology ... or do you talk to something which ... although can be classified ... is not a member of any of those classes (LOL).

seth 2010-09-10 07:46:14 thought 14275
There is an old adage: "the exception proves the rule".  Which is a strage way of saying it ... but what is very true is that whatever general thing you know, there is always some exception, which according to the rule should apply, but does not.  What we have here is not just an expression of the limitation of modus ponens, but rather ... when it applies to me (you too lol) ... its complete overthrow.

Ask yourself ... when you talk to yourself, do you talk to a generalization ...  do you talk some instance of general classes in your particular ontology ... or do you talk to something which ... although can be classified ... is not a member of any of those classes (LOL).
     The self-puzzle (&/or seeking for self) shows up in the first part of BofNK. An interesting eek! shows up when I gave it (& all of it's shadows) up briefly to see what's really there.  I am not my story.  I am not my history.  I am not my predicaments.  I am not my struggle. I am ?I am well aware that most of the things I say apply to myself as well.  That gets very clear when I have arguments with T. 
     My inner dialogue is almost exclusively with personalities living & dead (or on TV & in the movies ). I don't do well talking to abstractions. I will look in there & see what shows up. Occasionally, I imagine if I were president what I would say to the people or the country. If I blog them, though, I understand in the background that the responses are most likely coming from you!  The analytics into classes is after the thought & not during or before it. MP is a nice bit of linguistics which helps people go into a hypnotic trance.

 I did find a couple of abstract entities that I carry on conversations with; one being my computer & the other being fate (or what I like to call the lords of karma). The two came together the other day when the mother board of my main computer crashed when I came back from vacation. Some of the tone of the conversations were impolite!

C 2010-09-11 08:24:21 thought 14275
 I did find a couple of abstract entities that I carry on conversations with; one being my computer & the other being fate (or what I like to call the lords of karma). The two came together the other day when the mother board of my main computer crashed when I came back from vacation. Some of the tone of the conversations were impolite!
that train goes better on Why does Communication not work and it is best not to confuse it with this item here.

seth 2010-09-11 08:46:45 thought 14275
C 2010-09-11 08:24:21 thought 14275
 I did find a couple of abstract entities that I carry on conversations with; one being my computer & the other being fate (or what I like to call the lords of karma). The two came together the other day when the mother board of my main computer crashed when I came back from vacation. Some of the tone of the conversations were impolite!
that train goes better on Why does Communication not work and it is best not to confuse it with this item here.
This one appends my answer to your rhetorical question:
Seth (above): ... Ask yourself ... when you talk to yourself, do you talk to a generalization ...  do you talk some instance of general classes in your particular ontology ... or do you talk to something which ... although can be classified ... is not a member of any of those classes (LOL).

...

source: M above
I am not my story.  I am not my history.  I am not my predicaments.  I am not my struggle. I am ?I am well aware that most of the things I say apply to myself as well.  That gets very clear when I have arguments with T.
Well at least we are starting to talk about approximately the same thing.  But, note that this thought is still and all not all that very much about what I am.  It is not your classic search for "What am I?".   NO!  What I am is not the question ... the question is more in the direction of "How do i feel towards myself?"  ... or perhaps what attitude should i adopt towards myself ... at any particular time in response to some particular circumstance. 

Think about this:  Do you love yourself sometimes ?  Do you love yourself somtimes because you are unique?  Well, if you do, then you are loving yourself because of a generality ... woopse! ... we have thrown out modus ponens , so your love can't work that way.  See in this though I am trying to become more tangible ... less mystical ... less Zen ... more into what I actually do.

seth 2010-09-11 08:44:13 thought 14275
source: M above
I am not my story.  I am not my history.  I am not my predicaments.  I am not my struggle. I am ?I am well aware that most of the things I say apply to myself as well.  That gets very clear when I have arguments with T.
Well at least we are starting to talk about approximately the same thing.  But, note that this thought is still and all not all that very much about what I am.  It is not your classic search for "What am I?".   NO!  What I am is not the question ... the question is more in the direction of "How do i feel towards myself?"  ... or perhaps what attitude should i adopt towards myself ... at any particular time in response to some particular circumstance. 

