Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Alternative Theories _ Learning How To Be Free: An Invitation

Posted by: painter Oct 17 2008, 09:51 PM

NOTE: The original Topic Title of this thread was "Learning How To Read . . ." but I've changed it in hopes that we can begin to escape the literal associations of the word "read". If "free" suffers the same fate, I may change the Title yet again.


I've been thinking about this for a long time. Months.

Over the course of being a member of this forum, especially in the context of "Alternative Theories," I've occasionally mentioned the necessity of "knowing how to read." Of course what I mean by this isn't directly related to knowing how to read the words you see before you here. All of us know how to do that more or less. If you're not familiar with my having said anything about this, I point you specifically to this post on my pinned and closed 'esoteric' thread here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=4643&view=findpost&p=7894218

A few members of this forum have asked me to say more about what I mean by this "learning how to read" business and it is this that I've been contemplating for a long time now. Having given it some serious consideration I've decided to post and pin this thread here as an open "invitation."

First I am inviting you to engage with me and one another in some discussion here about this topic. However, I am very aware that discussion of this topic is by necessity limited so long as it remains nothing more than discussion. To go further requires something more of us: Specifically a willingness to engage in exercises and experiments which can begin to move us beyond mere discussion into the realm of actual experience and knowledge based upon that experience.

This invitation, therefore, is offered as a starting point in the hope that some of you may wish to go further and take all this to another level. All I will say about that at this point is that the possibility exists, although necessarily limited by this forum/text medium within which we correspond. For this purpose I'm in the process of establishing another forum, participation in which will be by invitation only and will require that users not be anonymous and have a genuine interest in coming to a more direct understanding through observation.

So, I will leave this as it is. Feel free to ask whatever questions you wish and we'll see how this goes.

Posted by: bill Oct 18 2008, 12:11 AM

There are quite a few of us here that are of the vintage (that is to say well seasoned old coots) that actually had a real educational experience available to us

We got through the 'system' before the serious Deliberate Dumbing down of America began to really take effect (borrowing a title from Charlotte Iserbyte)

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/pages/author.htm

But I am not sure if you are talking about simply the skill of reading comprehension or something in a deeper more semantic vein

(knowing your considerable intellect painter I am sure you are getting at something much more complex than basic decoding of symbols on a page.)

(-- an aside, I found Semantics 204 one of the toughest courses I completed, I was damn proud to squeek out a "B")

Having spent a little time in other radically different cultures/languages I am sure that language and culture are closely linked

and that language shapes the thinking of human beings and vice versa

for example the Hopi language is completely devoid of tense -- IIRC they have no word for 'time' at all

Posted by: painter Oct 18 2008, 01:47 PM

Thanks, bill. That's correct, I'm not talking about reading in the ordinary sense or not only in the ordinary sense. I don't know if you've looked at the "esoteric" thread linked above. Although it has been left incomplete, in it I've attempted to point toward something and perhaps arouse some curiosity.

I appreciate your mention of my "considerable intellect," education (or the lack thereof), semantics and the relationship between language and culture. All these things are relevant to some extent but what I'm getting at is that regardless of how "smart" we are or think we are, how "educated" we are or are not, there is another level of intelligence and education that, for the most part, neither our language or our culture has touched or awakened in us. It isn't that what I'm getting at is "more complex than basic decoding of symbols." it is actually something quite simple: We do not really know ourselves from the inside out. We've not even been taught that such a thing is possible. And for this reason, no matter how much we know or think we know or how many years of schooling we've had, we're all ignorant, all "asleep" in relation to this other level or quality of intelligence that may be possible for us.

In the West, so called "education" relies primarily on the formation of the ability to recall certain pieces of information and the ability to put those pieces of information together in a way that our culture and society finds "useful." All this comes from outside and is inscribed upon the more or less "blank slate" that we are when we are born into this world. There is nothing wrong with this in and of itself. Human society has its needs.

