Axiom of being: A being lives by changing relative to others, not relative to itself


Thanks Elaine


← not yet a precise mathematical representation of this axiom.  just my first stab at it.

A thing is nothing but its relationship to other things.
A spirit is nothing but its relationship to other spirits.
A person is nothing but its relationship to other persons.
A thought is nothing but its relationship to other thoughts.
A feeling is nothing but its relationship to other feelings.
A deed is nothing but its relationship to other deeds.
A happening is nothing but its relationship to other happenings.
A crystal is nothing but its relationship to other things.

A solitary experience does not exist .. for it is a being taking its existence from other experiences.

#being #life #living

Comments


Pure bullshit, if you ask me.

A thought is an exact vibration, an entity, a pure and whole thing, like to a crystal, and all things are thoughts. Relationships are only the way we like to experience things … but not the things themselves.

Relationships only have a bearing on the context in which we choose to experience things, that’s all. Things are not their relationship to other things, beings, etc.

That’s what a #RelationshipJunkie would say. null


I agree. Try deep meditation sometime seth … you will quite soon discover the falacy in the idea that relationships are what existence is all about.

i agree, “we experience relationships” which are not the things related.  Then too, our experience of a thing is a relationship between us and that thing.  Sans that relationship the experience would not exist.

I don’t know what you mean by, “relationships only have a bearing on the context in which we choose to experience things, that’s all” … maybe what you call “relationships” are more narrowly defined than the relationships that i am talking about.

This is a idea that i discovered when i was trying to model or represent all things with mentography … and discovered that an identity which had no relationship to another identity in the model, had no effect on the behavior of the model whatsoever.  Unless the identify had some relationship to other identities in the model, it’s existence in the model was nothing but wasted bits … at best it was something  becomming something ... and it became something just as it acquired a relatioship to something else. 

Now even in my psychological reality i  cannot imagine a single thing (spirit, whatever) that comes into my experience via itself apart from something else … even if that else is just my own awareness.

actually this comes from deep meditation.   try to create something new without creating the relationship of it to something else … even not excluding yourself.   Let me know when you do, please.  And shucks if you do, let me know what it is … er, represent it in language or art or music or deed … any way you can possibly represent it to me.  Lot’s of luck with that, fellow.

for me this is pretty much a mathematical axiom which can be chosen (on faith) or not.  It’s like the axiom of choice in that regard. 

But i claim that i can actually experience the necessity psychologically … and i can also recognize the lack of choosing this axiom in the thinking of others who do not choose it … or choose on faith that things can exist alone without “being something to” that which they are not.

Direct knowing does not always have, or need, a relationship to anything else. I have always had direct knowing experiences, and with my LOA discipline training, I have been having many many more and more often.

I note that this is not the first time you have not including direct knowing in your experience of thought though. I wonder why?

Reality is your experience of it.

i.e. your experience is the thing … no relationship required … but only desired for enhancement.

oh but i am including “direct knowing experiences” about this axiom.  in fact that is what this is all about.  interesting that you would bring that up null.   people talk about #DirectExperience as if a being that is directly experienced could be sans  #contrast with what it is not.  #faith in that is in fact why they can believe in those experiences.  it is why they are so special to you. 

I suggest that you have found the barrier condition where mentography stops representing reality.

i.e. Mentography represents only relationships.

Direct knowing does not have relationship. If you truly mediate (i.e. stop thought and only have reality experience) then you will have experience without relationship.

I agree that experience via contrast is common … but it is not the only way to experience.

By "applying in practice," we mean turning what has been conceptually
understood what has been received, pondered, and made meaningful into
direct experience. This process is analogous to tasting salt. Salt can be talked
about, its chemical nature understood, and so on, but the direct experience is
had when it is tasted. That experience cannot be grasped intellectually and
cannot be conveyed in words. If we try to explain it to someone who has never
tasted salt, they will not be able to understand what it is that we have
experienced. But when we talk of it to someone who already has had the
experience, then we both know what is being referred to. It is the same with the
teachings. This is how to study them: hear or read them, think about them,
conclude the meaning, and find the meaning in direct experience.

