#meaning

Nothing has meaning on it’s own. The only meaning something has is how it is connected (related) to other things in the eyes of an observer.

seth
tag #connected #related #observer 

Comments


I prefer

Nothing has meaning on it’s own. The only meaning it has is the meaning you give it.

Bashar
I don’t downplay connections. But I don’t upplay them either. Connections are like tree roots. They happen. If you are a Gardner, you often focus upon them and see their importance. But when you are swinging on a tree swing, happily absorbed in the feeling of whooshing through the air, the tree roots are far far away in your experience.

All things are connected in one way or another, no doubt. But not all are here to experience connections, to give them meaning. Some are simply here to fly.  

well that that’s great null … and it does not contradict my definition of #meaning.  rather it is a special case of my definition.   that defines the meaning to you which you give something as an observer.

For example: without a thingey having connections (relationships) to other things in your eyes, it would not have any meaning to you.

Not true. Things can have meaning in my eyes simply because I am experiencing them now. No connections required, only my spontaneous experience.

Your connections based meaning above is a special case. It is the case where the connections are important to the meaning you assign. Connections are not always important to meaning.

well i doubt that, even you, can actually experience something without  also experiencing it being connected (or being related in your eyes) to other things … even including yourself.

I surely can. As I said, there is no doubt to me that all things are connected in one way or another. But that the experience of a connection is required as part of the meaning of something is simply not so. That should be obvious.

The meaning something has to me is assigned directly. I may have an experience of connections associated with that meaning I assign, or I may not. I may simply assign the meaning to this particular orgasm as “an explosively ecstatic experience” … without any comparison to anything else or any idea of connection or any relationship to anything else in my life … and many experiences are similar. They are just experiences and the meaning I assign is just a meaning … no connections.

well my definition does not imply that the connections or relationships need to be “experienced” in full awareness.

just asserting you can do it is fairly meaningless to me.   your belief would be more convincing to me if you would provide a detailed example.  in fact that you have not provided such a detailed example means to me that your thoughts are not connected to the situation at hand.

Connections are required for language, to converse with others. We often even think by conversing with oneself, in our own head. But connections are not required for experience. And connections are not required for thinking either. We can think intuitively, and we can also think in direct experience mode, both of which bring thoughts that are often not connected … but are leaps and jumps directly to another space.

Well yes the connections in language are required … and those connections, at their best, represent the connections in the subjects of which the language speaks. 

I frequently talk to myself in language …. but frequently in other representations and experiences.  I am not always currently aware of the connections in the representations or in what they represent … frequently those are in the background of my awareness.  if those connections and relationships were not already established by me i would not experience any meaning about  the subject at all … whether i am experiencing the background connections at any moment or not.  Intuitive connections are just so deep and have so much momentum, and always work for me, that i wold not need to experience them as i use them.

That which i experience … especial where the experience is intense and tugs at my being … i could call “direct”.  I don’t remember any other special meaning that i can give to such a “direct mode” of experience.

try this thought experience:  select two symbols at random which have no meaning already connecting them together. see if you can realize some meaning about them being together which you yourself do not make (or discover).  if you can, then prove it by describing that meaning in detail without creating any relationships or connections yourself. 

Well, the above thought would not have useful meaning if you are only talking about word association when you say “connections”. We cannot converse without word association. I assume you mean emotional or logical connections to other things in your life.

Connectionless meaning is easiest to see in a child, because you, as an adult, have a habit of assigning meaning according to the experiences you have had, thus it seams that is all you can do.

Darcy was 3 and we were walking. He picked up a dead bird in the path. He asked me “what’s this?”. I said “it is a dead bird”. He said “oh, a dead bird”. He put it down and we walked on.

The meaning he assigned was “this is a dead bird”. He did not relate it to anything else or appear to have any emotion about it. It’s a dead bird. That is the meaning. He had not yet formed a habit of connecting that meaning to other things in his life, other emotions, other experiences.

You still do that all the time as an adult without realizing it. You pick up your toothbrush. It is a toothbrush. That is the meaning in that moment.  (unless you have specific experiences that flood in about a toothbrush because of some prior even in your life). But for most, a toothbrush is simply a toothbrush. That is the meaning. No connection other than the word itself.

all of that seems true null.   strange however null, it just bolsters my point …

the meaning IS the relationships and connections made in the eye of the observer.  

i too have watched young children be shown something to which they had yet made any connections.  they ignore the meaning that an adult has in their eyes,  it is actually quite amazing to watch   that happen.     Obviously the child ignores that meaning  because they have yet to establish those connections (representations) in their mind. 

I see the same thing happenning with the connections i have made in my mind, that other adults have yet to make … usually they don’t react to that meaning at all … rather they just ignore it … IT IS MEANINGLESS TO THEM.

tag #meaning #connections #relationships #EyeOfBeholder #meaningless

Then too Erhardt has said many times “Life is empty & meaningless & that doesn’t mean anything either!” 
XOR Peter Ralston of Cheng Hsin in his BofNK Ch 25

25:5 Life, self, and the universe are all absolutely meaningless. And the fact that it doesn’t mean anything doesn’t mean anything! Notice that, despite the word within the word, “meaninglessness” does not denote less meaning. It refers instead to no meaning. Meaninglessness is not a negative or bad thing, since that connotation would itself be meaningful. It is simply what it is, as it is. So “meaningless” simply indicates a condition of being without meaning. We ourselves are meaningless. If we believe our purpose in life is to pursue meaning—to discern and exist within life’s inherent meaning—even an honest and intelligent effort to fulfill this purpose will lead to disappointment.

Ralston, Peter. The Book of Not Knowing: Exploring the True Nature of Self, Mind, and Consciousness (pp. 540-541). North Atlantic Books. Kindle Edition. 

The Ego-selfie protection racket needs the meaning – go get yourself some! null #MakeShitUp

Well if a person does not recognize how their life is connected,  then to them, their life will feel meaningless.