Think about this:  Do you love yourself sometimes ?  Do you love yourself somtimes because you are unique?  Well, if you do, then you are loving yourself because of a generality ... woopse! ... we have thrown out modus ponens , so your love can't work that way.  See in this though I am trying to become more tangible ... less mystical ... less Zen ... more into what I actually do.
Zen is not mystical.  It does have history but most that practice it as ontology don't even think of it as a religion - I don't.  Your questions express a duality which disappears once you grok directly who you are.  Otherwise, you seem to be traveling in the direction of psychology. Self-esteem is part of the survival strategy of the self - not part of essential being.


Seth (above): ...
Well the "who you are" question is loaded with way too many assumptions for me.    I rather not even ask it.  Maybe you can educate me what it means to you.  Your "essential being" must refer to something ... i don't know what.  You seem to imply that what this essential being experiences and does is not part of itself.   That would seem to put it outside of my experience  and ability to talk about it, since nothing that i can experience or do can be used.   So how is it  that you seem to think that you can talk about it ... how are you different than me, such that you can write true sentences about something that i cant.Me, i was trying to talk ... perhaps about the same subject ... but instead drawing on my experience and actions.   Ask yourself again, when you love something, how does it feel?
... Hmmmm...  Questions are not loaded with assumptions - it's the answers. Guided by the methodology expressed in BofNK I practice an inquiry thus: (para 21:58) paraphrased to generality as it was tailored for the subject of my awareness itself.
  • Get into NOW - aware of this moment
  • Locate the subject or clarify exactly what you want to contemplate [the subject]
  • Create the possibility of becoming conscious of the true nature of what you are contemplating
  • Right now, intend to become conscious of the true nature of what you are contemplating
  • Allow yourself to not-know what it really is & open up to the possibility of experiencing something beyond what you are experiencing right now, or something different in what you are experiencing now. [this is the part where you shed your assumptions, past and other things you think you know about the subject]
  • Keep your attention focused on the subject without distraction or break.  If you lose your focus, continually return your attention to the presence of what you are contemplating.
  • Truly wonder as you ask the question: "What is ....."

If what shows up isn't expressible in words - so be it! Contemplating "Who am I?" is such an endeavor so far.  Maybe it is possible some day to put it into words. I don't know.  Are there assumptions in the above methodology? The only ones I know about are the ones that assume you can do the process suggested with honesty & not the bias, assumptions & all the other shit which begins to show up once you start! The book is 581 pages - not easy to digest in a comment. So far I have been fairly successful every time I genuinely try it.

 



M 2010-09-11 11:11:06 thought 14275
seth 2010-09-11 08:44:13 thought 14275
source: M above
I am not my story.  I am not my history.  I am not my predicaments.  I am not my struggle. I am ?I am well aware that most of the things I say apply to myself as well.  That gets very clear when I have arguments with T.
Well at least we are starting to talk about approximately the same thing.  But, note that this thought is still and all not all that very much about what I am.  It is not your classic search for "What am I?".   NO!  What I am is not the question ... the question is more in the direction of "How do i feel towards myself?"  ... or perhaps what attitude should i adopt towards myself ... at any particular time in response to some particular circumstance. 

Think about this:  Do you love yourself sometimes ?  Do you love yourself somtimes because you are unique?  Well, if you do, then you are loving yourself because of a generality ... woopse! ... we have thrown out modus ponens , so your love can't work that way.  See in this though I am trying to become more tangible ... less mystical ... less Zen ... more into what I actually do.
Zen is not mystical.  It does have history but most that practice it as ontology don't even think of it as a religion - I don't.  Your questions express a duality which disappears once you grok directly who you are.  Otherwise, you seem to be traveling in the direction of psychology. Self-esteem is part of the survival strategy of the self - not part of essential being.

Well the "who you are" question is loaded with way too many assumptions for me.    I rather not even ask it.  Maybe you can educate me what it means to you.  Your "essential being" must refer to something ... i don't know what.  You seem to imply that what this essential being experiences and does is not part of itself.   That would seem to put it outside of my experience  and ability to talk about it, since nothing that i can experience or do can be used.   So how is it  that you seem to think that you can talk about it ... how are you different than me, such that you can write true sentences about something that i cant?

