… for some value of the words-tokens experience
– one would probably not need the assertions above if such words were clearly understood or how they could coincide in different individuals ...
… talk about unclear words … what you just said does not even seem to translate to plain english!
Words are just tokens in a language unless they have meaning. The words
need real care & definition if one is to understand your usages. I included links to the words into the power thesaurus for your convenience above. However, it is particularly difficult to understand what you are talking about when it comes to what you are talking about when either of those two words “coincide” between different individuals. So yes the word coincide
is another word which is a token.
Nope. Just normal English up there. No need to reframe. Take it quite the way it is said.
OK then your stuff is just stuff – pontificating into the air to hear the air vibrate . Phooey Dewey.
Well 1 & 3 is pretty much ho
w i experience too
(1) “reality” being defined as the fabric (background or media) assembeled by experiencing.
(3) people’s experiences coinciding is what i keep referring to as #shareing …
or somtimes as #matches or #agreements … or #MeetingOfMinds or successful #Communicating …
or even #interacting.
I don’t know what you mean by 2.
Do you mean you create (or control or select) all of your experience ? intentionally?
… yet certainly you must experience things created by others outside of your control through you senses.
Do you mean you create/control/select all the consequences of what you experience?
… yet certainly you can not control all things that happen as a consequence of the things you experience.
So what does “take responsibility for all your experience” mean to you?
okay, according to Accepting responsibility for every thing in your life causes joy and power. (comment 76737)
, … you mean that my “taking responsibility for my experience” means to you that i firmly believe that everything that happens to me “comes from” me.
… so what does “come from me” mean to you?
If i create something then i can believe it “comes from me” … well at least the part of the creation that i put together. But there are vast examples of things that happen to me that i did not create in whole or even in part. Seems to me that you just kicked the can down the road.
That, or some form of it, is most likely necessary yes. For without that understanding, one would not be inclined to feel responsible. However, one could still “firmly believe that everything that happens to me comes from me” and not take responsibility for their own experience. There is more to it than that.
One could also take full responsibility for their experience without knowing that everything that happens come from them … they could simply do it out of compassion as well.
But there are vast examples of things that happen to me that i did not create in whole or even in part.
Hence, you have no vested interest in taking responsibility for them … much like a child and exactly the point. This is where rule 2 of #ThreeLawsOfReality breaks down for you. This is where you have not yet matured.
This is exactly what I say about reality. It does not say, or imply, that I live for myself only, or that I create your experience or the experience of any other, or that I am self contained, or that I live in a box, or that others don’t exist, or that I am self centered, or that I own reality, or anything else that is not above.
1 – 3 above combine to mean that “we each create our reality”.
well actually i do understand what you are saying. we could parse it around and all and maybe drill down to more detail … more usefully we caould find examples for in those examples lies the essence, not in the generality.
The problem for you agenda of enlightening me to that possibility is that i already know a vast set of examples where things happen in which i am involved but did not create and did not come from me.
i will not break my mind for your agenda … 3rd law of yes … see The 3 Laws of YES (first draft)
(but 2nd law of yes actually)
I am not asking you to break anything. I am waiting for you to mature.
no actually 3rd law …
Thou shall playfully honor the needs and path of all others except where in conflict with the first or second law.
it is your agenda to get me to believe … not mine … and certainly not my excitement. So i would break my mind only for you. Thank God for the 3rd law … i can still follow yes and not comply with your agenda
Breaking your mind would be 2nd law.
I honor the 3rd law … do I force you to do anything? No. I only pound on your box and and patiently wait.
It is only your own perception about what you are responsible for in your experience that might make you think otherwise. lol
yep you do not force me … nor could you … never said you did … or thought you could … which is beside the point.
the point is that you incessantly bring it up and even temp me with all manner of shiney things … it is clear it is your agenda. but i can still follow the three laws of yes and “not playfully honor you needs and path” because breaking my mind would “conflict with the second law” … but that escape clause is in the 3rd law.
I can’t follow that.
that is because you cannot follow that and still be right. trust me, the logic works … actually we are both right … strange that you have not noticed.
I am not trying to be right. No need. I simply cannot follow that.
well assume that you missed something about it … and then try to follow it again … maybe you will get it … i’ll wait … no rush … take your time … mature a bit.
