Axiom of being: A being lives by changing relative to others, not relative to itself
← 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
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.
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.
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.
I note that this is not the first time you have not including direct knowing in your experience of thought though. I wonder why?
i.e. your experience is the thing … no relationship required … but only desired for enhancement.
i.e. Mentography represents only relationships.
I agree that experience via contrast is common … but it is not the only way to experience.
(***) pg 16 of online pdf
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.
incidentally, #contrast is just one aspect of a distinction relationship.
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.
… & yet most people would understand the question “Why are you being an asshole?”
Exactly. I AM. There is not more.
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.
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 … denying the #AxiomOfBeing completely.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
The arena of relating things is not reality.
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?
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.
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.
it forms no useful relationship to the #AxiomOfBeing itself. as such i am suppressing it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
See Axiom in the Wikipedia
or ← 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.
q.v. opinions are like assholes …..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
so i guess you would assent to ...
A being lives by changing relative to itself, not relative to others.
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?
A part of something is not the whole of it. Oh sure i love 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.
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.
yes of corse … the more conversation … slurp !! … the more possiblity of connecting … of agreeing … of becomming conscious of a thing together
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
Can the same phenomena can be observed with spiritual beings?
Why the hell not?
Who told you that?
What could possibly be wrong with it?
Isn’t that how reality evolves anyway?
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 itself” is 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.
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!
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 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.