Me, i was trying to talk ... perhaps about the same subject ... but instead drawing on my experience and actions.   Ask yourself again, when you love something, how does it feel?  When you do something for which you would say,
 
  ... " Wow! i loved doing that", ...

does not the "i" in that true sentence refer directly to you?

To answer your question I would probably have to contemplate the question "What is Love?" & move on from there.


seth 2010-09-14 09:21:11 thought 14275
Well there are different ways to look at this.   To me, what i am, or who i am is my choice.  I choose it to be that which experiences some sequence of experiences.  For example i am that which {looked up at the evening sky yesterday and felt love toward the crescent moon, which also cooked a bean pie with a pot of pinto beans from a recipe from grandma, which also picked some blackberries and made a dessert which sucked, which also ..., ...., ...}.  I am that specific continuing sequence.  To me that is tangeable, specific, and there is no way i can honestly deny that i am that thing. 

But personally i don't think there is necessarily a right  or a wrong thing to choose something to be.  I could have choose to be a metaphysical being that started before my birth, of which i have no memories, and will last after my death.  I think that is what you have chosen.  But to me it is quite arbitrary what you choose.  Whatever you choose it does not change the experiences themselves ... those are the only things which are real ... the rest is just  semantics and choices of which words refer to what real objects or changes. 

Now if you choose to be something of which there is nothing in your experiences or memories, then, me thinks, you are in LaLa land.
I experience who I am all the time & with varying degrees of attention, awareness & consciousness. I am not my history of experiences! The razor-point of NOW has no audit trail & yet I am still there, always.  I suspect you are playing more with a survival-self than anything else. Choosing is a ego survival strategy.  Being is not concerned with survival - it just IS! The other day I got to a point of I am nothing, but that volcano still has concepts in it - good though. "To be or not to be" - is that the question?


Well there are different ways to look at this.   To me, what i am, or who i am is my choice.  I choose it to be that which experiences some sequence of experiences.  For example i am that which {looked up at the evening sky yesterday and felt love toward the crescent moon, which also cooked a bean pie with a pot of pinto beans from a recipe from grandma, which also picked some blackberries and made a dessert which sucked, which also ..., ...., ...}.  I am that specific continuing sequence.  To me that is tangeable, specific, and there is no way i can honestly deny that i am that thing. 

But personally i don't think there is necessarily a right  or a wrong thing to choose something to be.  I could have choose to be a metaphysical being that started before my birth, of which i have no memories, and will last after my death.  I think that is what you have chosen.  But to me it is quite arbitrary what you choose.  Whatever you choose it does not change the experiences themselves ... those are the only things which are real ... the rest is just  semantics and choices of which words refer to what real objects or changes. 

Now if you choose to be something of which there is nothing in your experiences or memories, then, me thinks, you are in LaLa land.

C 2010-09-15 05:50:56 thought 14275
seth 2010-09-15 01:52:50 thought 14275
source: C above
I am not my history of experiences!
Well certainly what you do is at least a part of you, is it not?
It's one of the things I have like a computer & the morning turd in my colon & my whole body. From a being perspective, i.e. who I am, it influences, I draw from it, & use it - but no!  I am not just an automaton of the past.

What evidence or experience do you have which indicates that you are "not just an automaton of the past" ?  A satisfying answer to my  question will describe specific experiences or other specific objective facts.

seth 2010-09-15 01:52:50 thought 14275
source: C above
I am not my history of experiences!
Well certainly what you do is at least a part of you, is it not?
It's one of the things I have like a computer & the morning turd in my colon & my whole body. From a being perspective, i.e. who I am, it influences, I draw from it, & use it - but no!  I am not just an automaton of the past.


seth 2010-09-15 07:30:27 thought 14275
C 2010-09-15 05:50:56 thought 14275
seth 2010-09-15 01:52:50 thought 14275
source: C above
I am not my history of experiences!
Well certainly what you do is at least a part of you, is it not?
It's one of the things I have like a computer & the morning turd in my colon & my whole body. From a being perspective, i.e. who I am, it influences, I draw from it, & use it - but no!  I am not just an automaton of the past.