No excitement there. (1st law
Besides, you have a lot of built in assumptions to what you said. I don’t have em.
oh, what assumptions do i have built in about what i said which you do not?
an interesting question is did mark
start using the “this does not excite me” bail out of a game before nathan
stated using it. has anyone noticed that seth
almost never used that excuse to bail out of a game. i wonder if he falls to the 3rd law more frequently.
You are welcome to figure them out.
Might be an epiphany in there.
← which is an play that does not #inform others, but implies that you know something that i do not. certainly does not serve the 3 law … nor the second … must be all that selfie 1st law mandate leading by the nose.
… and there in is your first assumption … that some thing of some kind is supposed to “serve” the 3 laws of yes.
… well if you will play the 3 laws game, then yes you must follow them … or you are not playing the game. that is necessarily true.
There is no game. The 3 laws of yes describe a way to approach life choices and activity that perfectly align all factors of self and others naturally. They are not a game and they don’t serve anything. They are done, or not done, that is all.
well a game can be defined as anything in which you participate which has some structure or rules. but frequently people only consider it a game if there are no irreversible consequences for the fabric of reality of the players. … in other words, if you get killed in the game, you are not killed in your actual reality.
notice that i canged “seve” to “follow” which has a more precise meaning … at least where it comes to structure or rules.
but #shucks … call it whatever you wish … i try not to arue here …. neverthless what i said is still true.
… and it is still true that you have a bundle of assumptions and beliefs about how humans should interact, in order to be productive, etc. etc. which you bring to your logical treatment above. I don’t have any of those … for me, the 3 laws of yes stand alone and are simply followed or not. Results are automatic … or automagic
well what is true is that you think i have some assumption about how humans should interact in order to be productive. i may or may not have the assumption that you think i have. unless you tell me what that assumption is, i will never know.
Searching for that assumption would be far more useful to your path than me supplying it.
apparently you assume that you know my path more than i know it myself.
but no sene beating around the bush.
i do have a choice of where i place the value of what i do. it should be clear to both of us now that i place the value of what i do and experience quite differently that you place the value of what you do and experience.
#shucks, shouldn’t we both accept that and move on? … er, that seems to me to even be a 3rd law kind of mandate.
I don’t believe we place value and experience quite differently. I believe we are very close in how we place value and experience. As far as I see, I only differ from you on one point, and that is that I know about the merits of taking 100% responsibility for one’s own experience and what it does for a person’s life and relationship with others, and you are still working on that discovery.
”that seems to me to even be a 3rd law kind of mandate” ~ Seth
Nothing in the 3 laws of yes would create such a mandate. Somewhere you are adding some assumption to get that out of it. I don’t really have an idea of what this assumption could be.
well the value of my experiece is just for me … it is my private affair … my business … i rarely ever talk about it … except perhaps when i say #yummm or express a positive emotion like “
”. that kind of expression refers to the subjective value to me which i place on my experience.
i suppose that is similar (but not the same) as when you go “remember the sole reason [the universe] exists is to serve you” as in thought 24026
but then i did not talk about how great it is subjectively to feel great … i talked about the value of “what i do”. that is placing value outside of myself objectively to me … it is totally opposite of the thrust of thought 24026
I didn’t “go” anything in thought 24026
. That is a copy and paste of notes “the universe” wrote to us. I don’t write those myself or channel them. (Mike Dooly does)
And then, “the universe” is talking about “magic”, not the 3 laws of yes. So I am simply confused about what you are trying to say about apples and oranges?
well yeah sure my thoughs here are not connected linearly … sorry about that.
Me thinks Mike Dooly does not speak for me or the urinverse. … any more than #Trump can claim he speak for America anymore. Mike has committed mark’s afeared #birdie
Well if believing that is what excites you, then so be it!
… and that last is an example of how the 3 laws of yes are used #btw.
yeah … i got that … #WellPlayed → nathan
#btw i made the same play back on my last #shucks mention.
oh … what assumption am i making that you are not in this context?
As I said, I don’t know. The 3 laws of yes don’t build that way … my best guess is you are confusing the 3 laws with The Golden Rule in some way, reading in an underlying assumption from some other philosophical idea. The 3 laws of yes and The Golden Rule are not related at all. But that is only a guess. All I know is that the 3 laws don’t build cases like that.
i have no idea what train of thoght you are on here.