The problem is this so called "education" is both fragmented and incomplete. It produces what I call "educated idiots." That is, people who know or think they know a great deal but who do not know themselves from direct observation and, therefore, do not know how they know and do not know the limits of their so called "knowledge." Such people may make good sheep or good robots for maintaining, implementing, propagating and perpetuating a culture or so called "civilization," but, as such, they are less than fully human. The full potential of the human being is neither developed or actualized in us because it is neither needed nor wanted. To the extent that any lip-service is even given to the possibility, it is usually presented in the context of some rather narrowly defined, limited and often perverted sense of "excellence." Society makes roll-models of geniuses who dazzle us with their ingenuity or creativity or physical ability while everywhere they forget their umbrellas, can not sustain meaningful relationships and/or are addicted to behaviors, thoughts and feelings they can scarcely acknowledge, let alone control. I don't mean to single out any one group or class of people. All of us are unique specimens and yet all of us are in the same boat. We're all "neurotic" in the sense of fragmented, divided against ourselves and one another, living lives that are largely fictions, mostly cut off from and unaware of the possibility of connecting with something deeper, a form of intelligence within ourselves that doesn't come from "out there," can not be found "out there."

It is this possibility of discovering something from within ourselves that is my focus.

I mentioned some of this in the 'esoteric' thread but just to underscore it on a personal note, I was born and raised on a farm in Indiana and came of age in the 1950s/60s. By accepted standards I was not a particularly "good" student. Although I was the first person from my family to even get accepted into an "institution of higher learning," I soon dropped out. Up into my mid twenties, early thirties, I was incapable of writing a coherent sentence, much less connecting together a complex series of thoughts. I say this because I'm aware that my ability to write now often gives people a wrong impression -- that this is something I've always been able to do or is a result of being 'educated'. Not so. Not exactly. I was fortunate enough to have had a 'nontraditional' high school education and have continued my education on my own throughout my life. Much of this has been through my own curiosity, interest and inquiry. Then in about 1980, I began to come into contact with a few people who have significantly influenced and guided my own inner search. This has come in the form of introducing me to certain ideas as can be found in books but, more importantly, introducing me to the possibility of coming to know something from within myself, for myself. Influences in life can not be avoided. We're all influenced by the world around us. To pursue the kind of search I had embarked upon, it was necessary to come into contact with certain ideas to, in a sense, 'till the soil'. Guidance, then, became necessary to cultivate the seed and sprout and help clear away the competing weeds of distraction. But the real 'fruit' and 'harvest' of what I'm pointing toward has to come from within as a result of my own interest and willingness to engage. Nothing of this nature can be given to anyone from anyone -- which is as it should be. Although 'help' is needed, ultimately the responsibility lies with us. One can not free slaves who are satisfied with their slavery or, using another metaphor, free inmates who have grown accustomed to and comfortable in their prison. (Edit to add: especially if they are slaves or prisoners from birth -- as we all are -- perhaps knowing nothing of or only heard rumors of some mysterious thing called 'freedom'.) Perhaps we can sneak the tools in past the slave master or the guards but the slave or the prisoner has to free himself. He has to know that he is a slave and a prisoner and he has to want to escape. Only then will he make use of the tools provided.

Posted by: Sanders Oct 18 2008, 02:25 PM

Thanks painter, I'm finally starting to understand what you are getting at. Very worthwhile discussion indeed.

Posted by: painter Oct 18 2008, 02:34 PM

Welcome to the discussion, Sanders. I was hoping you would participate.

Posted by: Rickysa Oct 27 2008, 09:49 AM

I've been working my way through "A Sense of the Cosmos" as best I can....but am having difficulty.

Discussion would be most well received.

Rick

Posted by: Sanders Oct 27 2008, 01:09 PM

I'm truly an amateur at this, and I only have a vague idea of what painter is talking about.

