Defining a match or a share

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
… this is the venn diagram I would use.

Comments




I like your Venn diagram … it is more logically accurate than

← this one. 

It does beg for us to go to the next level of detail …  to designate what exactly are the members of the now disjoint sets.   I claim they are #representations from the two perspectives where yet the heads and tails somehow match.  I realize that might need a bit of explaining.  later … null … #sethhmmm on that


That is exactly how I would have put the arrows. I never got to it because the venn was in a comment and comments don’t have widgets.



okay … so i went a bit into more detail here on a single match.

Note an arrow here signifies a single #representation … a thought or perception or conception. 

So the diagram means that the person who has made the representation of the match is responsible for his view of it.

The double arrow worked well. This does not. In this you are saying that Being A is responsible for what is in being B’s experience and visa versa. Not so. Being A is 100% responsible for what is in Being A’s experience and visa versa.

It is Being A that “pulls” a representation of being B’s experience into Being A’s own, etc.

… and actually that is not right either.

As I said elsewhere here today (about musicians), what is actually going on is that #LOA and universal forces that match things up via the #LOA select the version of Being A and Being B so that the representation circles (the small ones) are a match to the state of being of both Being A and Being B … and that is what makes the smaller circles appear similar to both … the matched state of being between that exact Being A and that exact Being B out of all the infinite versions of Being A and Being B that exist.

… and this is why circumstances are dependent on state of being, not time, not sequence, not #deeds, those are only apparent causes for circumstances … the dependency is only on state of being … we humans simply “tend” to change our state of being according to things like time and #deeds. We like to do that, but that is not the dependency.

Funny thingy, I have mentioned before, especially prevalent in block diagram like art, is that I have to convert them into English to grock anything useful out of them. Most of the time I don’t waste the effort because the potential for new revelations does not appear to be there. 

The use of mentography for CyberMind™ was however a brilliant departure & I used some of the notions to plan my own programs.

yeah i do the same … i go both ways … it’s almost as if there are different connections in my brain referring to the same thing. 

the natural language describes relationships … but  it is ambiguous and calls up all manner of hairy connections. 

the monograph  labelers the relationships as specifically and unambiguously as necessary … but it struggles with eliminating too many details – being too reductionist.

its the old difference between a mathematical formula … versus a word description of a situation.  notice to calculate and predict we convert the language description to formula … and in the formula is where we use our calculating tools.

Then too, try to understand someone else’s diagram without converting it to language in your own head.null

i follow others diagrams all the time … just like i try to understand what somebody else is saying in words.   for example i am trying to understand the different ways me and nathan grasp people sharing experiences.  i could just chalk it up to me not believing in a tooth fairy matching things up … but i want to drill down and be able to use what nathan is saying  so i can make some of his #LOA calculations myself  … to do that some of the ambiguity between us and extra hair needs to be culled away.

wELL, ALL i AM SAYING –  is that you convert them to language first – of course if there are words in the diagram then it has already been done for you. but a pile of words & a pile of graphic elements is tortuous to thread except perhaps for the creator of such. 
e.g. 

i try to grok the relationsips themselves … pre language.  representing those relationhips i see allows me to see other ones.   its like the difference between doing math all in your head, vs pencil and paper to guide you along. 

so no, with me it is the relationsips i start with when i am thinking in mentography … not the words.

KEWL! then it stays within your mind.

well if i publish the mentograph it can infect or #inform other minds.   just the same as with natural language … no difference there at all.

Well if you can’t make the distinction enjoy.  I sure can.

Here is an even more detailed and accurate diagram of the same relationships.

nathan I hope i elimianted the ambuituity that you noticed.

I think it is impossible to represent a #share without including the relationship that is established through the senses.  Without that channel this is no #shareing … imho.
 
Perhaps with this level of detail agreed upon, we could grasp what you are talking about how #shareing works with #LOA.  

Note the heads of the arrows are all inside the being who is responsible for them.

what distinction do you think i am not making?

Why the distinction between a mentograph & natural language.

Well there is no difference when it comes to being able to inform others when published.  some people see the essence faster in a diagram,  others see the essence faster through a language description.  

apparently you are one of the latter.  #nbd 

”Without that channel this is no #shareing … imho.” ~ Seth

Then you seem to be lacking a dimension of perception that I (and many others I interact with) seem to have. Sensory input is like “watching the produced movie” … but there is also the script, meeting the actors, being on the set, attending the production parties, the cutting room, and all manner of other things going on “behind the screens” … both in making a movie, and in making reality. The world of the final cut is the main one the general public attends, but it is far far from what is available for those who connect intimately in the depth of the reality experience.