But i don’t think Ralston talks about such connections here … rather he talks about  “life’s inherent meaning”,
by which i take he means some connection (or relationship) which is totally independent of the observer himself.
 
I agree with Ralston there … a pursuit of that will be fruitless.

#meaningless #inherency

Reading on in  Peter Ralston of Cheng Hsin in his BofNK Ch 25 gets more of the context of BEING

25:6 We’ve seen that “being” cannot be either inauthentic or worthless, since to “be” is itself and has no meaning. It is an authentic event because it is the first event, it is the mere existence of something. The truth is you cannot be worthless because you have no worth to begin with. Being exists prior to worth or value, which are always applied to things; they are never inherent. Understanding this might help in overcoming resistance to the idea of being without meaning. But merely hearing about it isn’t enough; what’s needed is a direct conscious experience.

Ralston, Peter. The Book of Not Knowing: Exploring the True Nature of Self, Mind, and Consciousness (p. 541). North Atlantic Books. Kindle Edition. 

seth – your thingy is connection – a theme well articulated throughout fastblogit perhaps derived from childhood dilemmae – the quote may be shortened to “IS trumps all, especially meaning”.

well my same thought experience can be had with “being” that can also be had with “meaning”.  
imagine a thingey isolated from all else, unobserved.  Can it really be said to be?

But i agree with Ralston … something must be, before it can be connected or have any relationships.  In a way, for me, the existence and the connections get realized together … it is hard for me to realize anything existing without also realizing its connections.  Abstractly i can do it by imagineing a circle with no relationship to any other circle … a circle sans any coordinates.  But i can not experience that.  The very act of experiencing it would necessarily connect it to me.

#being #connection #meaning 

Being does not munge well into meaning or connecting.  You have to invent shit to go from IS to anything else because IS is fundamental.  Indeed you have to use imagination in the world of Abstractia to get somewhere else.  But, connect-ability being your thingy, you will probably try.  XOR maybe focus elsewhere perhaps on the freedom to discard meanings.
Free yourself & get rid of beliefs ! Don’t be a BELIEF robot - M.R.

well just asserting a generality does not establish any connections over here for me …
especially if there is not a detailed example described.  
so null sorry, your last is #meaningless to me. 

thing to realize is that when we talk about #meaning we are talking about realizing meaning …
as, even according to Ralston,  there is no #intrinsic eaning.

Meaning is at the heart of awarness and consciousness with others. 
Meaning is the phenomena that makes thinking and realization work … sans the former, there is no latter. 

… or at least that is my description of how i do it over here …
… i can barely suppose that others can do it differently …
and would null being tangeably #informed of such.

#MakeShirtUp as you will – mean-it-up for Ego’s sake – whatever.  You will miss the point.  Lots of #birdies in your assumptions.   One day you may grok freedom in being present to what IS xor maybe not. 
null

well it is true … 

the more i release connections and relationships, the more i am free.

seth
But It does not follow that makes me “present to anything” except perhaps meaninglessness itself.
which as you yourself have observed, is not my thingey null

tag #Freedom & #meaninglessness

Yep, munged it up.  If I were to meet you on a street corner or someone else & I am making up all kinds of shit ( #MakeShitUp ) I am off in my own world & not present to you or whomsoever I meet.  Such is the nugget of being present – maybe try it. Wherever you go there is where you are present. If you are off in your own mind you miss what is before you.

well #sucks that is true null … if i am not connecting with someone, then i appear to them to be “off in my own mind” missing what is before me.  How does that conflict with (or deny) anything that i have said here?

Having missed it , I guess you were off somewhere else in your own mind!  Q.E.D. null

i think you are assuming that “being free” is in itself of ultimate value. 
i do not make that assumption.
otherwise i can not follow your logic.

Simply put. There are direct experiences, and knowing, available. Everyone has them. Some choose to become consciously aware of them, some are not. Meaning can be assigned directly to these direct experiences.

Meaning can also be derived by connections. This is common. But even then, meaning does not have to be assigned to the first connection that arrives in ones thoughts. One can choose another set of connections to derive meaning from anytime one desires to do so.

The bottom line is that meaning is “assigned by the individual”. The individual may always assign meaning by the first connection based relationship that pops into their being. Or, they may assign exactly the meaning they want to anything. Or any combination in between. Whatever meaning they do assign, by whatever method, is what will operate in that individuals experience

Therefore, meaning itself is not intrinsically connection based. It is simply assigned. I will agree that everything is connected. I do not have to assign meanings based on any particular set of connections. I, and everyone, is free to assign meaning as we choose.

p.s. your thought experiment proves the “first connection in head” case. It does not disprove, or address, any of the other methods of assigning meaning.

I guess “Do what thou wilt!” is not your thingy, seth null – not free to do that eh?

well “do what i wilt” is how i #DoIt … can i do it apart from that which connects it … no i can not.
if you can, then please show me an example.

Sorry, folks – degeneration into jibberish not my thingy – assumes your premise & a pile of words.
#done

Well mostly i agree null null… surprisingly so null.  

I would howver distinguish between the meanings (associations) one creates and connects which can be #shared with others, and the ones which cannot. 

For example if i associate a specific experience that i (had, have, or will have) with you to the place that we both share under the name “San Francisco”, then we hare that connection of that experience (yours and mine) to San Francisco.  Now try that same example with #LaLaLand … and i am pretty sure you will find the connection quite different.

Well I agree with you mark. Bashar has said, and this is a direct quote. “If there is one thing you can learn that will improve your life the most, it is that life is meaningless. All meaning is assigned by you”.

… which seems to be essentially the same thing both Erhardt and Peter Ralston are saying and what I experience as well.  

Yes. As I said. “Traditional word based Communication” requires shared meanings based on common connections. That is why I separated it earlier as being something different from “the meaning we take away from something.” If you are only talking about communication, then the above thought is just a #duh … if you are talking about the meaning one gets from things, and bases their life upon, that is quite a different thing, and what I assume you are talking about.

well both types share the process of connections (or relationships) being made by (realized by) a person. 