However, I have learned more in the last 10 years of my life than I had in the first 40 ... painter has an additional 10 on me, and he started way earlier. Add on top of that, painter, of all of the posters here, is surely the most eloquent when it comes to the use of words .... and here painter is talking about understanding apart from words.

???

I live, eat, dream, think and talk in Japanese 23/6. My English use is mostly just here. Japanese and English are so completely different, that thinking in one and talking in the other is impossible. Learning Japanese was so traumatic that it caused a personality split - I'm not joking. (Thankfully the "Japanese "me" and the English "me" finally were able to "merge".) .... So, I know more than most (first-hand) about the importance and the limitations implicit in LANGUAGE pursuant to THOUGHT.

I think more in patterns - whether intentionally or not. Geometry is the language of math, of music. I see geometry in the world, I see patterns. Learning a new language was very difficult for me, because language by nature is very haphazard, not "geometric". I'm much more confortable living in a world without words, but of patterns, notes and chords, sounds and images. I sometimes have epiphanies and when I start to explain, I realize words fail me.

Very frustrating.

Words however, are a MEDIUM unto themselves. Just like paint (colour), or sound. How do you express something with words? You use the words that are available. The limitation inherent in the medium promotes the beauty that can be achieved.

Not sure if I am on-topic, but ... hey.

Posted by: painter Oct 27 2008, 01:51 PM

QUOTE (Rickysa @ Oct 27 2008, 06:49 AM) *
I've been working my way through "A Sense of the Cosmos" as best I can....but am having difficulty.

Discussion would be most well received.

Rick


I'm here to help in any way I can, Rickysa. I haven't read that book in a long time but am familiar with what lies behind it. What question or questions do you have about it?

Posted by: painter Oct 27 2008, 02:26 PM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Oct 27 2008, 10:09 AM) *
I'm truly an amateur at this, and I only have a vague idea of what painter is talking about.

However, I have learned more in the last 10 years of my life than I had in the first 40 ... painter has an additional 10 on me, and he started way earlier. Add on top of that, painter, of all of the posters here, is surely the most eloquent when it comes to the use of words .... and here painter is talking about understanding apart from words.

. . .

Not sure if I am on-topic, but ... hey.


You are very much on topic and on track. (Thanks for the complements, by the way, but I kinda wish people would let go of that. I'm just a guy. Like everyone, I have my pluses and minuses, my ups and downs.)

To everyone: "Learning how to read" is a metaphor. As pointed out above, this isn't about "reading comprehension." Everyone here already knows how to read well enough in that sense. As Sanders said, I'm talking about "understanding apart from words". I could just as well have made this an invitation to "learn how to see (as opposed to merely 'look at')" or "learn how to understand (as opposed to merely 'think about')" or "learning how to be (as opposed to 'merely exist')".

The focus needs to be more on the "learning" part of the word phrase, not the stated 'subject' of what is learned.

How do we learn? Is "learning" merely a "recording" process, only a process of informing one's self, or is there some deeper possibility?

Above, Sanders brings up his interest in patterns, rhythms and geometry. This is what we are -- this is what life and intelligence is -- and there are more levels and dimensions than the obvious. But it doesn't help much to be told this or to read it in a book or on a forum post. For this idea to have real meaning for me, the kind of meaning that can change the quality of my life, I have to see this for myself, I have to sense or feel this more directly. This is what I'm pointing toward. It is humanly possible to know reality directly. It is very simple, actually, but it may not be 'easy'. We're not 'conditioned' or 'educated' or 'programmed' to do this. Quite the contrary.

Posted by: lunk Oct 27 2008, 03:08 PM

I think it's more learning to discern the truth out of the vast increasing amount of information we are bombarded with every day. So much of it propaganda but little truth. I know I have been indoctrinated my entire life with misleading theories portrayed as facts like everyone else. I know that I had a wrong understanding about many things, and I'm trying to correct them, but there is no book or person, that I can find, that has this all written out for me... and I think that's a good thing.