What evidence or experience do you have which indicates that you are "not just an automaton of the past" ?  A satisfying answer to my  question will describe specific experiences or other specific objective facts.
   Outside of the fact that you are asking me to prove a negative & outside of the fact that you want answers without doing the actual work of contemplation, meditation or even GW's mathematics lies many things. Perhaps you are an automaton of the past!
   I suggest that I am able to attain to new & different worlds & world outlooks not previously programmed by my history. I was alone (~ 6 yrs old) when I first discovered something relative to who I am - something like self-consciousness.  Strangely enough, although my personality evolves from time to time & since then, being a product of knowledge & history, this sense of self doesn't seem to change. It only becomes more intense or conscious. The more I do the work of contemplation the more the volcano erupts!
   Please don't confuse your concepts with what's so. Adding more concepts will not get to the core answers to the question as a direct experience. Zen is only a 3-letter word - quite simple! It is a tool, not the answer.


source: C above
Perhaps you are an automaton of the past!
There are several interesting aspects to your prior response to me.  I'll respond to each of them separately, so that we can keep focused and the trains of thought not confusing each other.  This one is perhaps the most interesting.

I think that i am primarily an automaton of my past.  The emphasis and qualifier in that true sentence is "primarily".  I believe that most of my behavior is in fact  habitual. But there are lots of times when i make changes in that habitual behavior by either taking actions where my habits would go in another direction, or by choosing attitudes towards events and experiences where my habitual attitudes would be different (I can provide specific examples if you need them).   I'm glad that i have that ability, and i am  sure you have it too.  This is part and parcel of what i call plastic habits.  

Do you acknowledge that your actions and attitudes are primarily habitual?

BBTW, You may only know me through my behavior, history & all that stuff - but you won't grok who I am if that is where you put all your focus.


M 2010-09-15 10:19:39 thought 14275
M 2010-09-15 10:18:24 thought 14275
seth 2010-09-15 10:12:54 thought 14275
source: C above
Perhaps you are an automaton of the past!
There are several interesting aspects to your prior response to me.  I’ll respond to each of them separately, so that we can keep focused and the trains of thought not confusing each other.  This one is perhaps the most interesting.

I think that i am primarily an automaton of my past.  The emphasis and qualifier in that true sentence is "primarily".  I believe that most of my behavior is in fact  habitual. But there are lots of times when i make changes in that habitual behavior by either taking actions where my habits would go in another direction, or by choosing attitudes towards events and experiences where my habitual attitudes would be different (I can provide specific examples if you need them).   I’m glad that i have that ability, and i am  sure you have it too.  This is part and parcel of what i call plastic habits.  

Do you acknowledge that your actions and attitudes are primarily habitual?
Primarily is your word.  Your conclusion that habits make you an automaton of the past doesn’t support that "who you are" is all that.  I have habits. I am not my habits.
BTW, I have behavior and I am not my behavior.
Well actually syntactically, at least in English, you do not "have" behavior, you do it.  We say "I mow the lawn"  ... we do not say "i have mow the lawn".   It’s not at all clear to me what the distinction you are trying to make is.  Mentographically i draw a circle and say it represents you (or me).  Then i would draw arrows from that to separate nodes each of which would represent specific actions or classess of actions.  Those arrows i would label with "do".   If i had a social contract that allowed me to say that i possess the computer in front of me, then i would respresnet it with a node and draw a relationship between it and me and label that with "have".  That, to me, would represent the facts of the matter.  Were i to label both of those arrows with the one word "have" it would, truly, confuse my thinking.

I am disappointed that you did not answer my question directly.  It woud help focus at least what we agree upon.  So again ...

Do you acknowledge that your actions and attitudes are primarily habitual?

M 2010-09-15 10:18:24 thought 14275
seth 2010-09-15 10:12:54 thought 14275
source: C above
Perhaps you are an automaton of the past!
There are several interesting aspects to your prior response to me.  I'll respond to each of them separately, so that we can keep focused and the trains of thought not confusing each other.  This one is perhaps the most interesting.