Communication requires that … personal meaning does not require that.

If a bird looks in my window and I take it to mean my dead Grandmother is thinking about me … that is my meaning assignment, by my internal connections, or not by any connection at all. It could simply be a direct and first time thought in that moment … and I assign that meaning on the spot without any prior or other connection. I may simply and directly intuitively “know it”.

null Strange that you do not realize that “life is meaingless” and “all meaning is assigned by you” contradict each other.  If meaning is assigned by you, then it is not meaningless.   Only If no meaning can be assigned by you,  would it be meaningless to you.

… true.  #SoWhat … that is the nature of connections and relationships  … you can make them internally only … or internally and externally.  in both cases the connections (relationsips) are made by a person … and form the meaning assigned by that person.

Your twisting it seth. I believe you do understand, your just splitting hairs on missing assumed words.

Life is intrinsically meaningless. Noting in life has meaning until you assign meaning to it.

There, that’s the full version in technical english. But if you can’t read the simpler form as that using the conventions of common speak, your meaningless! null

If it is meaningless you can’t assign a meaning. Just window dressing for your selfie! #MakeShitUp – fly it up the flag pole & see who salutes it null

Same #meaning (comment 77067) answer to you mark. You guys are so used to rwg splitting hairs that you can’t read basic english anymore.

yep it is true over here that …

Life is intrinsically meaningless.
Noting in life has meaning until you assign meaning to it.


i think we are in #ViolentAggrement on that … you just have not made the connection that we both agree on that null

We just need to teas out some assumption that seems connected to your backgroun understanding which is not similarly connected in mine.

So? We agree about that aspect of meaning.

That aspect was not what I started all this with.

I started it with the idea that meaning is not directly connected to connections. Meaning is assigned. If you assign by connection, so be it. That is a subset of what “meaning” is.

Your thought implies that meaning "is” based on connections. I refute that. It can be. It is not required to be. Meaning has only one intrinsic relationship, it is assigned. Everything else, including connections, is about “how one assigns meaning” … not meaning itself as your thought implies.

seems to me it is your who are splitting hairs … ambiguous ones at that.

your phrase “connected to connections” to me is frairly well meaningless. 

we agree that people assign their own connections or relationships.  they connect things up.

What would “connected to those connections” mean?  It does not match to anything i associate with anything … unless you are getting into self awareness … which is kind of a different topic.

It might help to start talking about specific examples of connections or relationships.  Give me a real world example of something “connected to a connection”.

If you would change your thought to be

Nothing has meaning on it’s own. One way we assign meaning is by how something has connections in the eye of the observer

… then I could be in violent agreement with you. Your original I do not agree with. It is taking one way we assign meaning and attempting to make it what meaning is.
 

what it the other way?

I am clearly saying there is more to meaning than just “connections”. Basing meaning on connections is a subset. I gave a very clear example in #meaning (comment 77064).

Huh? there is no combinations of the words “the other way” in my comment. WTF are you talking about?

Well you say, “one way ….” … that implies there is another way.  What is any other way?

It often seems to me you start playing dumb, like you appear to be doing now in your comments, with both me and Mark, when you run out of places to stand on your position.

It is clear, both by what I have presented, and what Mark presented as well, that “meaning” is much more than just "connections” as your original thought implies. Just accept that. It is what is.

#meaning (comment 77064) gave other examples.

no i am not playing dumb.  i am just pointing directly to that which i recognize … and trying to get this language between us to do the same thing.

Just asserting based upon your authority does not inform me, or that process, in the least.

 i think the confusion between us is exaccrbated by us not having the same finm connection to the concept called “connection” or even the one called “relationship”.   i think if we connected with those concepts we would understand this the same way.

I have not “just asserted”. I gave several examples. The best was in #meaning (comment 77064) and there are plenty more.

You simply seem to be ignoring all of them. You did not directly respond to any of the examples of other than connection based meaning. You only shifted back to talking about connections.

That is what I mean by “plaing dumb”. Also how you start splitting hairs … you only do that when your position starts to dissolve. You accept normal english until it does start dissolving, then you hide behind the words.

sorry null i am not into degrading each other’s thoughts here or arguing it.
but i would love to drill down on this null

Pretty simple English dude!

If it is meaningless you can’t assign a meaning  null

Free yourself & get rid of beliefs ! Don't be a BELIEF robot - M.R.

Well, I am not into your filibustering. If your position is strong enough not to filibuster, then go back and re read the real examples and respond to them and I will continue at that point.

Right now you have switched to blaming differences in our definitions of connections without having even answered to the cases presented. That, sir, is misdirection … or as Mark might call it, selling snake oil.

yep and i ageed with your example …and said so in #meaning (comment 77066).

but you did not  give an example of “assigning meaning by an observer not making a connection”.

so untill that other way emerges, we must accept my version of that sentence which does not assume another way exists.

It sure does give an example of “assigning meaning by an observer not making a connection”.

I wrote …

“It could simply be a direct and first time thought in that moment … and I assign that meaning on the spot without any prior or other connection.”

well assiging meaning (or connecing something – same thing)  on the spot is still assigning meaning. 
my version does not imply that a “prior connection” exists.
but sure, prior connectons usually do exist … there is usually a vast  background of those
except perhaps in a infant.

It is not assiging meaning based on connections. That is my only point, as I keep saying. That is where your thought above is untrue. Meaning can be assigned based on connections yes, and it can be assigned other ways as well. Meaning has no intrinsic tie to connections … basing a meaning on connections is only “one way to assign meaning”.

I said this same thing, this same distinction, very clearly in #meaning (comment 77075) and two other comments. So it seems like you are still filibustering to me. You are not addressing the things I directly say are the salient points and their examples.

no we are back to you giving an example of meaning not emerging for a person by them assigning a connection. 

 i am not saying that meaning is “based on connections” …
i am saying that meaning IS the connections. 

trying to distinguish them, me thinks is our problem here.