I don’t convert diagrams to words. That sounds really weird! I convert both diagrams, and words, to full color action component video snippets in my being and experience those as a connected kaleidoscope. Doesn’t everyone do that?


nope, apparently you have the trump on that null

If you represent ideas in your being as just words, how can you store all the information about an idea in one droplet of being substance? How can you “remember” it as a complete thing? Words represent such a small amount of information. I would tend to think that perhaps what you identify with are the words, but what is actually being experienced from the diagram, and stored, is much much more.


well #sharing mediated by the senses happens during all the aspects of creating reality that you mentioned: “the script, meeting the actors, being on the set, attending the production parties, the cutting room, and all manner of other things going on behind the screens,  in making a movie, and in making reality”.   Just cut off all of your senses and see if you can share any of those aspects.

Quite easily. I just sat at a bar on the beach for the last 3 hours doing exactly that in fact.

I am saying that the “production movie” is ALL the sensory input, everything … and that there is much much more in range of perception for anyone who want’s to be a producer and not just go to the theater and watch the movies. In truth, all people are actors and producers, but most people do not access the experience of those parts of creating their own reality. Most people just watch the end result through their senses.

Apparently seth, you are one of those who only “goes to the movies”. I say this because whenever I bring up any of the other aspects that are non-sensory based, such as direct knowing, or direct experience of otherness, or the experience of a thought creating a thing long before it manifest into physical form, or the experience of channeling information, or the experience of writing a grid and then watching it fill in through the senses, etc, etc. When I talk about any of those things, you kind of tune out, or say I am living in a fantasy, or one of several other ways you indicate these things, things that are equivalent to being on the production set of a movie, are not in your experience at all. The only experience you appear to have is the sensory based one … i.e. watching the movie on the big screen with everyone else. There is a whole lot more going on and just like with movie production, any human can access all of that … but first they have to believe they can, and next they have to “do the work” to get their consciousness onto the production set. As in the world of movies, knowing that production happens to create a movie is not enough to experience it … you have to do the work to get there, behind the scenes, on the set, before you can experience it.

#LalaLand apparently open for business. null

well you did no #sharing as you sat in the bar for 3 hours, regardless of how vidid and intense your mental images were.  and even if you completely accurately planned out and imagined how something was going to be produced, it will not be produced untill you get around to the other #dimesnions of the #CycleOfDoing and actually do the #deeds which can be #shared in the way i diagrammed above,   then and only then can your production  be “played” into the senses of others.

there is no #FreeLunch obtained by private imagination and intuition un-acted.

All of that is completely false. That is all about the “sensory only” model. In the expanded “real” model of reality it is already done … and I have literally experienced that.

… yep in your daydreams. 

#sharing with others requires actual #deeds … some with sensual results.  i’m not saying that results must register on the 5 classical senses … but those are the ones which we can practically talk about between each other thought this language media here.  The others are too subjective to objectiely talk about. They do not #share with the kind of words that we have in our vocabulary.   Trying to do so anyway strikes me as a ruse … especially where the talker continually takes his own brownie points from me with his words.

Nope. I talk about these creative aspects of the reality experience with others all the time. There is an entire language for it. I have shared much of that language with you so you do have a feel for it even if you have never used it yourself.  Come join us on the set and in the cutting room and have conversations with us. You will see. You only have to leave your sensory box to come find us. We are here. We are ready. We are waiting. It will be fun and very enjoyable.  

well sure you have created a vocabulary that works within your group. 

why don’t you do it here?   i for one am all ears.

I speak it all the time here. You generally ignore or berate it, call it things like “in your daydreams” as you did above with me only “talking about it” … and Mark #AlreadyAlways shits on it.

Whatever I say that is outside your “sensory only” box you don’t accept, in one way or another. Why do you think I always harp about the box you are in? You honestly don’t want to hear what I have to say that does not fit in your box. You have no context for it. It is just jibberish to you … even though it is a real part of my everyday experience.

Imagine how people reacted to you back in SF when you were running around the streets on drugs or flashbacks … that’s pretty much the same way you treat me whenever I talk about what I experience. The difference is that when one goes to these places without drugs, one is able to have full connection with the rest of one’s reality, as I do, and as those I associate with do. When it is done with drugs there is a split in consciousness and one is not able to experience a connection between the two worlds.

As Abraham (and most others) say, drugs exist to teach us about where we can go … but are not intended to be the final experience. Drugs are intended to show us the way. When taking drugs, we can step outside ourselves and observe what is happening in us … make maps, learn the route. Then, we can go to the same places without the drugs and only then can we have a consistent experience between that reality and the one everyone else is experiencing.