(***) pg 16 of online pdf

Because I have had experiences (representation of reality within my being) that are direct, without relationship to anything else at all, I don’t need faith … I simply know that there is more than relationships to reality … and most importantly, that reality itself, the intrinsic elements and things, are not relationships as your thought above attempts to imply.

yep the requirement that one “stops thought entirely” is necessary (but not sufficient) for what you call “direct experience” to emerge as an experience.  that is common knowledge among Gurus  … and that is how i do it too.  ask yourself, then what happens ? … go a bit deeper.

incidentally, #contrast is just one aspect of a distinction relationship.

Yes, very good.  

The components of reality, such as the experience of salt (remember that reality is the experience of it), are intrinsic and complete. They do not require relationships to exist.

Relationship, in all forms, is simply adding sugar to the writing of one’s story.

Trying to grasp being is like trying to grasp now. When one uses an article like a,the,an … in front of the word the challenge still remains even though one may think they have made it into a noun. Gathering more relationship to it includes the entire Cosmos – where does one stop? 
… & yet most people would understand the question “Why are you being an asshole?”

”includes the entire Cosmos”

Exactly. I AM. There is not more.


I do go deeper. I go where there are no longer relationships. The taste of salt, for instance, stands alone. Of course, that example is dependent on a body with a sense of taste, but there is experience available within those depths that is not sensory based … it is like to the taste of salt, but with no relationship to anything else whatssoever.

It is that depth to which I have never heard you relate as an element of your own experience seth. It is an element of mine however. I have gone that deep.

To come to know intrinsic reality without the necessity of relationship
 
one only needs seek the colors of the wind.

a funny aside … i had a dream last night where i met nathan at some dinner party, and he said something to me and i replied, “you are be ing an asshole”.  null

I acutally think we can better grasp being … and this newly experessed “Axiom of being: A being lives by changing relative to others, not relative to itself” is one way to characterize being a bit more than i have heard it characterized in the literature in this context.  Anyway, i’m with you mark, i don’t consider a being a noun … to me, just like you said recently, all is but change and that sounds more like a verb.  And yes, being does kind of require the whole cosmos … i agree, if that is what you are saying.  

Being the whole cosmos, as apparently nathan believes that he is, must truly be fun for him … for me it would be like trying to lift myself up by tugging on the bottom of my feet null … denying the #AxiomOfBeing completely.

”A solitary experience does not exist” ~ seth

All that means is that you have not had one … or more truthfully said, that you selectively ignore such experiences.

Wumen struggled for six years with koan "Zhaozhou’s dog", assigned to him by Yuelin Shiguan (月林師觀; Japanese: Gatsurin Shikan) (1143–1217), before attaining kenshō. After his understanding had been confirmed by Yuelin, Wumen wrote the following enlightenment poem:

A thunderclap under the clear blue sky

All beings on earth open their eyes;
Everything under heaven bows together;
Mount Sumeru leaps up and dances.

(***)

Lifting yourself up by tugging on your feet is a good example … because it is quite doable. It is only your story which excludes it.

I would say that your definition of “otherness” is what I would call “a current story”. I agree that otherness exists … but what you are calling otherness is only your story about your experience of it seth.

.. didn’t say that … put an article in front of a word changes the syntax into a noun … being is already a gerund … to be is the verb.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/-ing

… well actually another possibility exists … strange only that you did not consider it.     i experience “solitary experiences” frequently and interpret them differently than you do.

Depends upon who is having an experience.  Does a solitary experience exist if Seth is alone in the woods masturbating? null

null


Hey, make up your mind. You are the one saying such does not exist. You are the one saying that relationships are required for things to exist, and for experiences to exist. Your thought is very explicit about that.

I simply say that such is bullshit, for I have experience outside that closed circle. Seek out that realm of experience, or don’t. It is but your choice. It is but your story. And that is all it will ever be, for you are your experience of it.

… actually i can’t even get off without a fantasy … a story … a emotion building.  there are #edges there … nothing “solatary” about it … the #AxiomOfBeing holding till the end.   Have you ever cum by doing #ZaZen ?

Just because you are accustomed to the story of a physical body being required for the experience of orgasum does not mean it is the only story.

In fact, it is a trend in the younger generations today for males to experience orgasms without ejaculation. I have had that experience once … but can’t say it is my preferred story at this time. 

