How very unique we are ...

One does not have to assume anything is the same when interacting with another. One can take everything the other communicates quite literally as their different reality and assume that is fact. Then, when things match, they are a true match, and when they don’t, both can choose to swerve more in the direction of a match, if they want.

When one starts with the assumption that most everything is the same, then one is starting from a place where most everything understood is false … and that is a much larger gap to bridge … we manage nevertheless … we do manage to communicate. But, it can be soooooo much easier than that if we simply assume what others communicate to us is actually their different reality and not try and make it a same external reality seen differently, which it is not.


Start with the assumption that whatever anyone else is communicating is literally the reality they are experiencing, not a variation on your reality, but literally their reality, no matter how much it differs from your own and anyone else’s. If you start from there, a whole new kind of shared interaction will begin to develop in your experience. The things you find in common will be true things, and your entire world will explode with a shared beauty of actual truth you never knew was there!

-- d’A on Facebook

I go even further in that direction.  I say there is no such thing as two experiences being the same.  Each experience is unique, particular, and peculiar in itself … There is only one of each such experiences … they are singular … there are no duplications.  As a wise guru once observed,  “You cannot step in the same river twice”. 
 
So what is it that we share? … certainly not identical experiences because there are none

I think what we share here is the relationship and/or interaction of our peculiar experiences.  When i realize that, my “entire world seems to explodes with beautiful” possiblities of what we are doing here.

tag #ThereIsOnlyOneOfMe #specificity

Comments


We share language. Whether we are pointing at the same thing or even in the same subject-area, especially here, is debatable. Assumptions about the ontology of the moment vary & munge-up distinctions which we could share with meanings & viewpoints not shared. 

In all of that there is a base assumption that what is being shared must be the same for both in order for there to be value in the sharing.

Such an assumption is not necessary. There can be value for each in a sharing no matter if what is shared is seen the same or not. The value is in what is felt. It is not the money or the car or the relationship or the love that anyone actually wants, it is the good feeling they think they will be getting by having the money or the car or the relationship or the love.

As long as each is accessing a wanted feeling, the sharing is highly valuable, no matter what details are agreed upon, no matter what is actually the same.

what we share are our interactions using the signs (symbols) of language. 

For example, I say “potato”, you hear “pot`ato”,  we shared an interaction … and then the possiblites of other interactions explode from there.

there is no such assumption in anything i said here.   but maybe mark’s comment had such an assumption … i do not know.

← I would share my eggs& beans (&ham) but you can’t do so. Our ontologies are different – especially N’s .  Actually what S was pointing null at in the above is his language & nothing profound otherwise. N is just pointing at his feelings & generalizing them to us. null

#sethhmmm …. soft boiled eggs and beans  … i can’t remember trying that peculair combination.   What can you tell me about your experience of it?

I am eating it! null later on I will be shitting part of it out.

did the yolks run out over the beans?

yep – can see it in the picture.

yes i can null … did you poach, boil or fry the eggs?

The word interaction is so mungeable that about all it says is that ~ a couple (xor more or the same with itself)  of ???? – ???? each other.
 

soft boiled 5:55 minutes

grasping “interaction” as a generality might be a bit of a mental feat.  

but i can certainly identify the interaction aspect of any happening.   for example we just interacted above about your ham, beans, and egg dish.  i will probably try it miself soon … maybe on the 4th when we doubtlessly will get some pork briskit and i may well make a pot of beans.  Me experiencing poaching some eggs and letting their yellow syrup spill over the beans and brisket will not be identical to the experience you just had … but it will be informed by it … so that it is clear to me that our experiences are interacting.

tag #bbq #brisket  #egg ← tagged here to facalitate future interaction on the subject at our attention.

Our experiences will not interact. Only the language about it may partially intersect. You had some or were offered part of the ham when you were here.  The bean dish was the final disposition of such ham. The dog got the bone there is another in the pot of beans.  Precision language is more useful to me than
#mungeable-expression-form-communication .

requireing both parts of an  interaction to take place in proximate Geo Coordinates does not seem to me to be a necessary or essential part of what we are doing here.   your expression of your experience informed me … i am planning another experience here in Renton that will have been informed (via language) by your experience there in Paradise.  Sans your share here there would be no eggs in my dish on the 4th of July.  Whether we call that an “interaction” or not is solely a matter of how we agree to talk about it.  It does not change either of our experiences of eggs, beans, and ham dishes in the least.   Most of the interaction has already happened.


i think i will poach mine.

excellent example of why I said above:

The word interaction is so mungeable that about all it says is that ~ a couple (xor more or the same with itself)  of ???? – ???? each other.



… which to me reads as jibberish.   I interpret it as an expression of a justification to yourself for not agreeing  with what i said. 

That would be Ego-speak on your part in the order of #RWG. I would explain it to you – too simple English though, except the automaticity of the #RWG would elongate the #AlreadyAlwaysArguing components.

X = X for all X in some domain somewhere.

