How to make the world go away ... - comment 73242

Seth says ...
i know what binary thinking is … and i know that i am not doing it

Comments


Whenever you conclude that I don’t believe in, acknowledge, respect, others because I believe that I create my experience of others, you are thinking in a binary pattern seth. Could also call it a polarized pattern of thought. Your thinking is hard wired such that those exclude each other and cannot both be true at the same time, because they are a single bit. That is binary thinking.

It is entirely possible to think about otherness, in every way you think about otherness, and think you are the center of your entire universe, including all otherness.

Here is an example, a thought model, that is not binary.

One has attention. Attention can be represented as a focus in a coordinate system. Say it is a 3D coordinate system just for this model. If we are to model how you represent your point of attention in this model, we would place your point of attention, essentially you, at an offset from the origin. For example, x = 10, y = 10, z = 10. From this perspective, you would see all that is happening around you to be different from yourself. Other things zipping around in this coordinate system would have their own position and trajectory and there would be some common origin for all things that would be outside of you and affect you the same as all others.
 

If we were to model how I represent my point of attention, it would be placed at the origin. x = 0, y = 0, z = 0. I would see all otherness the same as you. In fact everything else in my model would zip around and be exactly the same as it is in your model. But, the way I see everything in respect to me would be different. I would see everything as being created in reference to the origin, as you do, but also I am the origin, so I would see everything as being created in reference to me.

Nothing about otherness is changed at all in both of these scenarios, it is the exact same other things happening in the exact same way having the same coordinates. But how one sees otherness is completely different. Referenced to the outside, in your experience, and referenced to self, in my experience.

I am not trying to say this is an exact model of reality. I am only showing that it is possible to have an easy to understand model where otherness is always the same, and point of reference for the individual can change and represent that otherness completely differently without conflict, collision, or binary exclusion. It is not necessary to think in either-or … it is possible to expand thought to many other forms where many things can exist at the same time without the conflict that exists in an either-or binary thought model.
 


I would see everything as being created in reference to the origin, as you do, but also I am the origin, so I would see everything as being created in reference to me.

Nothing about otherness is changed at all in both of these scenarios, it is the exact same other things happening in the exact same way having the same coordinates. But how one sees otherness is completely different. Referenced to the outside, in your experience, and referenced to self, in my experience.

nathan
okay that pretty much matches what i observe you doing  … it is an accurate description null.

I would like to focus on  what in that description you call “everything being created”.  In my book, i create things, you create things, and every man jack being in the universe creates things … they are not all created by you … right?  

So how can you honestly “see all those things created by others as being created in reference to you” ? 

For example, i do not have that kind of an attitude towards that which others create … those things are  not all about me … were i to tell myself that they were, then i would be telling myself a lie.

tag #otherness 

Okay. Well I don’t say I create everything or that they are all about me. What I say is that they are all created in me. I am the origin of my experience. All things created that I do experience are created within that which is my experience.

This is very easy and comfortable for me to understand. I can see how it is not for you since you have referenced yourself at a point other than the origin.

And it is interesting that you say that this is what you observe me doing, since I said I did not bring this model up as a map of reality, but only as a way to show that otherness can be modeled very well without binary thinking. This model is showing how that one can get binary thinking by where they place their attention in the coordinate system, but that thinking in a larger system, and changing perspective, moves out of binary thinking.

Now maybe this model shows other great things as well, but I was not intending it for that, only to show another model with both our viewpoints in one model and no binary exclusion.

… and if you also like this model for a reality map, then it would be easy to say this about your question above.

To be at the origin and reference anything is a single step. All things exist at a direct coordinate from self. You might liken this to “direct knowing”. All knowledge is right there, immediate, and non-referenced, including self. They all exist in the same simple relationship in the whole coordinate system.

To be at an offset from the origin requires a translation of coordinates in order to experience another thing. Nothing is direct, save the origin itself, which is not you, so you might want to call it God. All things about otherness are inferred, not a direct experience or knowing. Everything not you is referenced, and in some other relationship to you, to others, to origin.

Well i tend to use polar coordinates with myself at the origin when i think about myself.   But I notice that i understand others better when i listen to them with them at the origin … the old wisdom, “to understand somebody, walk in their shoes” actually does work. 

The essence of our different views is still seen in your words ... 

What I say is that they are all created in me. I am the origin of my experience. All things created that I do experience are created within that which is my experience.

nathan
In that you do not talk about others … rather you talk about your representation of others.  Obviously your representations are created by you and are in you. 

The trick to get out of that box is to believe that you actually are out of that box. 

Me, i did that when i started actually believeing in #otherness.   That imporved my sanity.  So when i reference others, i talk about them outside of my representations of them … just as best as i can.   Science and modern society call that being objective.   It is a trend that has evolved through history. 


A famous example being when people noticed that the solor system worked  simpler when the Sun was taken as the orign, instead of the Earth.

”Obviously your representations are created by you” – is quite false. I even said that just above, and have said that it is false every single time you say it. This is where you are thinking binary and can’t resolve this to be false because you are using mutually exclusive thinking.

“and are in you” – is true.


okay … representations of things outside of me get created inside me.  i have a lot of control of how they get created in me … that is a process that i can tune.  

My point is that those representations are not the things represented.  I can focus on the representations … as you seem to do … or i can focus on the things themselves apart from what i represent of them.   It is a matter of focus. 

I am not talking about thinking about someone or something. I am talking about experiencing someone or something. I only experience others in one way. You seem to indicate you can “experience” others in 2 ways.


i do not experience for others.  i experience their effect on me, and/or my effect on them.  

i can imagine what they experience theselves, but that image is just a my own representation of their experience.  i tend not to make up stories about that imagined experience …. rather i like to experience their actual effect upon me.

That’s all interesting, but doesn’t seem to be part of the model being discussed here to me. It seems like you are going strait back to binary thinking, noticing what assumptions are required in order for binary thinking to be valid, and then tacking on those assumptions into this model.

I would rather stay with the simple non-binary model of thinking I presented.

Well i can recon happening not necessarily in relationship to myself … even thought that which i experience of it is in  relationship to myself.  Fact is that most things happen to (and are creatd by) others and i don’t directly experience them.  I pick and choose what of those i experience myself.  But I think about the whole  … not just the part i expernce … so a lot of my thinking is about others.  I am curious.  I am a voyeur.  If i thought only about myself and what i experience, do and feel, then i would be telling myself a lie because i know that most of what i think about is not about me.  

 #LOA startagies can be used to good effect without me changing that view. 

You could accept that about me, and move on to more interesting things that we can do together.