Meaning can be assigned without any connection. (many examples given)

Therefore, meaning cannot be the connections.

If you can’t see that basic logical truth, then you are right, we are at an impasse and no point going forward.

you have not given an example of a meaning that is not a connection assigned by a person.

If a bird looks in my window and I take it to mean my dead Grandmother is thinking about me … that is my meaning assignment, by my internal connections, or not by any connection at all. It could simply be a direct and first time thought in that moment … and I assign that meaning on the spot without any prior or other connection. I may simply and directly intuitively “know it”

… a very exact example of a meaning being assigned without any connection. 

well, like i already said,  a connection assigned on the spot is still a connection assigned.

your throwing in the phrase, “or not by any connection at all” … is not an example at all … it is just your assertion.

and i challenge you to give an example of “intuitively knowing anything” without that intuition having emerged from a vast background of connections usually arrived at by experience.  merely asserting that you do, does not inform our shared grasp of these processes. 


One of your challenges is that both of you have not taken a stand on what a “meaning” is for you that anyone else accepts. Meaning is a belief – “thinner than piss on a rock” (LBJ)
→ so the pile of words here is chaff blowing in the wind
XOR a squirrel in a teapot

Fuck You – your have started another war called random hidings of your comments.

That is not assigning a meaning by connection, and the meaning assigned is not a connection. In the future, you could create a connection for that meaning. You might be inclined to believe connections on this meaning like “birds are our dead relatives observing us”, or you might not.

Meaning is meaning without connection, no matter how many connections you used to create the meaning, or how many new connections are made from the meaning. Red is the color red because it is the color red. That is a meaning. There is no other intrinsic connection other than the assignment of the word red to the color, and that is for communication, not for our internal understanding of the meaning red. Someone could know the meaning red without ever knowing the world our sound for it.

well yes, it is not “assigning meaning by connection” ← i a not at all shure how that term is connected. 
rather “it is assigning the connection itself”. …
“meaning is just a fluff word that people have made up”.

You seem to be assuming that the meaning is something other than just the connection itself. 

So yes, in the future i can assign a different connection
like for example, “birds are our dead relatives observing us”. 


Most people learn to connect “red” to the particular qualia informed by a vibration of about 650 nm.   That connection for them is called “red”. 

Me i have not learned to easily distinguish that connection
from one that i have that is called “green”.


I think you will find that anything that your are really saying can be said just as precisly as needed 
by not using the term “meaning” at all.

And one (an average person) can also distinguish red without a connection. I agree connections exist. I agree people quite often assign and derive meaning from connections. But a meaning is not a connection. A meaning is a connectionless atom of knowing.

Otherwise, connection and meaning are just two different words for the same thing and a disassociated atom of knowing has no word to label it.

well yes i am saying that “meaning and connection” are the same thing.

and i do not believe in any “disassociated atoms of knowing”.

That is a simplification of my ontology. 

Hey, if you want to use the more complicated historical one, it is no skin off of my nose. 
Hopefully you are quite clear on a tangible practical need for the extra term.

I need it because I have a very real distinction in my reality experience that needs to be labled.

I was expecting that you would say something like this. Whenever it comes up, you push aside direct knowing as something you don’t experience. I do experience it. It is very distinct. As distinctly different as the color red is from the color green for me, in fact, probably even more distinct than that.

Virtually everything that has to do with the subject of direct knowing you lump together under the same distinction. I guess you don’t experience it. I do experience connectionless knowing. I know others who do. Even Mark appears to experience it … at least he talks about it and how it is a different experience for him.

It appears to me there is very good reason to have two different words. The words match two very different experiences I have in reality.

What should I do with your statement that you don’t experience direct knowing and direct meaning? I have no idea. I can only suggest – to meditate until you do.

well i too can distinguish between me connecting something  and my experience of the connection itself.

then using the historical ontology, i would call the former meaning, and the latter experiencing meaning. 

to be honest, it is not something i try to do often … and tend to avoid it when it happens too much …
it tends to just distract my attention on to itself … feels kind of yucky really … and yields nothing in return.

Well nope. I am not talking about the difference between a “conneciton” and “an experience of a connection”. I have never been talking about that.

I am talking about direct knowing. Knowing something because it is a direct truth. It comes directly into thought without any connection to anything else of any kind.

One form of it is channeled information, like Esther does with Abraham. Another form of it is directly accessing knowing from other parallel selfs. The most common is simply direct intuition or knowledge that comes in response to the right kind of asking, like how one asks while in meditation. I believe that last kind is what most people experience as direct knowing and what Mark talks about.

The hallmark of all of these is that the knowing, the meaning, the idea, is simply there, complete, ready to go, with no connection to anything else at all sans a possible, but not required, asking.

yeah i have herd about that.  i don’t believe in it. 
i ask of that process, what is it in and of itself?
what does it do?  … especially for those who claim it.

#btw i get things popping into my head frequently for which i am not consciously aware how they are connected to anything that i have experienced or connected in my life.  i always like to watch- those go by … and wonder regarding their mystery … but i have avoided making up stories about them … not sure what i could say that would continue to ring true.   

Well I will say it for you then. This is one of the edges of your box. The choice to “watch direct knowings go by” instead of to accept them and act upon them. Without those direct knowing experiences, your world is smaller. That is why I use the term “box” … as in a space inside a larger space. You have more experiences available to you than you choose to engage with.

… and that choice colors things like your ability to distinguish the difference between meaning and connection.

nahh, you can’t think it for me null
… but thanks for exemplifying what sombody who claims such a ability gets out of claiming it.