#btw … re “The Three Laws of Yes.”
Switching laws 1 and 3, you would be going in the direction of what i live for, rather than what you apparently live for. Not exactly … it is not that simple … and for me it is still a work in progress … but that is certainly the same direction of the spectrum.
You wanted to switch the 3 laws of Thinking Domains too … and just like the 3 laws of Robotics, switching any of these systems of 3 laws to match your personal feelings will short circuit them. They are as they are so that they always work in every situation for every person. The 3 laws of Thinking Domains have been well proved thusly … and I can show how they worked in several situations where they would have failed if we had switched them as you suggested at the start.
After a time, I will be able to show the same evidence for the Three Laws of YES. There is a reason for the order being as it is. Perhaps if you re read Asimov’s The Rest of Robots you will understand the best … he makes an excellent case across several short stories of why sets of 3 laws like this must come in this order by his creating of stories that show how they fail when fiddled with.
p.s. P.D. Ouspenski also gives treatments to the Law of Three coinciding with these principles of a set of three laws applied in this manner and how they inevitably balance … though I doubt Asimov and Ouspenski had any relationship … I believe they both simply tuned into a common aspect of reality. It is a very simple thing to grok. All forces in reality are actually a set of 3 forces and they always interact in a particular balance. Active force, opposite force, and neutralizing force.
oh i agree about the structure of the Asmov’s 3 laws … although 3 is arbitrary … it could just as well be 5. the structure itself just codifies priority relative to identity. but your presumption that your peculiar priorities generalize to everyone is but beauty in your subjective excitement. like i said and stand on … trust me … you can make the third law the priority for yes and it works just as well for a person … just maybe not for you with your other beliefs and peculair experiences and excitements and relatioships.
Build yee a house to live in and let others do the same !
Actually 3 is very specific. It is 3 because there is always an active primary force or law (the goal), an opposing or passive force or law (the opposing desire), and a neutralizing force or law (force or desire at a right angle to the others). Exactly 3 are required for harmony or forward movment and they must be applied or listed in the order of the active, the passive, and the neutralizing. This is exactly the case with the 3 laws of robotics and all our other 3 law systems. If the laws do not represent the three forces or they are not listed to apply in that order then the system will break down, short circuit, or stall, because an imbalance is created that gives one or another principle a loophole in point of force.
This is best understood through P.D. Ouspenski’s Law of Three (which we talked about in detail here last year) but is also easily understood in a non technical way through Asmov’s stories about robotics.
These 3 law systems are not arbitrary and the ego almost always want’s to list the laws differently (to favor the ego’s selected beliefs and allow the ego to stay in control). That is why a well understood system, like this one, allows generating these three law ideals in a harmony of trinity that always works, independent of ego design.
See again http://fourthwayschool.org/3law.html
The idea is that for anything to happen, there must be three forces, active, passive, and neutral. Each is equally important. If there is only an active and passive force, nothing can happen until a third force comes along, like a catalyst, to decide which of the forces wins. Forth Way School
Notice also, in the #ThreeLawsOfReality above, how the connection with others is the neutralizing force that breaks the reality stalemate between our natural ability to create or do anything and the ego selfie and it’s desire to control and always be in charge. I would actually think you, seth, would have great affinity for that aspect of the 3rd law of reailty as it shows very clearly and logically how others and otherness is super important to the harmonious trinity of a well balanced reality in an individual.
Without the neutralizing force of otherness we would all be playing supreme Gods in our own individual worlds as the general norm … which although that could be quite fun for a while, it is not an evolutionary structure.
When I seek to generate a 3 law construct for an idea or principle, I do not randomly select statements nor do I look to my impulses or personal desires. I first look for the best representation of the principle I wish to embody. Next I seek the best representation of the opposite or passive form of the main principle in this context, i.e. the idea which by contrast makes the main principle stand out and have power. Finally I look for the neutralizing idea. The one which can unseat the balance of power between the first two. Then I hone them all to #RingTrue (and be a bit poetic as well).
There is nothing arbitrary about the number 3 and I don’t prioritize on personal ideals … I follow a very specific formula that is proven to create a trinity of harmony. A formula which in esoteric circles is referred to as the Christ Force or the trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And a formula which is not limited to the religious scope the esoteric labels imply, but is also a general formula that can be applied in any situation where a force or ideal is being wielded or considered.