When you begin to understand, all that can be had with relationship thinking, as simply “stories”, then you will begin to have experiences that are not stories, and not based on relationships between anything at all.

i never said what you call  #DirectExperience’s don’t exist … i just said they do not break the #AxiomOfBeing .  They break your interpertation of something,  not mine. 

You can look at this differently … your linguistic descriptions of these experiences require the possiblity of experiencing a being with no #edge … no distinction possible between what it is and what it is not.  Shucks i too can imagine nothing at all.   But on the other hand i have experiences which have edges yet no foundation in other spirits … they are unique to me, “solatary” … as such i can not even describe them in words … there is no way to point out or communicate the particular experience to you.   That i am not consciously aware of how they emerge, does not imply to me that they emerged completely all on their own.  The #AxiomOfBeing tells me rationally that they necessarily are related …  interacting as all things do.

All the #AxiomOfBeing is saying is that if you keep your thoughts circling in a particular way, then that will be your experience. When you leave the circle and have a direct experience, then it will be quite clear to you that such experiences are not “relational experiences for which one does not know the relation”.

When you taste salt, you will know salt. Until then, you will only describe the taste of salt in the terms of what you are already allowing in your experience … as you appear to be doing with direct knowing, and with the idea that relationships (and edges) are required for things to exist. The experience of salt has no edge … it is an intrinsic component all to it’s own.

”The experience of salt has no edge … it is an intrinsic component all to it’s own” ~ nathan

 If everything tasted like salt, then nothing would taste like salt.  That is experientially verifiable.  Salt tasts like salt because other things do not.  The same goes for every spirit that i actually directly experience.

Incidentally the #AxiomOfBeing does not say or imply “that if you keep your thoughts circling in a particular way, then that will be your experience” … but shucks that does hang together well … i believe that is part of  #LOA … and i too believe it happens that way.  But that conception has nothing to do with the #AxiomOfBeing.

The #AxiomOfBeing is more like if you think you can apprehend without apprehending, you are imagining something that is not be ing at all.   If you are thinking, then you are free to think whatever, whether it is be ing or not.  That is the beauty and power of thought.  Like i already told you, i do that shit too.   But actual being … and even actual direct experience of a being … requires a thing to be apart from all which it is not.  I find that a startling distintion between those things that i just think up, imagine, or intuit … and those things that are actually of this cosmos which can #connect with others.
 

salt has a taste – things with edges it is not (shape thingies) … 
“That is experientially verifiable” … everything is not a verifiable thing experience .
Generally speaking if you need more than a couple of sentences to express your idea you are probably spreading #Bullshit .
Go for precision not quantity.

Well i can not lift myself up by my feet.  Similarly making spiritual changes in my being, 100% with no influence from outside of mysef,  is not something that i want to do, even if i could, and even if it made sense to me to do it.  I take that on my faith in the #AxiomOfBeing. 

Yep, the story that i am telling as i live now seems to be about otherness.  That others, even nathan, are telling a different story is even, if you think about it, implied by my story of the #AxiomOfBeing.   Strange how these thoughts relate back on themselves and hang together.    You see, you told me when we started here that you did not believe in the #AxiomOfBeing … i believe you … you do not believe in it at all … you do not choose things to be that way … to you it is, exactly as you put it. 

there is nothing that i have said that implies that a story is necessary to experience.   certainly, experiencing for the first time innocently with no fore knowledge or narrative is bliss indeed.   The story of a relationship is not the relationship.

true, eveything is not verifiable null.   in fact those things that are reliably verifiable by others, and those which are not, form a important distinction between things.   How are you relating or connecting that thought to this one?

Salt tastes like salt. Everything does not taste like salt, and salt will still taste like salt without anything else. That salt does not taste like other things is the relationship you are championing … it is the story one writes to experience, in all the billions of ways it can be written. But salt still tastes like salt even without any of those stories.

One does not have to connect with others, or anything at all, to have experience. One connects with things and others only to write a story of experience one wishes to express.

I am not saying that stories of relationship is not good and fine and fun and desirable and educational and everything else … but that is not the only game in town and not the intrinsic nature of reality or anything at all … sans the nature of a story.

2nd sentence , 2nd paragraph of yours above

The #AxiomOfBeing is a little story inside a bigger reality. I did not say I didn’t believe in it. I am saying that the idea that it is the intrinsic nature of reality is bullshit. It is, if anything, the intrinsic nature of story telling, the nature of the arena of relating things, that is all it is.