I can and did. I have access to all the elements to be able to. It is you who are watching some of the elements go by unsampled.  

go for it #fabana

Yes. I get to experience more distinctions. That’s what I get. I am glad you see that.  

that is not the way it looks from out here …
looks more like you got your hand trapped in a cookie jar.

it’s also very interesting how both you and mark
use your claim of  “direct knowing” for the same kind of profit.

If you can’t see what is in the cookie jar, then it will always look like that.

The only way you will ever find out is to stick your own hand in and see what happens.

Your interpretation of the monkey’s experience may not be the real experience the monkey is having. Maybe the monkey likes what is being felt in there so much … and you are only convinced his excitement is distress.

You will never know unless you try. We are here to try. That’s what reality is for.  

it’s also very interesting how both you and mark
use your claim of  “direct knowing” for the same kind of profit. ~ Seth


We both use it to increase the distinctions we experience? Cool.  

well you erroniously suppose that i have never grabbed such a cookie myself …
and now am so fucking glad that i let them go null

Maybe you just got a bad cookie.

I get one now and then … and toss them.

The delight of the good ones far exceeds the occasional bad one.

Whatever happened to you, it was a one-off. Life is not normally like that. Life is hear for us, not against us. We are meant to try things and have experiences and try more things … not to hide from possible bad experiences and be afraid.

well good or bad is not a connection i make with such cookies.  i connect only whether they are sharable with others or not.  i like the ones that are sharable much much better.   my choice of value.

tag #share #fabana #cookies #insides 

nathan you have no idea of what you run your mouth about what happened to me.   trust me on this … you are way way off base.  and that insanity is not even what i am talking about here.  you are running on your own imagined connections just inside yourself.

All cookies are sharable. All experiences you have are valuable to others. If not the other in front of you right now, then the next one. It is only you that judge an experience and its worth in sharing. If you have an experience, it is sharable.   

”nathan you have no idea of what you run your mouth about what happened to me.”

That is exactly why I talk in true generalities that apply to everyone. If you are finding a match to your own experience in my true generalities, then it is a match. Wha la. I am lucky I guess.  

well sure anything is shareable … with great expressing and deep interaction anything can eventually be shared.  thinking that happens without the deep interaction, is just wishful thinking.   it is like imagining you wrote a great screen play, but wrote nothing down and nobody knows about the play except you.  those are not the internal connections that i value. 

whatever … the things you say do not apply to me (are not connected to me) when you run your mouth about my insanity in the 70s.   though you think that they do … which i know because you keep implying by saying that they do apply.   

in general the cookies which are not shareable which you run your mouth about are just connections that you yourself made that do not obtain outside of your being. 

knowing which connections are #shared in any given now … and which are not … is a high art. 
that is part of a realization which i have frequently talked about connected to #otherness.


”thinking that happens without the deep interaction, is just wishful thinking”

Nope. I used to think that very same thing. Then, after being told by those with truly open hearts, those who know, that it is wrong, I tried sharing things that seemed to only be my thing and not sharable. At first it was rough going … I had to keep at it. Then finally, I found the truth. ALL THINGS ARE SHARABLE … and when you know that and act from that, then you will always and automatically be in the presence of those who can share what you have to share.

The way we get to be around others who cannot share our experiences, whatever they may be, is to keep our experiences inside and believe they are not for others … then that attracts the very others they are not for. When we simply follow our natural desire to share, we connect with the others who are ready for that exact sharing. It is simple law.  

It is only like an art if you try and take control of all that yourself. In fact, it is quite natural to be around those who are ready for what you have to share. You don’t have to control that. You can simply relax into the knowing that you are beautiful and will always be drawn to those who are drawn to you.

Does a 2 year old practice a high art of sharing? No. They simply emits their own true essence, and that naturally brings joyful responses from those who are drawn to that essence.

you are talking about a different aspect of #shareing … sure if you can share a connection that is great … and certainly things can be shared which lots of people presuppose can not.  but i would caution you to realize all of the context and connections that needed to be pre established before those deep connections could have been shared. 

hint:  it is not a one way street … #shareing does not work as a push transaction.


#shucks a baby infant does it even better than a 2 year old null
 
are you quite so sure we are talking about the same kind of #cookies ?

I am talking of all things. There is nothing in one’s closet that is not sharable. It all has value to someone who is not you. There are no exceptions.

I agree, pushing is not sharing. I am not talking about that either. I am simply talking about all the deep dark things one thinks they have that are not sharable and might not be well received by others. The only thing that ever prevents those things from not being well recieved by others is the idea itself that they will not be well received. That idea sets up the undesirable sharing condition. Without that idea, all things are sharable with someone and we naturally connect with those who are interested in what we have to share, and those who are sharing what we are interested in.

Of course. A baby is even closer to pure source. A 2 year old has already begun to be humanized.  

Yes!

why do you pre suppose that those are opposing directions? 

why do you believe that being human is to go away from source?

why would you make that connection?

… and I don’t mean to say that being human is a bad thing. Only to say that humans have a wealth of bad habits of interaction that they pass on, generation to generation. Baby’s and children better show the true potential humans can aspire to. Combine the knowledge and experience of an adult with the source connected ability to express true essence a child has and you are much closer to the potential humans can achieve.

By recognizing that, and #doing it wherever I am able, I walk in that direction however close I can get.  

why do you believe that the momentum of humanity is against your source?

why do you make that connection?

I don’t. I firmly believe the momentum of humanity is toward soruce, always.

We just have a bunch of bad habits we are working with in this age … and even they had their purpose in our evolution … and their time is over and we are well on the way out of those woods already.

well sure … that a lot of people have a lot of bad habits is amost a given. 

is that the aspect of this that we really want to grasp?

Evolution forks (xor unrolls) .  It is above N’s pay-grade to pass judgment on humanity or human beings (except perhaps in his own mind). The rest of us are not finished yet.  Anyway Mr Natural said it best:

 

apparently Mr Natural did not make the #connections for which the fence people asked.

It is not above my pay grade to say what I say.

Was it above Steiner’s to say what he said? Jesus’s to tell what he channeled?