You have judged your experiences from that period to be “unreal” and not sharable. In fact, they were not sharable because they were experienced via drugs. They become sharable when the same paths are taken without drugs. Then the experiences are sharable with others who likewise have an open mind and belief system.

null sorry you cannot #share what you are trying to share with me with a #ParentChild transaction with me where you puff yourself up and knock me down.  Especially where all the things you say about me are #lies. They are thing of which you know nothing notwistanding that you imagine that you know them directly.  That will never work.  In fact it is the opposite of what a spiritual teacher should do.

i would null you to try something outside of that box.

The idea you have about parent child transactions is exactly how you maintain your box in the face of sold evidence and authentic presentation.

Have fun with that.  

I am not here to be your spiritual teacher nor do I wish to be. I am here to pound on your box … only to keep you just awake enough that you eventually discover how to spiritually lead yourself.

anyway, character assignation distractions, and banging on #bozo’s box with an ancient tempo,  aside ….

i am trying to get a grasp on what #sharing is … sensual or not sensual … i claim  the diagram would  be the same.

#sharing here is what i was expecting.

go pound on sombody ele’s box … i trie of it … it does not #inform … except about your stick … which has all to do with you and nothing to do with my box … and is not even funny any more.

The pounding is more than random thumps. There is a code in the rhythm, an ancient and undeniable communication. It informs you weather you consciously realize it or not. Eventually you will reconize the beat.

well yeah i agree  it is an ancient beat null … i know it well …. me, i am a new age person … it is not my tempo.

tag #NotMyTempo

#LOL … you are NOT a new age person. You were one perhaps up though some part of the 1970’s. Then you fell asleep.

You have a few new age observations now, that is all, you no longer practice it, you only pretend in your own mind that you still are. You hardly even have the ability to recognize the experience of a new age person in 2017. Sorry dear uncle, but that is how it is. That is why we all die … we cannot continue to stay current, not easily. I have learned some new tricks for that, but they will only advance be a few hundred years at best.  ← go ahead, bush that off. Ignore my reality.

#los why should i not ignor that #reality inside you … why whould i want to #share that … why would i want to have such a tiny tiny box … primarialy full of shit that you have imagined about me.   me i am looking for a more positive #reality.   … so yep ignored null.

… and so we cannot talk about it. As I said, my language escapes you … even when it is direct. Thanks for that. Enjoy your box.

well i was direct too.   why would i want to be in your #reality where i have such a shitty box.   I mean that as a direct question.  if you want to appear direct to me, then answer it directly.

Because in my reality, a box is just a box, and there are tools to do anything one wants with a box one is aware of. It is a perfect situation.

Because in your world, the box does not exist, so you simply circle within it without end forever unable to actually speak to me in a larger language as you just asked to do. Instead, you perceive the language, when I speak it, as a threat (or in truth, your ego bodies do that). Everything that comes to you that is not part of what is inside your box is either a threat or invalid. There is a huge range of experience you invalidate or ignore.

So that’s why you might want to be in my #reality. It has scope, and ease, and downstream movement … it is a place one can exist in infinite excitement, and easy confidence without fear of being or doing wrong … because all that exists is valid experience when the boxes are eliminated.

well sure .. but that is not the box that you are offering me.   if i am in your box, in your #reality, then i am a small and narrow thingey … you said it yourself.   Hey dude, change the box of me that is in your #reality … maybe i will like it enough to stay.  

look … #KeepingItReal … be direct.   Be postitive to me … not negative … create positive feedback … not this negative stuff that you keep bombarding me with.  I am sure that you are positive twards your Yes tribe … yet you come here and do the opposite.  Then you rationalize that saying that your job is to bang on my box. #make your actions authentic to your words and stop telling #lies about me.   Then maybe i will grasp what you are doing … or in the pralance above, then maybe i will be excited about joining your #reality.

Because, no matter what I say, if it does not fit inside your box, it is invalid. The best spin you give things I say that don’t fit in your box is that you enjoy watching me do things you don’t understand or won’t do … and it goes downhill fast from there.

I have said literally thousands of things to you that are positive, virtually all of which you have invalidated … sometimes gracefully, most the the time quite rudely.

If you ever dare to leave that place where you refuse everything I say that does not agree with your life choices (your personal box) … I will still be here. What point is there in saying the same things I have already said, over and over, from many differing points of view and contexts? Why would I expect to get a different result by doing the same thing yet again? According to Richard Bandler, doing the same thing again and again expecting a different result is the only practical definition of insanity.

whatever you are not getting this.  i will just let it be.

Okay then. Left turn it is. You wern’t expecting otherwise.