Yep. X = X somewhere.

i.e. Reality is your experience of it. Nicely pointed out.

also, X = Y somewhere too.

Yep generalismo profundatatus sunt.

I have no specific interest in last word, as you well know because you often claim it and I don’t.

Here I am making a specific point … that general Math is a “universal” language, but not a mulitversal language. General math is relative to a domain of verses.

The only math that is multiversal is the domain of math that describes the propagation and interactions of vibration. Because #LOA is vibration based and #LOA is a fundamental property of all verses.

Perhaps you know the name of that domain of math, I do not.

Each experience is unique, particular, and peculiar in itself … There is only one of each such experiences … they are singular … there are no duplications. 

As as Heralclitus observed over 400 years BC, 
“You cannot step in the same river twice”. 

seth
if we are to represent any given experience by X and the domains in question are “beings” experiencing X.  Then my English statement actually says  { for all X, there does NOT exist a Y such that  X == Y}.  i might need to dink with the predicate calculus a bit, but i think you may get my drift if you are so inclined.  

In general i am saying almost  the opposite of “X = X for all X in some domain”

Or as nathan said it, “experiences are not the same”.  

But experiences themselves are not what is shared. 
It is NOT the identity of the experience themselves upon which we sync.

Note, in this discussion, one must be very specific as to whether one is talking about a thing or the representation of a  thing … i want it to be clear that i am talking above about a territory and not a map which represents it … the territory in this particular case  being what we have been being calling our #reality and/or our  #experience of it.
This rings true over here … does it ring true over there nathan ?

You & Seth continue well beyond the end where most people would call the information transfer or the conversation has reached a reasonable conclustion – usually well beyond the point I care to read or listen.  Perhaps resonance & oscillation are the physics domains. Math can analyze a lot with differential, partial & integral calculi . Fourier Series can perhaps describe some waves.

hey sorry null , i love null to drill down to details and examples … and not leave stuff vague and ambiguous.  and i love to get just as much agreement with others as possible.   I try to do the same when i am driving on dark roads “out there” … notwistanding that my GPS doesn’t bond well with my locations when i get too far off of highway 5.  And notwistanding the loss of my mind when it does not remember right from left as it moves from context to context.    like it or lump it, mark !    go with me or not and interact with my mind or not … just as you choose.  You don’t even need to tell me in retrospect … i know what is happening by sensing what you actually say and do. 

XOR you have an inner drive to have the last word on what you say.null

Not really. I was just pointing out that X = Y is something that may not be true in this verse, but could be true in another verse. That it isn’t true here is something people have noticed here. The only mathematical and logical relationships that are the same in all verses are the ones related to vibration. It might even be the case that gravity is not the same force in all verses, even though gravity is the closest physical property to #LOA we can find here in this domain of verses.

This subject really doesn’t interest me. I was only pointing out how big and awesome and variable the reality collective is. I would rather spend my time aligning my state of being, or enjoying what comes from aligning it, than theorizing about these kinds of things.

well you always talk as if this “non identtity of experience” proves to you that #actuality “out there” does not exist … and is rather some kind of reflection of your own experience. 

but that train of thought does not hold water for me. 

I firmly believe BOTH
that  “experiences are NOT identical” 
… AND …
that “ #actuality exists outside myself”.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You are beyond my math theory pay grade.  
Don’t really care either. You’ll figure out what is you when you figure it out. I gave you plenty of clues.

#hmmm … let me be more clear. Your math will always prove what you experience. If you ever have a completely new experience, getting there through math and logic is the absolutely longest way around to it.

well you have already done the math when you say,  “experiences are not the same”.  I just put more teeth into that belief substituting “identical” for “same”.  Even Elaine saw the point and we elaborated it in some detail from her point of view.

anyway it will almost certainly come up next time you explain about your “sensual mirror” and how the “world out there” is some kind of illusion to you ….  i can wait … i have no agenda to delve into the details of that myself.  like i said before, i consider that your peculiarity … there is none of that which obtains over here.

Lots of interesting stuff in #GOB in this same topic area right where I am reading.
http://www.fastblogit.com/thought/24186 
nullnullnull

well re #PR’s “Peter Ralston of Cheng Hsin on experience & self” in this context  …

 if i am focusing on a rose, and ignoring the soil from which it sprung, am i to deem the soil an “illusion” …. alternatively if i am focusing on the soil and the rose is out of my mind, am i to call the rose an “illusion” ?  I think not.   The objective #actuality obtains, the truth of the matter is, that independent of what my special peculiarity is #experienceing, both the rose and the soil are also happening.  I think this “illusion” accusation is being overworked.   At it’s heart i find it to be noting but an expression of a preference for what i myself am doing (experiencing) rather than what another is doing.  And i notice that is exactly how this “illusion” accusation is being used in human interaction.

For example,  see if you can write a sentence that rings true to you, using the word “illusion”, which is not an expression of your preference for one #reality over another. 

tag #illusion #reality #otherness

My sentences don’t ring! You are just reducing your profundity back to my “That which is, IS!”. Without reading much of the books.