I think that i am primarily an automaton of my past.  The emphasis and qualifier in that true sentence is "primarily".  I believe that most of my behavior is in fact  habitual. But there are lots of times when i make changes in that habitual behavior by either taking actions where my habits would go in another direction, or by choosing attitudes towards events and experiences where my habitual attitudes would be different (I can provide specific examples if you need them).   I'm glad that i have that ability, and i am  sure you have it too.  This is part and parcel of what i call plastic habits.  

Do you acknowledge that your actions and attitudes are primarily habitual?
Primarily is your word.  Your conclusion that habits make you an automaton of the past doesn't support that "who you are" is all that.  I have habits. I am not my habits.

BTW, I have behavior and I am not my behavior.


If you asked if I had quit beating my sister I likewise wouldn't answer that question because your premises would be wrong & yes or no are both wrong.  It is quite correct to say "I have this behavior which is good or bad" - your Ethos for English notwithstanding. Mentography is your brilliant invention which, however doesn't do much beyond the conceptual - an after the fact thingy!  If you want to be present, RIGHT NOW, to who you are at the core you will have to leave concepts behind which are all constructions & not the thingy itself.


seth 2010-09-15 10:55:34 thought 14275
M 2010-09-15 10:19:39 thought 14275
M 2010-09-15 10:18:24 thought 14275
seth 2010-09-15 10:12:54 thought 14275
source: C above
Perhaps you are an automaton of the past!
There are several interesting aspects to your prior response to me.  I'll respond to each of them separately, so that we can keep focused and the trains of thought not confusing each other.  This one is perhaps the most interesting.

I think that i am primarily an automaton of my past.  The emphasis and qualifier in that true sentence is "primarily".  I believe that most of my behavior is in fact  habitual. But there are lots of times when i make changes in that habitual behavior by either taking actions where my habits would go in another direction, or by choosing attitudes towards events and experiences where my habitual attitudes would be different (I can provide specific examples if you need them).   I'm glad that i have that ability, and i am  sure you have it too.  This is part and parcel of what i call plastic habits.  

Do you acknowledge that your actions and attitudes are primarily habitual?
Primarily is your word.  Your conclusion that habits make you an automaton of the past doesn't support that "who you are" is all that.  I have habits. I am not my habits.

BTW, I have behavior and I am not my behavior.

Well actually syntactically, at least in English, you do not "have" behavior, you do it.  We say "I mow the lawn"  ... we do not say "i have mow the lawn".   It's not at all clear to me what the distinction you are trying to make is.  Mentographically i draw a circle and say it represents you (of me).  Then i would draw arrows from that to separate nodes each of which would represent specific actions or classess of actions.  Those arrows i would label with "do".   If i had a social contract that allowed me to say that i possess the computer in front of me, then i would respresnet it with a node and draw a relationship between it and me and label that with "have".  That, to me, would represent the facts of the matter.  Were i to label both of those arrows with the one word "have" it would, truly, confuse my thinking.

I am disappointed that you did not answer my question directly.  It woud help focus at least what we agree upon.  So again ...

Do you acknowledge that your actions and attitudes are primarily habitual?
... woopse i missed you prior answer
source: C in this thread
Primarily is your word.  Your conclusion that habits make you an automaton of the past doesn't support that "who you are" is all that.  I have habits. I am not my habits.
I'm trying to figure out specifically what distinction you are making ... and i'm not getting it.  Could you elaborate on what the distinction actully is.  In my answer above i did (needed to) draw my actions in a separate representation from the node that i draw to represent myself.  But bear in mind that in a sense all mentographic nodes are blank inside ... the only things that actually go in the database are relationships.

It is interesting to note that my question, which, for me, forms the basis of the real part (apart from the syntactic/semantic part) of this dialogue does not presume either a "do" or a "have" relationship between me and my actions.  So perhaps you could still answer it ...

Do you acknowledge that your actions and attitudes are primarily habitual?