You can only judge your own pay grade. You have no authority to judge another’s.  

Wow! You folks are going to argue (#AlreadyAlwaysArguing) about a cartoon? – I say he did! null #AlreadyAlwaysArguing is about meaning that’s why it is compulsive & visa versa – just like the #RWG
.
Anyway here is the urban dictionary on cookies : http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cookies – still not sure what you are talking about with #cookies .

Like I said – in your own mind! N null

well everybody has there own #cookies … apparently the urban dictionary has decided for you  that they are mostly #pussy.

What I would like you to take away from this is that it is okay for you to try new things, to play and experiment and see what happens. Your okay, and always will be okay. Try all the cookies you can. Find out the ones you like and the ones you don’t. 

… and realize that you are saying “and now am so fucking glad that i let them go” from a place of fear and distress … not from a place of your own wellbeing and desire to explore and be the best human you came here to be, in your own image.  

Apparently this is all in your mind. Your the one judging pay grades. Do you work for the universe placement buerau? 

oh #shucks … do you actually believe that i don’t already love to try new things, yadaa yada.  ? …
and need you to tell me to take that away from what you say as if it was new to me null.

and #shucks … do you actually think that that anything  i am saying here is connected in any way with a experience that was frounght with fear and stress ?  
null

from what source are those internal connections in you coming?  
neither are coming from me. 

so your connections there are not being shared with me. 

Do you realize that?  

Apparently it is a high art that you have yet to develop.

Well, like I said, the above is what I would like for you to take away from this.

What you actually take away from this will be the best of what your habits of thought, and interaction with the communication of others, allows you to. It will always be your best in this moment.  

well sorry null, you still seem to be unaware that your internal connection  is not shared over here …
notwistanding how much you love it null yourself.

More like common sense. You don’t speak for humanity since you don’t speak for me & apparently/probably Seth.

I have no internal connection over there. Whatever you are talking about are your own talking points.

I am quite aware of my own internal connections thank you.

If you are bringing baggage to the table and inserting it between my words, that is your business. Some of that baggage may even be mine that you picked up and have been carrying because you thought I left it out of place or need to have it back. You would be surprised at how much of the baggage of others we each carry around just waiting for the opportunity to put it on the table.

There are 4 or more including the computer software version of what cookies are.

Mark the cookie monster.

Does have a nice ring to it! #RingsTrue

Anyway this item seems to be about 2 egos arguing for their separated-ness.  I mentioned uniqueness as a selfie kind of belief earlier in the game with quotes from Peter Ralston of Cheng Hsin.

Well, that’s simply you showing us your selife Mark. null

well yes obviously “you have not internal connections over here”.

but you do have internal connections over there.

my point is that you do not seem to be aware that your internal connections over there
are not being shared with my connections over here. … or that you are hopelessly confused …
or maybe even that what you say in the language that you are using to say it is misaligned
with any connections that we are sharing.

Again, whatever that is, it is your talking points, and your baggage. I am not over there trying to share. I am responding over here.

obviously you are not over here doing anything … least of all sharing. 
and yes are responding from over there.

but you are trying to make a connection that is over there inside yourself, also obtain over here.

it is #NotWorking. 

Yes, I believe I already said that.

Well, like I said, the above is what I would like for you to take away from this.

What you actually take away from this will be the best of what your habits of thought, and interaction with the communication of others, allows you to. It will always be your best in this moment.  


so here we go around the loop again …

oh #shucks … do you actually believe that i don’t already love to try new things, yadaa yada.  ? …
and need you to tell me to take that away from what you say as if it was new to me null.

and #shucks … do you actually think that that anything  i am saying here is connected in any way with a experience that was frounght with fear and stress ?  
null

from what source are those internal connections in you coming?  
neither are coming from me. 

so your connections there are not being shared with me. 

Do you realize that?  

Apparently it is a high art that you have yet to develop.


#SamoSamo #AlreadyAlways #TuQuoquenull could program a bot to respond like N.

Yep … roundy roundy.  As I said. That is not a high art, it is more a low smith based on misunderstandings about how, when we are being our authentic self, we don’t need to practice “arts” like that. There are much better and truer arts we can attend to with our effort and our attention. We, as a race of beings, already included that one in our basic genetic coding long ago, like walking, running, and dancing, and we can let go of it as a conscious art now, by simply being our authentic selves.

well #shucks if we do not #share these  “low smith based” connections as you call them ...
why do you believe that sharing deeper ones would even be possible?

Wikipedia on Egoism (not to be confused with Egotism)  ← the former is what I think selfies are all about although both would do the job.

We don’t have to practice “sharing connecitons” as an “art form” any more than we need to practice walking side by side to take a walk. As beings, we already have that in us. Trying to practice it consciously is like trying to walk “consciously”. It’s clumsy. The only reason people do try and make arts out of communication and connecting is because people are not always aware that their true, authentic self, is already going to communicate and connect in the most effective way possible if they “let go” and stop trying to control the situation or fall back on habits. If you are afraid you are going to fall, then you will try to walk and be clumsy. If you just start walking without trying, you will be fine and not fall. Same with communication and connections.

#LOL … I was thinking the same about you. I have seen nearly all your meme’s cycle so many times I have them nearly memorized.

I was thinking that all we need is a machine that drops one of your meme’s or videos in a load of shit by pulling a lever and we could completely replace you. null

… and here is Mark’s response (pull lever now).  → 

#SamoSamo #AlreadyAlways #TuQuoque null could program a bot making N’s responses ← repeat!