As for learning to read, I am starting to see the workings of the minds of others like a photograph, just through their words.

So strange
So beautiful

imo, lunk

Posted by: Christophera Oct 27 2008, 09:55 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Oct 16 2008, 04:47 PM) *
The full potential of the human being is neither developed or actualized in us because it is neither needed nor wanted.


I would have to say this is a sentence that has elements basic to the subject.

I percieve a fork in the road for humanity. It relates to humanities perceptions of need and want. Then a paradox is evident because it is quite possible to not know what is needed, and to also not want it if it is discovered.

Accordingly I would re state painters sentence, "The full potential of the human being is needed but is unknown so therefore unwanted."

Otherwise, I see an effort to describe what human sentience might be, or what exists in it's place in western society and the role that a formal education has taken in the most practical sense as an inadequate proxy for sentience.

Good item for discussion, but heavily rooted in psychology and philosophy, so a grounding, centralizing purpose congruent and on a similar fundamental level that keeps it focused on eventual function or relation to threatened dysfunction of soceity and development/recovery of true culture, would be a good beginning. And I suppose what you've done with this thread is potential way to institute that.

Posted by: lunk Oct 27 2008, 11:05 PM

QUOTE (Christophera @ Oct 27 2008, 06:55 PM) *
I would have to say this is a sentence that has elements basic to the subject.

I percieve a fork in the road for humanity. It relates to humanities perceptions of need and want. Then a paradox is evident because it is quite possible to not know what is needed, and to also not want it if it is discovered.

Accordingly I would re state painters sentence, "The full potential of the human being is needed but is unknown so therefore unwanted."

Otherwise, I see an effort to describe what human sentience might be, or what exists in it's place in western society and the role that a formal education has taken in the most practical sense as an inadequate proxy for sentience.

Good item for discussion, but heavily rooted in psychology and philosophy, so a grounding, centralizing purpose congruent and on a similar fundamental level that keeps it focused on eventual function or relation to threatened dysfunction of soceity and development/recovery of true culture, would be a good beginning. And I suppose what you've done with this thread is potential way to institute that.


I know,
it's just not fair.

imo, lunk

Posted by: bill Oct 28 2008, 01:05 AM

Learning

learning implies that an organism can increase the complexity of their interaction and understanding of reality (or matter or external conscripts) by experience with that interaction.

I think this is true

A child grows and learns how to interact with his environment (it is fascinating to see my 2 year old grandson learn and begin to understand his 'world')

The difficulty is, as I see it, that at some point (if we are fortunate) we see that what we are experiencing in this life is not consistent with what we are experiencing in our spirit.
I am speaking to those of us that are called to the light (not to the darkness) we understand at some level that there is a guide/spirit/force/love/grounding/intelligence, that transcends and supersedes our existence.

We are a part of a larger being.
we are a part of it, not outside of it trying to understand it

We are not an element apart from this larger intelligence but integrated into it --

It is difficult to express this in words

There is a dissonance between our (life) experience and our spiritual reality

How do we resolve this dissonance ?

Today, now, on this forum we are talking about concepts that have been discussed since the beginnings of civilization
These are questions that are part of our DNA, part of our soul. We are not different from
the ancient Greeks. We have the same questions. We have the same vacuum of real knowledge, reality.

It is a mystery

Posted by: Omega892R09 Oct 28 2008, 12:25 PM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Oct 25 2008, 04:09 PM) *
I think more in patterns - whether intentionally or not. Geometry is the language of math, of music. I see geometry in the world, I see patterns.

I once unravelled the patterns in the progression of Roman Numerals in front of my Primary School class. I was a teacher briefly after RN service and a bit of photography. Those kids were entranced and displayed their enthusiasm by translating numeral strings with ease and also creating works of art out of them.

Some parents expressed their appreciation.

The powers at the school however were less than pleased. I had strayed off the set mathematics curriculum by giving a whole period to a minor topic.