M 2010-09-15 11:08:54 thought 14275
If you asked if I had quit beating my sister I likewise wouldn't answer that question because your premises would be wrong & yes or no are both wrong.  It is quite correct to say "I have this behavior which is good or bad" - your Ethos for English notwithstanding. Mentography is your brilliant invention which, however doesn't do much beyond the conceptual - an after the fact thingy!  If you want to be present, RIGHT NOW, to who you are at the core you will have to leave concepts behind which are all constructions & not the thingy itself.

You must have missed my answer which is above. I can't give you the whole distinction because it is very incomplete if words are the only expression.  A good start is go to the present NOW, ask "WHO am I?" never stray from the desire to know, the possibility of knowing & not knowing the answer already.  That last clause requires that you throw away any conceptualization, memories, & bullshit you have accumulated in your 66 years, 10 months & 16 days so far - not an easy task. What's left when you do that? Who comes into a room when you do? It's both amusing & useless!


Well, it dovetails into the comment I made just above it. It relates of course to contemplation, truth etc. If you are above all that shit then ignore it.


M 2012-04-29 11:44:43 thought 14275
M 2012-04-29 11:39:14 thought 14275
Contemplation from Peter Ralston (DVD snippets)


What does this have to do with my "New Respect for The Specific" ?

there is a "tie-in" post on Facebook here

seth 2013-08-25 13:06:18 thought 14275
ME 2013-08-25 12:48:38 thought 14275
seth 2013-03-25 07:10:05 thought 14275
there is a "tie-in" post on Facebook here
Maybe you should learn to follow the link to the Sarte thingy.

sorry, still don't get it. 

My last comment there was ...
Seth Russell who knows, we might even be able to get somewhere (picture a Buddah laughfing at this point in your parsing) ... but honesty is, me thinks required ... thing is, i might even actually "get it" .... maybe, Mark, i don't *like* your "it" ... maybe your it is not my it, in this particular and peculiar case ... which is what Satre left out of his quote ... but i put into my context here.
 ... My guess is that by posting your meme, which certainly is true, you are saying that ... err, sorry cannot guess .... i thought i might have been able to guess when i started the sentence ... but now i really have no idea how you connect that with my respect for the specific and/or Sartre's acknowledgement that there is no manual given to us of how to live our lives.
TOO SIMPLE! Everything is already figured out -VERSUS- Question everything!

ME 2013-08-25 12:25:23 thought 14275
seth 2013-08-25 11:06:23 thought 14275
ME 2013-08-25 08:10:48 thought 14275

what connection are you making between changing paradigms and a respect for the specific?
It restates & almost coincides with your previous comment.


sorry, i can't track that, apparently i read things in different sequences than you do.   What "previous comment" are you referring to?

Well kewl we care comparing memes ...

 

.............................................................................................

both are equally true to me

Neither has all that very much to do with a respect for the specific.  I’m beginning to think that it is my peculiar acquired taste …

ps: … or others confusion.

ME 2013-08-25 15:01:52 thought 14275
Yep! Wise Quotes + Word Salad = Word Salad + Wise Quotes .... ad infinitum. Your respect for the specific is pretty much described as such. If you got more specific you might suddenly discover that your struggle is a joke. Don't go there! It is scary. Instead throw in as much word salad as you need to keep the clarity latent. Then enjoy life anyway.

apparently the message in the body of this item was addressed directly to you ...

"Anyone who really knows me might know that i struggle.   My intentions are honorable ... my deeds, well not always so very.   Please now spare me your judgments and your advises.  You Maharishis, you Tony Romas, you Dr Phils, you Laura Schlesingers, please do keep your mouths shut.   I am sure that you have discovered some deep secret about life  ...  you have found your piece of mind; and, your desire of my profit notwithstanding, might even have a  workable resolution of my struggle.  My problem with that is simply it is not me ... it is not mine ... and it is not all that very specific to my struggle.  No, it is all too general, does not address the depth of my specificity ... it has no respect for that.  It is a bludgeon, where a sensitive wand is required. "



some similarities obtain between this item and that rant

M1g0r 2014-01-31 14:26:57 thought 14275
seth 2014-01-31 13:51:38 thought 14275
M1g0r 2014-01-31 11:22:52 thought 14275