The arena of relating things is not reality.

well i connect with others, not merely to write stories … the connecting itself is by far more fun null

nathan, your first paragraph merely denies a verifiable fact.  If everything tasted like salt, then we would not even have “salty” as a word in our language.  Try that out on a meter which always registers “salty” no matter what substance it tests … are you going to be using that meter to do anything useful?

My first sentence is perfect. Read it again, and again until it makes sense.  

Connecting with others IS writing a story. It is nothing else. You can have direct experience if you seek it out. Try and have direct experience of another. You can’t. That experience is only a story.

yeah i kind of agree null … this axiom is definitely a feature of apprehension.  Me, i cannot even concieve that appreshension would exist without it.  

I cannot identify something without distinguishing it from that which it is not.  But that is just something that i do.   If i were not here to do the distinguishing, would the things distinguish themselves anyway … or would they suddenly clump together with no relationships between them?    Are the distinctions merely in my mind ? … i don’t think so … and certainly not if the distinctions can be verified by others.






← i’m using the second sense of the word.
 
As used by Shakespeare in Hamlet ..

What a piece of work is man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god, The beauty of the world, The paragon of animals.


I have given a lot of really good examples and knowings here today. They are falling on deaf ears. You are arguing for the existing scope of your allowed perception, and thus, you get to keep that scope. It’s yours. It is your story and you will have none other as long as you argue for what you have. That, and only that, is the entire nature of reality.

hmmm …. sounds to me that you are describing yourself.

I have given a lot of really good examples and knowings here today. They are falling on deaf ears. You are arguing for the existing scope of your allowed perception, and thus, you get to keep that scope. It’s yours. It is your story and you will have none other as long as you argue for what you have. That, and only that, is the entire nature of reality. 

well whatever … but that is not about this though … it is about your presumed relationship with me.

it forms no useful relationship to the #AxiomOfBeing itself.   as such i am suppressing it.

I have given a lot of really good examples and knowings here today. They are falling on deaf ears. You are arguing for the existing scope of your allowed perception, and thus, you get to keep that scope. It’s yours. It is your story and you will have none other as long as you argue for what you have. That, and only that, is the entire nature of reality. 

It is the direct alternative to what I called “bullshit”. It is me putting my money where my mouth is and giving you the goods, not just fluff and ego and RWG.

yeah nathan, you aready told me you do not believe in the #AxiomOfBeing … i heard you the first time … i even predicted it.  Repeating it using more pointed self serving words will do nothing but end whatever connection we have been creating here.

I did not tell you that and even told you the opposite in Axiom of being: A being lives by changing relative to others, not relative to itself (comment 81978).

In your thinking this is all about you … you are correct, it is. There is nothing else. It is all you. That is the point you are missing. The point that makes it all come together.

well i agreed with part of what you said there … maybe you missed how i replied to it.

I think others, not just me, apprehend identities by experiencing their relationship with other identities. 

The only thing that is just about me (and you) are these last few comments … which as i mentioned … are a change of topic.

Not a change of topic at all.

Your topic is “a being in itself is not be ing”

The last comments are all about the truth, the reason this topic is bullshit.

The truth is “a being in itself is all there is”

You are that be ing.

Yep, you believe in the opposite axiom.  Me thinks now that at least we agree on that null

I believe in both. One exists inside the other. I leave it to you to figure out which is which.

  Shucks i know you believe that you are a being that which is all there is.  You have said it so many ways.  If you are everything, then you certainly can choose to be just a part … so that is how you think that your “believeing in both” nests my believing in me being just a part. This is not even rocket science null or deep mystcism.  Me, i don’t find it useful … i don’t need or want to be everything … that seems to be just your thingey.  i love null my little pericament.

I don’t need or want to be everything. That is not one of my desires.

I do not want to delude myself, that is all. It takes a lot of energy and faith and maintenance to keep up the illusion of many inside one.

It is much more useful and efficient and productive and because of all that, in the long run much more enjoyable, to let go of all that construction and align with the basic facts that are actually there, actually intrinsic, actually provable without faith or assumption.

shucks “being everything” follows necessarily form “a being in itself is all there is”.