Sheeesh! And they wonder why I lost heart and gave up, that being only the tip of the ice-berg of narrow thought.

To Science and history being broken I will add Education.

Posted by: Christophera Oct 28 2008, 06:09 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Oct 26 2008, 04:05 AM) *
Learning

learning implies that an organism can increase the complexity of their interaction and understanding of reality (or matter or external conscripts) by experience with that interaction.

I think this is true

A child grows and learns how to interact with his environment (it is fascinating to see my 2 year old grandson learn and begin to understand his 'world')

The difficulty is, as I see it, that at some point (if we are fortunate) we see that what we are experiencing in this life is not consistent with what we are experiencing in our spirit.
I am speaking to those of us that are called to the light (not to the darkness) we understand at some level that there is a guide/spirit/force/love/grounding/intelligence, that transcends and supersedes our existence.


I think the above is true as well. However, as Bill states below, "difficult to express this in words". For one impossible. For many possible, for all a certainty. Our collective effort brings breadth we'd never find on our own. A valid point is that words are general symbols for sometimes very complex things. So a word can be taken as on e part, another part or the whole of the meanings intended.

The readers perogative. However, in some ways this thread is about the exercise of that perogative and which exercises might have the most value or function to our existence.

So a minimal amount of semantical looping appears needed in order to extract and define what might serve us. For example the phrase "A child grows and learns how to interact with his environment".

Interact is a big word. To derive from the obvious understanding of this post, below Bill mentions DNA. Phylogenetic DNA controls the structure of our developing behavioral patterns. Instincts control the immediate perogatives we know as options before we choose to exercise the meaning we assimilate from a word when we read. Instincts are something of the unconscious mind.

QUOTE (bill @ Oct 26 2008, 04:05 AM) *
We are a part of a larger being.
we are a part of it, not outside of it trying to understand it

We are not an element apart from this larger intelligence but integrated into it --

It is difficult to express this in words

There is a dissonance between our (life) experience and our spiritual reality

How do we resolve this dissonance ?

Today, now, on this forum we are talking about concepts that have been discussed since the beginnings of civilization
These are questions that are part of our DNA, part of our soul. We are not different from
the ancient Greeks. We have the same questions. We have the same vacuum of real knowledge, reality.

It is a mystery


Because we sleep 1/3 of our lives, and we have no idea of what our brain is doing with the possible meanings of the universe while we are asleep, or, if it is doing anything, if even we are doing it, the assumption that there is a collective unconscious gains serious possibility. And, ....... we, if such exists, are a part of it, just as Bill states.

I would say the dissonance is in the fact that we know so little about it. If it is of the unconscious, and we were to become aware of our entire unconscious, we would be catatonic. Overwhelmed beyond description. The notion is an oxymoron and can be reconciled by a subtle distinction of words. To be conscious of our unconscious fits the paradox, but, to just take on our past unconscious, limits events to something that has already happened, so therefore easier to reflect upon. If that knowledge would come a little bit at a time, we could know MORE than we do now, and that, i postulate will relieve the dissonance we feel.

Or, our unconscious knows that to be so deeply ignorant of our unconscious existence is very dangerous, so the very purpose of life seems potentially countered eventually, hence the dissonance.

I'll paste something written by Colin Wilson which very relevant to the processing of language relating to writing and speaking so we can see how it might effect reading. It is actually one of the very best complete writing in condensed form I've ever found on the subject.



Parapsychology
Two Brains, Or 'The Two Modes Of Consciousness"!
By ColinWilson

Hudson was in his fifties when he wrote "The Law of Psychic Phenomena" With the sub-title "Working Hypothesis for the Systematic Study of the Vast Potential of Man's Mind".

