PM musings

4:76 One way you might be able to see this dynamic more clearly in operation is to observe some of your internal “conversations.” It is not uncommon to try to convince yourself or justify some behavior or attitude in your own mind using internal dialogue. But take a look. When you find yourself making an argument, trying to convince yourself of something that isn’t quite true, or that you know doesn’t actually represent the “whole story,” whom are you really talking to? You don’t need to argue a case, or throw an internal tantrum, or justify your position, etc., to yourself. You know the whole story. In order to make such an argument work, you need to hide the whole truth and present only what serves your agenda. Since you know the truth, who could you possibly be hiding it from? It’s not you. It only works if the one you’re talking to is held as an other. You may be able to remember doing these things and can validate this observation, but see if you can view this in operation while you pay attention to your internal dialogue over time.

Ralston, Peter. The Genius of Being: Contemplating the Profound Intelligence of Existence (Kindle Locations 1355-1363). North Atlantic Books. Kindle Edition. 

Comments


interesting times on this item … doesn’t seem to update time when I added something null
navy time midnight is 00:00 however:
https://www.quora.com/Is-noon-12-am-or-12-pm


well more and more i am seeing a spectrum between, on the one pole objective communicatable information,  and on the other pole subjective experience … with the directions being inside/outstide … physical-objective/spriitual … with another paradoxical aspect being self/other.  perhaps that relates to your musings above re Noetic and morphgenic and what #PR said about telling stories to ourselves.  Elaine and i got into something in the 12 hour drive to #PortAngelus from #paradise as it turned into a 19 hour trip.

self-other Tao: 


it’s interesting to note the mathmatics of the maps we are using.

classically a spctrum is the poles at each end and the variations and balance only between them.

yet if one assumes that paradoxically one pole of a spectuem must have the same blend of continuity everywhere , then the only way for that to be mathmatically is for such a spectrum must be a circle.  So, going with that stroy, then the more conservitive you become, the more liberal you inevitably will be.  you would just need to keep going nullnull far enought in that direction.

? – maybe belongs in group politics  binary stuff?
appropriate ?
(***)

shucks i used a political example … i hope it will not get us lost … i could just as easily have used one from psychology … try intovert/extrovert … or voyier/doer …  self/other … motherly/fatherly … or maye even  +/- …. etc etc

the other aspect of such specturms is that they are all relative to the observer.   one wonders just how many such spectrums we could find.

Yep, I was pointing at your choice of binary examples. Peter Ralston of Cheng Hsin in the quote & chapter surrounding it emphasized how language needed self-other or I, otherness to happen before language worked.  We talked about drawing a circle for self to show up (me, not-me) & the Tao circle has been around for ages.

well what you call binary, i was calling a spectrum.  the very difference being that the one blends continuously into the other.   and raising the thought that such spectrums could exist where continueing around  one extreme pole blends into the other.  as dose the Tao you posted.  that is not the way we noramlly do binary thinking.   it almost gets us onto the horns of paradox itself.

its also interesting to note that, if self/other is such a circular spectrum, then mathmatically it is at right angels to a Ven Diagram which puts self into the center of a circle and other outside the circle.  a circular spectrum is in the circle itself … not at a right angle to it as is  indisde/outside.   else we would need to decide which way to draw the map such that it truly represents the territory … we can’t use both of them at the same time without just being confused.

this is what i am grasping for.   i said teeter-totter related to a duality … you said the circularity of the Tao related to it … yet we must be talking about the same thing.   So how do we combine those two views into a common one.

i think that does relate to #PR’s person talking to themselves defending their story to other even though they are themselves … but getting to that is the whole problem … not something that i can just absorb from here myself.

The circle in the Tao above is inside-outside.  As one completes drawing the circle inside-outside permits ego & other to show up.  Spectrums are usually linear from one pole to another like a rainbow .  (red to purple)

I often question who I am talking to or who is talking to me in my inner conversation & can identify with some of the stuff Peter Ralston of Cheng Hsin was talking about in #GofB .


← I would just leave out the word energy.  Information is patterns interpreted by sentients.

Sentients are “patterns of energy” … so leaving that aspect out allows one to ignore the truth that a sentient is the same as everything else, which places one in the position to be separate from what one is observing, which is the illusion. Essentially, by leaving out the word energy, one is placing oneself in a perspective where one can conceive their own self as a separate thing. You might even say, one has elevated oneself to a separate status … like to that of God. This is a good example of why “Reality is your experience of it” works so well to focus one’s perspective in a truly natural way … one where desires are easily obtainable.


Maybe fools can take half of sentences & ideas & opine about them. #IDK  – most physicists don’t really have a definition of what energy is, but I am sure they will #MakeShitUp –  See Feynman. .. defined it as that which makes the 2nd law of thermodynamics work. (conservation of energy) – kinda circular.  There are definitions in classic physics for power, work , motion etc. So what is information? (as what is information theory?)  The astronaut (Dr. Mitchell) defined it as a pattern of energy. He also said that laws are man made as opposed to being something outside humans as a property of something existing separately.  Sentients are beings that sense: no need to draw lines around what/how etc about what they sense (~feel).

Seems like you are agreeing with me. “No need to draw lines. We are energy and what we perceive is patterns in energy.” That is the bases of my point.

So we are what makes the 2nd law of thermodynamics work , eh? null define energy some day so that it makes sense.

I suspect that if one does not draw any lines then all that is left is “That which is – IS!” nullnull

Feynman on energy : http://www.ioc.ee/~silvio/nrg/feynman_parable.pdf

How about simply, “that which is left is experience”.  
Reality is your experience of it.

How about simply you look up the word sense in the etymology dictionary for all the variations of what make sense like “common sense” & “horse sense” etc. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=sense .  I used to make a distinction of sense as in the basic 5 & sence as in “that makes sence” but later learned better. null
Free yourself & get rid of beliefs ! Don't be a BELIEF robot - M.R.

Perhaps that which makes sense, and that which we sense, are one in the same. Perhaps “reality is your experience of it” and these seeming paradoxes and alternate routes and diversions are only squiggly lines on the surface of that which one is experiencing.  

If you were to treat that which makes sense as identical to that which I sense, how would your world change? What would you see differently? What would you feel differently? What if one were to meditate on that?

I would say that you are somewhere between munging again & the #RWG with emphasis on I’m right part of it.
Free yourself & get rid of beliefs ! Don't be a BELIEF robot - M.R.

I would tend to say that if Peter suggested that same thing, you would eagerly try it some morning in mediation, and that because I said it, you won’t.

Reality is one of those words line energy which end up without a distinction just tautologiesnull

… until you discover your distinction. The ones which make reality, and energy, real for you.

null

Some in the new agey community prefer a rainbow with only one end.null