#LOL … LOL … LOL … lol … lol … lol … beautifully done.  

i don’t know about practicing the art of being aware that something is or is not shared …
that seems to me to be another question entirely.

i just know that you talk as if connections that your have made deep inside your being are  being shared over here.  so i assume that you are unaware that those connections deep in your being are not also being also connected over here. 

for example:  you have obviously made a connection deep in your being about how great and free and powerful you are and how much you love yourself and your life.   the echo of that connection can be heard over here in much of the things that you say to me.   you talk to me as if that connection of yourse would be shared by how you talk … as if you were unaware that it is your connection and not mine.    and the gaulling part of your unaweness is that you couple your love of yourself with negative judgements about my own similar type connections of which you know absolutely nothing.  in other words you say to me that you are right and i am wrong.  … and seem to be unaware that i will not connect that up myself the way you do deep in your own being.   no, the way you love yourself is your connection … and can never be felt by me over here … nor can you know anything about  my love of myself or judge it in any way that connects with it.  your love of yourself is not an example of my love of myself … or visa versa. notwistanding that you talk as if, and use that connection as if it was such an example.
  
That is the first time i have written down this kind of awareness …consider  it  a rough draft … try to hear its essence and not just karp on problems in the way the language structured the thought or knee jerk your usual kind of response.  and please maybe try not to make a #RWG transaction in the process of your response … for that would just get us back in a loop.

I don’t have shared connections over there. I talk about me and my version of you only. Yep, I am free and enjoy my life. I have no negative judgments about you. I talk about me and what is right about me (even right now). Your judgment of yourself between my words is your own baggage. I see that you live in a box of stubbornness and limited awareness … that is not judgment, it is demonstrable observation and backed up fully by your own statements about what you believe and are willing to accept as perception. Do with it as you will. It’s your choice to so live.

I say this because it is very succinct and very accurate. You can use it to get on track with your brainstorming or not, as you wish.

Well since you are one of the biggest selfie exhibitors I know (even though you don’t have a smart phone) I guess you should know. null

But in any case, that is not what selfies are about in our culture right now. For most people, especially the younger, selifies are about getting in touch with individualism, specifically individual guidance and desire and personal power. They are about expressing to the world “I am this and this is valuable and I have the right to be this, as I am, and be equal to all of you”.

well …

Your judgment of yourself between my words is your own baggage. I see that you live in a box of stubbornness and limited awareness … that is not judgment

nathan

is an epression of your negative judgement of me.  
that expresses a connecton in you. 
that connection has nothing to do with me.  

appearantly you are quite unaware  of that.

I am aware that it is observation and that it is backed up by worldly facts and especially by your own words saying what you are willing to accept as real and not real and what forms of percepton you consider valid and not valid. You can take any subject and I can find your words here at the FBI that will show exactly where you draw your edge. That makes my statement observation, not judgment. I don’t say what it means that you have this box … that would be judgment. If you self judge what having such a box would mean, then that is your baggage, not mine.

the words you will find here will lead you to your interpretations and your connections.
frequently those interpertations have nothing to do with me.
those  are your connectinons  in your own being.

but sure, some of your interpertations i will even share myself … i am sure of that.
but those will not be the ones that we are talking about here in this thread.


#IBID – #meaning (comment 77165) null

i take and publish #selfies to see what i look like from the outside …
to make my connections with that. 

it is really as simple as that. 

at the same time i realize that some people see me through those selfies … well great … more awareness all around.

i do try not to over do it …
the process does not seem to be increasing the love i have for myself …
it just does not have that effect on me  … i can’t talk of what it does for others.

it does increases my  “acceptance of what i look like to others” … and/or pretty much just what nathan said.

Well there is one, the latest I know of, right here on this page.

i get things popping into my head frequently for which i am not consciously aware how they are connected to anything that i have experienced or connected in my life.  i always like to watch- those go by … and wonder regarding their mystery … but i have avoided making up stories about them ~ Seth

Right there you say with your own words that you wonder about, but do not recognize a perception (something that pops into to your head as you call it) as being a valid source of input for you. There are many more like this at FBI covering nearly every subject, and that either go to show your filtering of perception, or your specific beliefs, which define the edges of the box I speak of. I don’t need to make these things up or interpret them differently than you. You are very good at defining the edges of your box all on your own and stating clearly what you believe and what you accept.  

Yeah great example ...

i wonder where the connection … the proposition, …

 [seth] does not recognize a perception (something that pops into to your head as you call it) as being a valid source of input to [seth]

nathan

… , came from.  

certainly not from me.  

i don’t question the validity of those inputs.
rather i  wonder in their mystery.  

Why do you keep making up shit about connections which are only in you …
and then projecting them on me ..
as if you were not aware that the connections were in you and not in me at all?

Then too there is superstition  ← Wikipedia def.  & carried to extremes →  OCD ← Wikipedia .
Hope you folks can tell the difference.  Some people carry extreme connections around with them & some just tweet them in politics.

Well, go find where you wrote that and look at the context. The context was talking about “direct knowing” and that was your final response to a long dialog where you elicited examples of direct knowing from me. This was basically you saying that you have experiences like the ones I call direct knowing, but that you just wonder about them, instead of taking the input and including it in your #CycleOfDoing. This is not rocket science Seth. These are your words and this is a conversation we just had. It’s much too fresh in our minds that I should have to drag the whole context ahead for you like this.

Seems about right to me mark. Your political tweets here at the FBI seem exactly that. Superstition bordering on OCD. None of them have seemed based in practical knowledge like #LOA or anything similar.

well what you said there proves again that you are even profoundly unaware of my connections.

Yet you continue to project the story which you are writing about me,  on to me ...
as if you believe it will become just as true over here as it seem to you over there.

Sorry null I call that not respecting my #otherness relative to you … of not  even being aware of it.
I love null that i have stopped projecting like that myself.
(except perhaps when i relapse)

If you want to prove you have “direct knowing” experiences, then just say it. What you have said, in several places, is that you don’t, and in this case that you have something sort of like one, but you don’t consider it direct information you requested and just wonder about it.

