are your thoughts yours alone or are they really available to all who can tune them in?

Si says ...
… and a nice sidestep of the only real point in play.

i.e. are your thoughts yours alone or are they really available to all who can tune them in?

I think that is the only stress point in this whole conversation and even much of your contention with #LOA and other things.

Comments


that is an interesting different way to describe what we are talking about.


i say ...

Whatever thought i possibly can think could have been thought by any other person who managed to “tune in” those identities in that exact same combination and relationship against the same background of experience and history.

seth

So we could talk about where that is possible or likely … ie things and relationships that we all share and experience in the same way …

… and then we can talk about cases where that is so unlikely as to almost impossible.

There is a spectrum here … not a binary choice.

Still, it is the sticking point … the point where you turn in quite a number of esoteric conversations. It’s what you harp on quite often. Even today you touched on it in “But talking about it as if it were my reality is fraught with serious error … for in that regard it does not ring true over here.”.

You agree with most of what I present, except where it implies or requires another being to know something about what you define as your internal process. That point is virtually always where you start side stepping and drawing in alternative explinations.

As far as being likely … it is always likely. All it requires is duplicating state of being. Not circumstances, just state of being. And state of being is always being broadcast on the emotional channel by all beings. It is a vibration and any other being has the capacity to pick up that vibration. Most do it naturally when they use compassion, when they exercise empathy. Tony Robbins teaches how to do this in even his most basic classes … how to “sync up” to the same state of being using emotions and submodalities. Once there, then all one has to do is allow the thoughts coming in from that matched state of being. They will be the same, or so close as to be a working model. We did exactly this in my first Tony Robbins weekend of power and saw it work for hundreds of people … each reading the others minds to various degrees, but in most cases quite enough to prove the point and for some so exact it was literally mind blowing! mark was there, he can cooberate. Matching state of being is all that is needed to enter the internal processes of anothers reality experience.

The word being gets munged severly when maneuvered into a noun from a verb existence. 

Eh, whatever. I don’t believe you don’t know what is being said. You are only picking apart how it is said and what words are being used. i.e. you are “arguing”.

Well i agree this is the “sticking point” between us. 

I like to approach the subject entirely logically … scientifically … even mathematically … without assuming there exists an unknown esoteric media about which we can actually share noting between each other identically.  

Model two complex systems of hairy relationships … i pictured examples here.  Now lift a section of one and just plop it into the other. 

Do you think it will vibrate the same way in the one as it does in the other? 

I think it will not.



I know that from what is being said you folks don’t know what being is. Have another sip of “pukumber dip”.

I use science as a tool when it can help me obtain a specific result in the physical world. I do not use it to model everything. For life, I choose what works and try what comes next and discard what does not work … a much simpler and forward moving process then scientific modeling.

… and again, you are acknowledging, but side stepping the only real issue. I have no scientific interest in the issue. You can choose to work with the idea that others can in fact know your internal processes, or you can reject that idea and spend a lot of time trying to work around it. That is choice, not science … if it were science, you would experiment and see what happens … something you are using science itself to justify not doing. i.e. your not practicing the scientific method, you are hiding behind it … choosing to model what you don’t understand, or more exactly, what you don’t want, rather than experiment along all courses of action available to you.

mark, you attach a very special significance to the English word “being” which i have not heard you express. 

Me i like to just consider a being something that is be ing … or existing.

I agreed that thoughts are beings mark … don’t see anything to argue with you about that including the word “being”.

Other than that, I have been talking about “state of being” which is a completely different thing and I have defined it clearly for you many times so I am quite sure you know what I mean even if you don’t agree with the concept or my using those words to tag it.

well shucks i do experiment with this all the time.  i notice how a thought rattels around in my being quite differently than it does in yours.  same thought … different vibration.  and it is not just you, i experience the same awareness with almost everybody i know … and to the very depth that i know them.  the same identical thought will mean something quite different to each mind that tunes it in.  … and it is even difficult and quite chiggy to even say that they are the same thought … even if both minds would attest that the thought is described by the same identical words.

I am simply speaking, in this context, about how you have shown no interest or desire in “treating thoughts as if they are external to you and vibrationally tuned in by your state of being” … and then seeing what happens when you practice your thoughts “that way” instead of the way you usually practice them. To do that experiment, you will need to do something with your idea that thoughts could not be external to you because then they could be known the same by others. That idea is incompatible with the experiment. You would have to suspend it to obtain unbiased results.

If the distinction of/about being were simple to communicate Peter Ralston of Cheng Hsin would not have had to write 4 books +, amounting to 1226 pages of material on the subject.

Thoughts being Beings:  makes them difficult to grasp, clothe in words etc.  Notice how hard it is for you folks to get very far trying to do so for yourselves.
     – my starting point – M.R.


state of being is another aspect of being – a snapshot? a selfie?

You seem to be saying that my agreeing with you is not enough … that because “being” is a fuzzy concept, my agreeing with you is likely to be in error.

… seems like a reason to ague to me. I agree, that should be enough … end of story. Accept and move on, or gracefully change the subject without all this friction.

I don’t think that is accurate. State of being is the vibrational “state” a being is in. It is not an aspect of the being, like color or size, but rather the vibration a being is emitting. It is measured by vibration so in that respect there is a blurry line since there is some aspect of the being that is vibrating … but still, it is more context than attribute … and not a selfie … selfie would be the being itself, like to it’s physical form, not like to its vibration which would be more like the unseen aura of a human.

Or think of a candle. State would be “lit” or “unlit” whereas aspect would be color, shape, material, etc.

you say you agree but your words that follow don’t ….

Maybe you are confusing my words with Seth’s. I only briefly talked about being and that was to agree with you. All the rest of my words are about “state of being”, which is a completely different subject, and specifically about the state of being of Seth which is also unrelated. You don’t seem to be getting a feeling of agreement from “my words” in this case.

It doesn’t matter, argue/debate/proselytize/comment amongst yourselves – enjoy!


maybe you just don’t know what “to be” is or what “is” is! (see Bill Clinton for that one). Note for a moment as it whishes bye between your mental ears that these are peculiar verbs (in any language) which point to the existence of existing.