It’s a mathematical (analytic) thought related to psychology.
First a definition …
A (is recognized as) #controlling B. ← which defines one aspect of “#control”.
Now we really don’t know of care what A and B are so far, that definition can be applied to any manner of thingeys.
Forget about A … let’s just examine some possible Bs … like #thought and #will .
I observe, and so did mark that: (1) It is not usual to know why #thoughts occur … to know from whence they came … to know what is #controlling them. Now of course there is all different degrees of that … somtimes i can almost totally focus my thoughts and control them … other times they just occur from some unknown source. Sometimes they follow from what i am sensing in the world … or even directly from others by listening to what they say and following my connections and momentum from those signs.
Now i also observe, that (2) i can say almost the exact same thing about my will.
So that i can generalize saying …
both #thought and #will, happen in a spectrum of #control by a variable source.seth
This raise some possibilities for future research …
- do a cross product of #thought X #control and see what is in each quadrant
- do a cross product of #will X #control and see what is in each quadrant
- examine the similarities (and differences) between those two cross products
- can the same be done with #feeling … or how is it (or is it not) part of A instead
… or …
You can apply yourself to any of those. For instance, you can apply yourself to a particular physical ability and someday do amazing things that no one else can, such as win figure skating at the Olympics, or jump a motocross bike 50 feet straight up in the air while doing flips, or sing with an angelic voice, and so many other things. Same with both thought and will. One can let them be as they are, sort of random, or one can apply their being to either, or both, and become skilled at forming them from consciousness, and thus skilled at creating their own reality to any degree.
The one difference is that most such things, like physical skill, is limited by physics and the human body. Thought and will have no ultimate limitation in how much you can gain control of them, or how far they can take you.
A human either controls all these things or they don’t. It’s not random. It’s applied state of being. Which is mostly in agreement with what you said, just more exactly defined.
And true, you cannot add “feeling” to this formula. Emotions are a sense. They are a “response”. Specifically, an emotion is the bodies response to a thought. – Eckhart Tolle. Emotions are not something we control directly. The only thing we can do with them directly is suppress them. If we seek to select them, it is easy however, for all we need do to select emotions is to learn to select our thoughts. Because emotions arise directly as a result of thoughts. We may not be able to select an exact emotion that way, because the pallet of emotions and their relationship to varying thought is nearly infinite, but we can select the general direction and tone emotions will come from, by selecting our thoughts.
Such abstract generalizations should never be used or grasped for as themselves …
rather they just point at where to look to experience particulars.
If you understand analytic thought for what it actually does,
then perhaps you will get over criticizing and avoiding it when you see it done.
Reading #RS’s stores, as you also just said, can tap into a different intuition …
but this is not that ← just as you observe.
What specifically do you mean by …
“it loosens boundaries like the universe (xor spiritual world) is digesting the human” ?
The next time you navigate a ship on a shifting stormy expanse of ocean, and decide not to use a map, i will not expect to meet you at any given port.
exactly … you use a map.
Nope! The map already exists in the stars. The same way you nagivated us home when we were lost in Long Beach using the stars on the LA freeway. Anyway today most people use GPS
so the ancient mariners just looked at the stars and compared them to nothing else
but to the extent that it does map a territory, it can be used for people to have a meeting of minds.
Perhaps your “realm of being” cannot be mapped.
Well okay, then we will never meet with each other in that domain.
But in which case, why are we even talking to each other about it?
what i am saying is that for people to meet at the same place on the Earth,
requires people navigate by consulting the stars AND a map … (or moderna equivalent).
Actually the Cheng Hsin Summer Newsletter handles a lot of such kinds of questions.
In my hippie days all I needed was a thumb & a smile.
and there are all kinds meetings … most people do not recognize them as such.
i conjecture that any #representation can be used as a map ..
and is just as useful for a meeting or minds as it accurately represents the territory for those meeting in it.
then too, me thinks, it is #TurtlesAllTheWayDown … so i factor that into the equation.
tag #connections #maps #representations
i expected you to divide by zero again making all numbers useless,
and unilaterally declare a victory of your ego over mine.
But okay , a piece of ass would be even better
#DirectExperience #maps #representations
with some notable mismatches. i don’t get emotions exclusively from thoughts.
Most of our disagreements center around what a thought actually is. Your descriptions tell me that what you call thoughts, must be something that is far more tangible and causitive, than what i call thoughts. Rather i reserve all causitive (controlling vibrations) to what i call #will.
#btw, i can select emotions by selecting thoughts … and i can select thoughts by selecting emotions.
I challenge you to select a thought from an emotion. An emotion may inspire a thought, but I think you will find that you can not deliberately have an emotion without a thought, and that emotion cannot deliberately create a thought, only inspire a new one which creates a new emotion.
I personally think that our disagreements are for 2 reasons.
1) You tend to be very inexact, i.e. sloppy, in your characterization of thoughts, emotions, and will. You don’t make clear distinctions. You lump several distinctions together and also ignore some perceptions you have but don’t assign any value to.
2) You don’t like the way my story feels to you. Probably because of other experiences you have had in your life that caused you to make very specific choices about how you will allow yourself to define all of these things.
Q & R munge into W
conclusion X,Y,Q,R munge into a mess! Perhaps P vs NP
… those who prove reality with math
live in reality so proved.
… and those who don’t
← compared to this.
well i do analysis to increase my grasp of a psychology of predicting, expectecting, controlling, sensing, informing, acting and feeling. It’s an art and a science … almost like the psychohistory of Asimov’s Hari Seldon. A analytic study of all the things that i experience. So perhaps i can talk to others about it and not be misunderstood. Can you see any of that in the pictures above and the thoughts with with they align? it is all about the acuity of my grasp into the psychology domain.
Instead, isn’t your munge like a person crossing their eyes as they watch their experience opining that noting is clear?
Incidentally why do you just inadvertantly cherish #GW’s cube work ?? …
which is the same thing but with extreme munging.