Yes, it is the truth, by all the actual facts. There is no faith or assumptions required to know it. But it is not a generated desire, like your generated desire for “a being in itself is not be ing” and all the related desires about relationships being the glue of reality. Those ideas, though true in a smaller sense, require faith in the face of raw experience.

well it takes me no energy at all to believe what i experience directly every day of my life:  that i am a part of something and there are other parts of that,  which are not what i am be ing.  In fact it would take me an incredible amount of energy to believe the opposite.  I bet if i were put on a lie detector and asked that question … with no confusion of words … and if i lied and answered “my being in itself is all there is” , the needle would go bonkers measuring the stress.

It does not require faith to know that you are all that is. When that comes, it is a direct knowing and infinitely transcends faith.

Faith is required to move in that direction. To be unbiased about the actual facts of one’s own nature. It is a leap of faith to ignore sensory impressions for a while and only pay attention to what one is actually experiencing, without assumption. That is where faith is required, to leave behind the masses and really try and understand what one is experiencing. Faith is required to not compare one’s experience with others experiences, but instead to really dig deep for the meaning coming from one’s own, complete, unbiased experience.

Where you use faith is to fill in missing peaces. Faith is not meant for that. Faith used that way keeps one in the dark about reality. Faith is for forging ahead, being brave, Faith is meant to be a calling, not a crutch, not a filler.

There is no such thing . Such is your problem, seth , invent something absurd & stick to it as if it is real. The #RelationshipJunkie meme (double syllable?) is something which keeps on giving & going & giving & goint ….
See Axiom in the Wikipedia

An axiom is just a proposition that we take on faith … or reject on faith.   Can we say that the proposition, “parallel lines meet at infinity” exists?  Is there any such thing?  People … especially mathmathcians … invent these kind of propositions all the time … infact  i don’t know a way to do mathmatics without inventing axioms .  Within a system of thought there is no way to prove these propositions one way or the other … but believe one and the system looks one way … disbelieve it and it looks otherwise.   if parallel lines never meet you get a kind of flat universe … if they meet at infinity you get one that curves back on itself when looked at as a whole … yet there is no way to make a local measurement to resolve the issue. 

lwen or loon ← you are free to choose …certainly not a thing to argue  about with a person who has made an opposite  choice … arguing about an axiom is an absurdity.

∀x(∃P(x))


You forgot to read the Wikipedia carefully – anyway what you are talking about is not about faith but self evidency – you can’t just invent shit.

Dude .. DUDE!  There is a verb to be (infinitive) xor be (just a verb) by itself  generally thought to mean exist/is . In English it is good grammar to take a verb & change it’s root idea into a noun (gerund) or an adjective (gerundive)  .  The suffix -ing has no meaning of it’s own just etymological distinctions. Generally speaking (except PR) one does not speak of IS-ing but may speak of existing.  The verb to be is in almost every language I have studied & in particular is the word est = (it is)  in Latin -&- I am ( ego) .  The sentence fragment being an asshole would mean existing as an asshole xor performing as such. Beings (plural of a being) , if you like a lot of words, is covered in the Wikipedia here: some call it the essence of some entity existing.

If an Axiom just munges back into another statement of belief xor judgment by an ego why bother with it. Those who declare axioms of their own need not waste their time. 
q.v. opinions are like assholes ….. 

existing is a changing act.  i claim that when you use the word “Being” it does not connote a changing action but rather only a continual persistence … yet i perceive my Being to be changing rather than a  persisting … but actually it is both. 

Language is a tool that works to point to even subtle things from a mind to another completely different mind … with that pointing out happening in a swirl of changing world and changing mind.  It is a high art best practiced and appreciated accepting that swirling.

XOR language helps one navigate one’s own mind & travel through distinctions.  Existing does not imply changing directly.  My theory that changing implies living is mostly a meme metaphor – don’t pretend it is an axiom.

well i don’t know how to think and talk with you without using and referring to our beliefs. 

yep language does that too.

Well yeah the old word “existing” does not connote changing.  That is what i am trying to point out by my usage … an entity is not just something that be … rather it is something that is being

Here is a therory that has been proposed before (maybe even by you, i don’t remember) … some thing can not exist unless it in some aspect changes.

I agree, living implies changing …. changing implies living … i don’t think you can have the one without the other.