Sharing most certainly can be sensory based. And, there are many other kinds of sharing that are not. I can look into a particular kind of persons eyes and know instantly everything they want and expect of me and how they feel about me. I had that exact experience with a co-worker during Mother’s day flower sales. We worked together for 3 days without any need to “use words” … we talked about lots of things, but not about what we needed of each other or what to do in our work together. That information was out of the sensory band and we both enjoyed it that way. That’s only one small sample from my life experiences. The world of sharing and experiences of sharing extends vastly beyond the sensory experiences.

Now take my story and find a way to nullify or ignore it. You will, even if you don’t do it in words here. Because my story contains elements that do not have resting places in your chosen range of experience. It is a true story and authentically presented. I stand by that honorably.


great narration of what you experienced with your co-worker null … #thanks for #sharing in this context null

yesterday standing in a grocery checkout line i found myself waiting in line behind a mother holding an infant in a front carrying pouch.  our eyes didn’t exactly meet but we were obviously aware of each other.   I looked into the babies eyes … and he in mine … no reaction there … i’m supposing my face was not what he was looking for.  This mother  was attentively paying with her baby, swaying and dancing her slender body from side to side.  Now picking his nose which he didnt like.  Then they had invented a interesting game i have never seen before.  She would kind of ignore him, then catch his eye, and then raise both hands in front of him  in surprise  null.   The baby did the same , mirroring his mother, both of them leaning back in surprise.  i would have loved to be that baby playing that game with his mother  … or the mother  paying that game with her baby … it was that fun.  My grocery bags and one of my items fell on hers and the checker almost charged her and put it in my bag … #OMG it was so simple and flowed so easily for us to fix that with the clerk null

i wold say, just like you, that most of what i experienced there, which i would call “sharing”,  was not directly #informed through my immediate senses.  i was the voyeur … what she #shared of my experience was minimal to say the least … yet the human bonding happened anyway even though mostly in my #reality  … all three of us were part of it.



here
is another true story of a #LOA #sharing event.

Whatever story & artifact you want to spin makes your reality. Enjoy! 
Evidence of something? null

well yes i think it is almost common knowledge here that …

Whatever story we spin makes our #reality 

seth’s reword of mark’s assertion
… but what are you asking ?  Of what do you see this being a consequence ?  You tell me!

”common knowledge” is the #birdie . Not asking anything – just commenting.  I think you were trying to imply some kind of #LOA at work there & perhaps you can spin that for yourself as a reality.  Anecdotal evidence does not prove anything except what one wants to believe.
Free yourself & get rid of beliefs ! Don't be a BELIEF robot - M.R.

I guess I left thought 24066 cloaked before about artifacts that are useful.

Same for #LOA 

Well come on, you said it, i said it, and so did nathan … so i call that common knowledge here … and makes my sentence true of us three at least. 

I am implying (in conjecture) this is an example of the same #LOA phenomena which nathan is experiencing.   Do you have any such stories? … we can compare.  

Here i do not try to prove the general with the specific … rather i honestly assert #specific’s which stand on their own.  Those specifics are the territory … it is the generalized map, (“belief artifact” ?), which is but subjective imagery of my constructin in my mental being.

I call it your belief artifact substantiated (made into reality for Seth) by anecdotal evidence. Enjoy!


well i will need to study Genius of Being Surprise but a “belief artifact” sure sounds like a #representation to me … in which case then naturally i agree null … sans any #aug or prejudice against same, no need existing to be informed to enjoy.

you’re degenerating again TaoTehChing #18 – not a representation, just an invention to enable something – perhaps in this case being friendly to strangers anticipating a nice outcome ; probably a counter-balance to perceived childhood isolation ← a selfie problem. 
Note everytime you use the word #aug I think you have forgotten the automaticity of the #RWG & your #AlreadyAlwaysArguing techniques.

interesting … but i remember nothing that should be described as  “being friendly to strangers anticipating a nice outcome”  … there was no such agenda operating here.   Search again for “an invention” !

I do have an agenda to interact as deeply as possible with others and strangers present such a great possibility of totally new adventure.  That was the case here.  It ended up quite a win-win.  I am fairly sure that i changed the rest of his day … and #OMG look at the consequent ripples here null

The big question relative to #LOA is how the event was attracted. 

#AlreadyAlwaysArguing adios!

#hmmm reality becomes an experience by substantiation of beliefs … sounds like #LOA too mark. I think you might be getting the hang of this.  


Why is “an invention to enable something” not a “representation” mark? Seems like if exists, it is a “representation”. What else could a representation be than that which one experiences of it?


#AMF- way to share – 

Read the reference #GofB

… i don’t get the connection of that to this context.

You guys are in your own boxes & fein not being to understand & even hide shit which is outside your boxes.  Play dumb  & you will achieve it!

… that seems to me a frequent message here null