So whatever. Keep wiggling your own words. It is clear from out here, by all your words, not just these, that you filter direct knowing experiences out of your accepted perceptions … and if I am wrong about that after attempting to unravel all your sly shifting words like the ones above, then just say that you have direct knowing experiences and the subject will be closed.  

who said i wanted to prove i have “direct knowing”  … one way or the other ? … certainly not me.

if you want to talk to me about what you call your “direct knowing”, then speak for yourself.

It is you who brought up proving. Either you have direct knowing experiences or you don’t. Either you accept their perceptive input as valid, or you do not. Either you want others to know about whichever of those it is, or you want to keep it to yourself.

I don’t care if you prove it or not. The preponderance of the evidence speaks clearly on it’s own from my point of view. You are the one calling “wolf”. If you want clear feedback from me about what you think you are, speak clearly about it. That’s the only proof that matters to me.

wow … you are still doing it … null.   you are still not grasping anything that i have said. 

okok … i want to go work on #newsletters  … maybe some other day.


#meaning (comment 77165) ← ‘nuff said already about N’s response robot. null

#ChaaChing  →  →

That’s what a CUNT would say & do & post – null

#LOL … are you going senile?
Do you not remember what happened the last time you started #CuntMouth competition?
You don’t have the ovaries to keep up with me!

Just look in the #CuntMouth tagroom and see if you have what it takes for another round!  

Well, I am really not sure why I would speak for you mark. Do you have some kind of trouble speaking for yourself?

You can’t – come up with your own material.

gentlemen, please literally move your #RWG games to another thread …
they are totally distracting to what this thread was about.

I do. Quite a lot these days. Look at my quotes. In several cases now I sign them myself. I am now channeling and synthesizing my own material. I have evolved.  

I will, if you kindly retract the rwg mention. There is nothing right or wrong about these.

They are pure open season sport!

Well, since you hid my comment without retracting the rwg mention … this whole post is fair game … wild country to shoot at will within.  

why should i retract my mention of #RWG … that is exactly what i percieve it to be. 
in any case it is totally distrancting to what was a very interesting train of thought between you and i.
move it elsewhere or not … your choice … you should now know my intention. 

If you folks leave my name out of your superstitious comments & #TuQuoque responses I won’t need to identify the Contrary Units in the discussion. null

Hey, I was willing to compromise … meet you in common ground of consensus.

Since you are only willing to crusade … have fun storming the castle! Hope you don’t get caught in the crossfire! null

#ChaaChing  →  →

The glory of cunthood never fails to provide d’Nad with da #juice to keep it up.  It is sort of like the #RWG – never ending XOR a woofing contest on the grammar shool playground.null

Try this on for size in your #CuntMouth!




well apparently it is a contradiction of our wills.
That you call it “my crusade yada, yada, yada”  is a connection  in you that
you must know by now that i do not share.
nevertheless you talk as if we did null

Yea, whatever. I offered you a peace offering. You burned it. Call it whatever you will … while you have fun storming the castle! …. null

yeah really null


d”Ass,,,e has to continue to stink up the media sort of like a #TrumpHater on twitter .nullnull

While you are politicin’n, don’t pass this one up! She’s hot for you!


#btw … and this may be related or not … but neverthless i will tell you.

The justifications you tell me for your deeds (and the things you say) are never of any interest to me.  To me those are connections inside yourself for value to yourself alone, i must presume  … i have never found them to be of any interest to me. … or at least i cannot remember a time.

Oh cool, your abandoning your lone crusade to join the shootout?

Welcome aboard sir!

And fuck the horse you rode in on! (It was probably a gelding anyway!)  

 

this interaction is not about #meaning … and distracts from that subject.

… no more rhyming and I mean it!
anybody got a peanut? …


(if you want real meaning, name that quote)

… but is that not a change of subject?

come on now … the dialogue on this  thought is already way too long … and whatever that is you are doing is not going to inform the subject of #meaning and #connections … and if so, how?

and #btw i am not abandoingin awareness about #meaning and #connections to join anything else here.
… again with the #MakeUpShit about something that you know nothing.

… anytime you want to swallow your #CuntMouth and retract that this is rwg … I will happily go elsewhere.

… them’s my terms little lady!

who are you talking to?  me or mark?

You. You asked again for disist. I have my terms. This is not rwg, it is open season. I will not be bullied.

You wanna move it? Take the olive branch.

watever … i really do not care whether it gets moved or not. … esthetically it will just look better if it does not distract from our other dialogue.  i called it #RWG and that is exactly what it appeared like to to me.  maybe it was some other game to you … call it “season” or whatever … that is all connections in you … which is all about you and has nothing to do with my connections over here … or as far as i can tell our other dialogue.

now it appears to me that you want there to be a test of wills between us. 
well that is another game that does not interest me here. 

how does that inform our other dialog?

not me …
not in my gut
do i put my name in that mote.

Nope. It is simply not rwg. There is no right or wrong in “open season”. The only goal is to score as many kills as possible. If someone is right or wrong has no more meaning than a guy wearing pink panties in a gay bar.

… and okay, you softened your position. Good enough. Besides, I just watched Guardians of the Galaxy 2 … and it was so incredible I would give anyone anything after watching it! OMG it is a good movie, and funny as hell … 3 times funnier than the first!  

Yep, more like Obsessive-Compulsive behavior to keep “the game” going.  A question might be asked as to how you know when the game is finished?

You get tired of it. Have you never played till you dropped? If not, you really missed something. null

AC seems to have invented something like that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroto-comatose_lucidity, not my thingy, but you can keep going for da #juice ; play with yourself all you want! null 


… which is the same thing that i said above null in the body of this thought …

Nothing has meaning on it’s own. The only meaning something has is how it is connected (related) to other things in the eyes of an observer.

seth
… only i said it without contradicting it as i said it …. for to say  “life is meaningless” is to contradict that you connect the meaning yourself. 

You can even be more direct, eliminateing the extraneous term,  and say “connect things, you will feel great when you do”.  As you are “flying”, that is you connecting.

#AlreadyAlwaysArguing tags it all best! null