Free yourself & get rid of beliefs ! Don't be a BELIEF robot - M.R.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/being

well my theory is that if you actually totally do “free yourself from beliefs” you will also eliminate the possibility of communicating with others.

glad it is just YOUR theory … keeps you very earth bound & maybe even deep in it ..
Free yourself & get rid of beliefs ! Don’t be a BELIEF robot - M.R.

actually , beliefs are just feelings ABOUT what is actually here & now with a sprinkling of meaning


i call it bound to what is happening here and now … being present in the moment … conscious not only of my being but also what i am doing with others.

… and they have consequences by guiding what we do.

Actually, you can get rid of a lot of shit & be much more present to what is here & now instead of abstracting a wholly imaginary existence somewhere else. Do the same while you are with others – it enhances relationship.

Actually you are rarely present to what I am saying – more like you are present to your own pile & something in mine that triggers one of yours.

actually i have been looking for a better way to express this axiom … perhaps you have pointed the way.

This might be a better expression of the axiom ...

A being lives by changing relative to others, not relative to itself.

A new expressing of the Axiom of being.
… thanks mark, i heard your complaints.

Nah! – more like the opposite

well yes i am not present to playing destructive ego games with you … in fact i try to totally ignore that and hear whatever other content you present.

when i think i must think within the distinctions and changes in my own mind … i cannot think within yours …. unless i can hear them loud and clear with details and examples with which i can connect.

Yes mark , as in my discussion with nathan, you can believe either way … you can actually choose which way to believe.   Whichever way you choose to believe, you must do it on faith … not reason.   Or even, i suppose, look at each situation from both perspectives.

lwen or loon

so i guess you would assent to ...

A being lives by changing relative to itself, not relative to others.

No ?

#Gnothi – you don’t know my distinctions because yours are too loud inside you.

hmmm … strange “Axiom of being: A being lives by changing relative to others, not relative to itself” came into being in response to your #Gnothi … a little fact that i suspect you did not know. 

but, shucks, use it here too … so applying the axiom yields “I know myself by how i change relative to you”.  Strange, that even hangs together well over here … almost unveliing a gestalt.   Can you switch axioms and recognize the gestalt?

Seems as if your Axiom has nothing to do with my #Gnothi – it’s not mungeable!

shucks the axiom connects with #gonthi exactly as i expressed above.

Nah! you didn’t say anything worth relating to.

shucks i think i did.

of course you always think you did – 2nd opinion says no!

okay then no consciousness amoung us of this matter can move forward from here.

A munge is just a pile of shit stuck to some fir – not too much fun to wipe off! (unless you are the bear) eh?

null

Of course you are speaking of your own, #Gnothi

Conversation forked to thought 24669

nope i am actually speaking of the consciousness of this matter between us.   obviously you can believe whatever over there, and i can believe whatever over here separately.

Actually as I have said before you have no dirct knowledge of what’s in my consciousness –

yes i agree ….  but i certainly know what we are conscious of together.

Nope only what YOU are conscious of. Your #birdies just can’t fly!

i disagree …. i certainly know the things we agree on to the very extent to which we carefully communicate.   try that out with examples.

#Whatever – munge on!

#Whatever  does not build an exciting consciousness between us on this matter.

nathan,
 
A part of something is not the whole of it.  Oh sure i love null to imagine that i am all there is in what i feel and do … for me it motivates from a most powerful source.   It is one of my favorite things.  But my awareness of that which i am not is only vicarious … it is  incomplete … it is not the same thing as actually being it.

having faith and assuming and believing are doing the same thing … they are all creating the same change.  maybe if you select just one word to indicate faithing/assuming/believeing  and rewrote your 2nd paragraph you might discover the contradiction in the language  i see when i read it.

#Whatever is intended to cut-off the endless #AlreadyAlwaysArguing about trivialities and abstractia you are so fond of seth

yes of corse null…. it also has the other effect that i mentioned. 

incidentally i never intend to argue … i almost always speak to acknowledge where we arree and propose changes in our agreements that work and on which we could connect.