yep very definitely ... that is our subject here .  note, however, these show a spreading of sameness ... not a spreading of difference.  show me a spreading of difference if you find it, please.  or, maybe just show me life itself.
  • I have no grok of what you mean by spreading of difference
  • or sameness
  • maybe in politics with identity politics
  • bonding together so as to fight each other for more of the pie
  • the point of the fractal was trying to zoom in on specifics is endless
  • maybe respect your title
  • nothing more
  • nothing being spread here
  • except a bollus
  • of Bozo
  1. spreading of difference is where cells divide AND differentiate
  2. or how commerce spreads out with each merchant finds their niche
  3. or species spread into a echo system each occupying a niche 
  4. i'm sure if you look for it you will find much about that on the web

...

  1. i don't see what it has to do with identity polics at all
  2. perhaps bonding together to fight other groups is a mix of the two forces ... havent thought much about that
  3. every where a fractal curve spreads it is the same ... yet it does spread and fill space ... so that is silimar to love for specifics of being, yet quite different in fact

...

  1. the remaining bullets i will not respond to at all, except this note of no response so you won't think i missed them.



seth 2014-02-07 15:07:01 thought 4583
M1g0r 2014-02-07 10:17:48 thought 4583
seth 2014-02-07 09:51:18 thought 4583
seth 2014-02-07 09:44:58 thought 4583
i liken the situation to taking a small circuit out of one extremely complex system and installing it into another similarly complex system and just presuming that it would work in the same way in the different system.   our history and contexts are so very very specific and interrelated.  they are not generalized modular simplifications.  they do not travel well.
... especially if one is invested in them not traveling .
  • For something & some value of "the situation"
  • .. & some purpose for your use of words.

the situation i'm talking about is the perdicament of you thinking inside your mind with its own history and experiences and the context of that which you focus into a thought ... and me over here doing the same thing inside mine.  That is the situation of which i speak.  Lifting a thought from your mind and inserting it in my mind is not something that just happens without quite a bit of back and forth and feedback to align what we mean.   Especially when the topic is quite so hairy as is "illative force". 

... These descriptions really belong here in the context of specificity. 

This item is all about getting generality memes to shut the fuck up where they do not apply.   Lifting one thought from within one mind where it makes sense and feels true and inserting it by brute force into another mind does not work ... why? .... well just because every mind is so very very specific.  Which is not to say that minds do not operate on generalities ... it says that a generality in one mind is rarely the same as in another ... and does not call us the same associations and context. 


Lifting one thought from within one mind where it makes sense and feels true and inserting it by brute force into another mind does not work 


thought 14275#29939

Exaggeration ! Doesn’t happen either except in brainwashing camps. Maybe in M$E (main stream education) it tries.

there is a spectrum from generality to specificity.   for example to specify any specific thing (or spirit) completely one needs to specify ever singel relationship it has to every other thing in its context … and in all aspects of it which could possibly happen or even be imagined.   but for a generality one needs only to specify one simple rule … it can be written in a short sentence. 

thing is each of us humans is so very specific … we are way way on specificity ends of that spectrum … especially when it comes to our inner life.  well at least mine is.

i think Navigator talks of aspects of this from a different point of view when he talks about creating 100% of his own experience. 

the thing is,  the amazing freedom of my specific inner life sometimes gets confronted with generalities that people recognize and/or concoct in themselves and then claim to apply them to me.   When that happens i like to … (er, perhaps i can find a way to do it humorously) … tell them to shut the fuck up null

i can go as deep as i am capable of in any given moment.  Maybe for your term, “gock directly who i am”, substitute “as deep or as high i can interperty what i am doing”.   But as deep as i want to go it is always just me.  There is no schism where i become a spirit which i have not always been even at the more shallow levels of interpretation.  And yes i know gurus and shamen have talked about this separation of spirit from soul … and even soul from body … down the ages … especially RS.   But i do not accept it.  It is all my life and how i interpret it … just as deep … or as high as i can interprete it in any given moment.  No schism between body and spirit necessary … and sorry, for me, none found.