#ThreeLaws #ouspenski #asimov #LawOfThree #ThisIsGood
by in large that is great work there and to most of it i agree
. with some notable considerations
it is usually dangerous when thinking “there is always X” especially when it comes to things invented by human beings as any set of “laws” or rules of behavior necessarily are. So i agree with the nature of 3 but see the dynamic that Ouspensky noticed as only a special case of it. A more general situation is there are 2 opposing forces (they need not ent be labeled active and passive) and a third force controls the balance. I have frequently seen that as a spectrum between two forces with the third as the balance between them. Yet even that is more specific than the actual natural edge in 3 itself, of itself, dictates. More generally you can have 3 equal but distinguished thingies each balancing the other. For example: #thought #feeling and #will . Then one can even add a fourth mediating all the other relationships … see #TetModel
Yet there is more in your work above that i have yet to finely digest … #sethhmmm on that
Yes, the labels are just labels and I honored that by supplying several different ways of understanding each force above. Not just active, passive, and neutral, but also primary, opposite, and right angle, and even goal, opposing desire, and compromise. The labels can be quite contextual.
The point is there are always 3 elements and for forward movement they must be arranged thusly. Three can support or balance, such as a 3 legged table, but that does not automatically create forward movement, it may only create stationary balance. Three forces selected and applied as above does create forward movement and forward movement in harmony with the primary principle.
The point of applying 3 laws to a system is to create a set of guidelines for that system which if followed allow forward movement to proceed in harmony.
you seem to imply that one cannot do a similar balanceing dynamic with 5 …or even 7 … yet i think i may have seen that done. as, at least once, observed by a great man that i even know: “there is no limitation to the possibilities that humans create”.
I am saying that 3 is enough. One can always make a situation more complex, for esthetic or other desire, but 3 is enough. It is the natural order. One cannot naturally make a table stand up with 2 legs, but one can with 3. One can make a table with 20 legs too if that is pleasing. Natural balance and forward movement happens at 3 selected and applied as specified above.
well yes it is the minimum
… it is the transcendence which starts change
… also if one goes beyond 3 one better be really sure they know what they are doing. Three is naturally stable containing all necessary elements arranged in a configuration guaranteed to work (if the components were selected and ordered correctly).
One could add additional components and just as easily destabilize the situation as not.
well yeah balance it tricky … change is precarious … vibrations and consequences abound
#LOL … not really. Consequences are always as flexible as the beliefs of the one doing allows. But outcomes may not be as expected or desired, that’s all.
assuming that “consequences of a #deed depend exclusively on the beliefs of the doer” …
yet i have found that not to be the case in a collection of examples too vast to enumerate.
… and all of those examples are from inside your box which is a box built mostly out of the very belief that consequences are dependent on time and deed.
Try using a different box, or doing away with that box, and you will find even more examples “outside your box” that you have not yet experienced.
you are meandering off the edge here, my friend, being distracted by the gloriy of into lieing about me for the sake of your own box.
that is an assumption that is in fact embeded in what you said above. you may believe that assumption, obviously i do not. your house or mine. can you choose or must you stay at home?
The house where consequences are dependent on time and deed is a house inside the house (a subset of) the house where consequences are dependent on state of being.
consequences are not dependant on time … rather consequences are changes caused by changes … they are vibrations themselves … they are how changes flow or change. Time is just a human label for how we grasp that process. forget about time … just talk about what we know … changes … and consequences … and how consequences must flow from changes.
Okay. But still same thing. Consequences flow from state of being, not changes. You are just converting the word time into the word changes. You are still locked into the belief that a consequence has a dependency on something before it in time.
the assumption underlieng that is that “consequences flow from state of being”
rather than flow from other changes.
perhaps in your house you believe the former
… but, sorry
, homie don’t play that way.
Yes. And, consequences that flow from changes and deeds are a subset of consequences that flow from state of being. Your box is inside my box. Your assumptions are a subset of my assumptions … and beliefs.
okay i can go with that … then the only question is what this being includes. see diagrams where the “being in question” is represented by the box it is inside.
as i diagramed before !here
… if you just extend the box that “Being A” is in to include the “Change” itself and it’s “Consequences”
… well then yes “Consequences flow from state of [that] Being”.