Yet like the above you continuously bait for more conversation. #RWGBait xor not. Maybe just a bit of #LastWord ism.


yes of corse null… the more conversation … slurp !! … the more possiblity of connecting … of agreeing … of becomming conscious of a thing together null
the last word is never important to me … honestly it is not … especially when the last word is the end of the possibility of connecting.  the last word is usually a sad thing  … especialy if one of us ended up loosing  null

XOR maybe you just can’t stay still & be quiet. 



nullnull

A thing can not move (change) relative to itself.  All movement (all change) is observed relative to other things.   For example:  watch a train speeding through some terrain and perceive it moving … take away the perception of the terrain and the perception of the train’s movement ceases.  We can conjecture that the same phenomena would be observed with psychological objects, if one is capable of factoring out changes in the terrain that is doing the observing.

Can the same phenomena can be observed with spiritual beings?

”you can’t just invent shit” ~ mark

Why the hell not?
Who told you that?
What could possibly be wrong with it?
Isn’t that how reality evolves anyway?

nathan,

Depends on who ‘you’ are and what you make up.  Oh sure we can all make up whatever story we want … no restrictions there whatsoever.   But you can’t make up that “i take a step forward” all by yourself … no, you need me to make it up too … to agree … and then to do it.   Other things you can’t make up at all and make them actually happen … like for example “the sun won’t come up tomorrow morning” … nope can’t make one up.   This is not deep philosophy here … just practical un-self-biased thinking. 

However we can make up stuff like, “parallel lines meet at infinity”  … then we can construct a whole geometry system based upon that.  The Axiom of being: A being lives by changing relative to others, not relative to itselfis one of the things that we can make up together and then construct a whole reality around.  Or alternatively you can make up it’s contradiction: “A being lives by changing relative to itself, not relative to others” … on either of those made up beliefs one can construct a reality.   Thing is some reaities can be  made up like that and others can not.  If you live in a made up reality in which nobody else but you #shares, then you will not be effective in the reality in which people are sharing.  #Sharing is more powerful … shucks just works out that way … study history if you disagree … or shucks make whatever up yourself and don’t bother to get others to agree … let me know how that works out for everyone in the long run.
seth
 

Yes, sharing is powerful and fun. And … we most certainly can make up anything we wish, including you, or anyone, taking a step forward and including anything about the sun coming up we want to. I do it all the time now. The only rule is that if a person has the ability to imagine and authentically desire something, then the universe has the ability to supply it.

All I have to do to experience you taking a step forward is select that version of you where you are taking a step forward. I don’t make you do it … I simply select that experience. You may select it too, or not. Weather it is is shared or not is only dependent on if each of us is selecting a shared experience. I like shared experiences and tend to select that version … I suspect you do to. But that an experience is shared is not a requirement of reality … it is only a long standing misconception people keep propagating.

Right now, this very morning, a member of our community is experiencing difficulty in sharing emotions, and in particular, shared love. Some of us, together in a shared experience of our own, re-thought her this morning, tapping into her truest form. Soon, she will be experiencing the new template we enacted … and we will experience it too! This is not juju or wistful thinking … it is hard cold fact in my reality and those I am with. We have been doing this so much it is as regular and normal as making a grill cheese sandwich. It’s simply a part of our reality experience. We know that when we think something, it will be what we experience next. We know this so well now that it is easy and elegant, just like breathing and eating. We know how to enact our thoughts such that they are direct and true without all the randomness most people get. Practice makes perfect! 

nathan

you say, “weather it is is shared or not is only dependent on if each of us is selecting a shared experience”, and basically i agree, but i would hasten to add that it is a #shared experience only if each of us chooses to share that particular reality.  if we are sharing a meal and during that you are sharing something else on FB, then we are not really sharing the same reality in that moment. 

The point is that #shared reality is more #powerful and #glorious than individual solitary reality … or at least that is a belief that we could share null even on #Faith.

There is an alternate story of your example experience that does not assume that one can make up what another thinks, feels, or does by whatever method of selecting a reality unilaterally.  Each of you in the group make up a story for yourself and believe it  … the stories being that you love this other person … then you act out those  stories with them … then certainly they will feel the love.  The stories that you believe act first upon yourself, your thoughts, your feelings, and then your actions on others.  It is wonderful and powerful to get positive feedback loops going between your inside story and your outside shared realities  … no #MultiVerse self isolation story necessary to explain it.
Signed Seth, i #LoaSwim