Well use the golden rule & set the example! null
In shorter words I have said that shifting what an author says from one context to another is basically fraud if one is expecting an illative force of proof or truth.

i don’t get that Mark, what i said does not mean that we cannot usefully interact … and even use generalities … and even talk as if the other’s terms were the same as the ones in our mind even thought they may be entirely different.  that is the kind of interaction that, if we do it digilantly,  tends to sync up our minds … and produces a language in which we can interact.

But shit,  if you keep shouting  at me “Fat boys are dirty” and i am a Fat boy and don’t like to consider myself dirty … then i am very liekely to tell you to “Shut the Fuck up!”

yes null, when i hear such a though from another, i always go TILT in my mind.  but that doesn’t mean that the other has done me some brutal wrong.  it just means to me that we need to talk some more … perhaps delve a bit deeper … er, define our terms … sync up our language … or maybe it is time to tell the other to FUCK OFF … depends entirely on what i expect is happening.

Still fighting I guess; using fighting words such as brutal, TILT, ‘done me wrong’, & brute force.  Polished off with the taste of shut the fuck up. 
Enjoy!

wow … sigh … you went right to RWG … where there was none of that there. 

Not what I’m saying or doing either. You must be talking about several other people not blogging here. Be specific with real examples.

nor did i say you were.  and in fact i wasn’t even thinking of what you do or don’t do … nore is there any implication in my words that they specifically were bing direct at you in some kind of hostile accusation. 

i am just talking about lifting a thought and “inserting” it into another mind, where it goes TILT … and how i react when that happens.

and yes i can come up with specific examples … give me a moment … i’ll come up with a good one.


i am looking for a good example of this.   it needs to be somewhat neutral as i don’t want some author to take offense and not see the point because they take my bringing it up as a personal accusation.

What you may be saying is consider context when you say something. When you argue (communicate) with another consider the difference in gontext. ← My SeriMR created that word as a merge of the word context & gonads for the context of mismatching.

not external context in the sense of what was actually said between individuals … which can be recorded in a database or history.     but rather the different internal contexts that each of us has.  

The most obvious examples can be fond in political propaganda speech.   A liberal will always go TILT in there mind when a conservative uses the words like “liberal”, “diversity”, etc. 

always? – TILT? (whatever that is) 

i hyperlinked it the first time i use it here …. see → TILT.

I first encountered this usage when hearing others talk about playing pinball in San Francisco where i was a bus boy in a restrant that had such a machine.  The players nudge the ball to get it to go where they want by hitting the side of the game box.  If they hit it too hard, the game goes TILT and the player looses the game.  The pinball machines actually had some kind of mechinism that detected a tilting of the pinball surface out of the norm.  

It just means to me that something went so totally wrong in a system that it shuts down any meaningful play.

Yep – #knewit . Just an archaic word even though pinball machines are still around.


well if you can think of a more contempary usage that is quite so very poignant, i will be glad to use it instead null … anyway you know what i mean now.

Yeah, your mind does something weird when some hits you upside the head physically or mentally. 
Image result for hit upside the headnull

null

anyway i get these TILTs all the time … for example when i listen to coulter or hear Trump speak … especially the stuff that comes right from breitbart.  i rarly get them when i hear obama speak … he speaks from a mind set that is coherant in America, and one which i can understand … even though occassionally  i would zig where he is  zagging.  Trump also speaks for a coherent American spirit or gestalt or mind set.  Some of Trump’s mind set i get … others goes TILT especilly as to tone.  Same with you and me.  Some goes tilt … some does not.

… More the case that the RWG or the WRG (another version) has a qualia that continues the back-&-forth. Remember you are in charge & think it is not automatic (or is it null?)

okay … the qualia of a TILT tells me i can NOT absorb the information and understand it in its own right – without extra effort.  how i respond to that is, as you say, up to me … it is a separate action that is willed. 

lots of times i say things to you that i know will go TILT over there … but to be honest i must say them in my terms or they will go TILT over here … or i can not say them to you at all.


actually now that i think about it,  it is not so much “Shut the fuck up” … it is more #shoveItUpYourAss null