In the first statement of the problem of the two selves in modern scientific literature he starts from the problem of hypnotic phenomenon as demonstrated by Liebault and Bernheim. Like Freud he draws the conclusion that man's mental organization is of a dual character (Freud, of course, was totally unknown at the time). That is to say, man has, or appears to have, two minds. Each endowed with separate and distinct attributes and powers, each capable, under certain conditions, of independent action. It is the objective mind which deals with the external world through the medium of the five senses and it is the subjective mind which perceives by intuition. It sees without the use of the natural organs of vision, that intelligence which makes itself manifest in a hypnotic subject when he is in a state of somnambulism.
Hudson has recognized the differing functions of the right and left cerebral hemispheres a half a century before they were investigated experimentally. It is an incredible piece of intuitive thinking.
In the middle of the nineteenth century, doctors noticed that the two halves of the brain seem to have two different functions! "A man whose left hemisphere is damaged finds it hard to express himself in words; yet he can still recognize faces, appreciate art or enjoy music. A man whose right hemisphere is damaged can speak perfectly clearly and logically; yet he cannot draw the simplest patterns or whistle a tune. Left cerebral hemisphere deals with language and logic the right deals with recognition and intuition.
Oddly enough, the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body the left arm and leg and vice versa. The same applies to our eyes, though in a slightly more complicated fashion! (Each of our eyes is connected to both halves of the brain, the left side of each eye to the right brain, the right side of each eye to the left brain.) In the 1930s, scientists wondered whether they could prevent epilepsy by severing the corpus callosum also called the 'commissure' (a bridge of mass nerve fibers that connects the two halves of the brain), to prevent the 'electrical storm' from spreading from one half of the brain to the other. In fact, it seemed to work. And, oddly enough, the severing of the 'bridge' seemed to make no real difference to the patient. However, sometime later and when Dr. Roger Sperry in 1950 began investigating 'split-brain' patients, he made the interesting discovery that they had, in effect, turned into two people!
Everything we have seen so far indicated that the surgery has left each of these people with two separate minds, that is, with two separate spheres of consciousness. For example, one split-brain patient tried to button up his flies with one hand, while the other hand tried to undo them. Another tried to embrace his wife with one hand, while his other hand pushed her violently away, as if his conscious love for his wife was being opposed by an unconscious dislike! We all do this, one way or another, from time to time.! And the irony is that, we are not split-brain patients, or are we!
Sperry made his most interesting discovery about the eyes of split-brain patients! If the patient was shown an apple with his left eye and an orange with his right and asked what he had just seen, he would reply 'Orange'. Asked to write with his left hand what he had just seen, he would write 'Apple. Asked what he had just written, he would reply 'Orange. It would prevent one half of the brain learning what the other half knew. If a split-brain patient bumped into a chair or a solid object with the left side of his body controlled by the right brain hemisphere, the 'silent partner' the patient was unable to 'verbalize' his complaint -to 'voice' it! The left-brain controlling language, talking, did not seem to register or 'feel' it, and therefore, failed to - or didn't respond! Naturally, the 'right brain' cannot talk! Not only did the split-brain operation give the patient two separate minds it also seemed to restrict his identity, or ego, to the 'left side'
Another interesting experiment, revealed this valuable piece of information: If a split-brain patient is shown a picture of nude - among a number of neutral images - he grins or giggles (a woman would blush); asked why he is grinning (or she is feeling shy), he or she replies I don't know. With the implication that driven by some 'unconscious' forces, we may be doing things, all the time, most of which, we don't seem to know why!
The implications are clearly staggering. It seems,then, that we have two different people living in the two halves of the brain and that the person you call 'you' lives in the left side of your brain. And a few centimeters away there is another person, a completely independent identity, who is virtually a stranger - yet who also believes he is the rightful occupant of the head. Where language is concerned, this other person is almost an imbecile. In other respects, he is more competent than the inhabitant of the left-brain, he can make a far more accurate perspective drawing of a house! The 'left-brain' operates in an 'analytical' manner, 'linear time', and 'sequences'; the 'right-brain' sees through 'relational', 'space' -spatial-, and rather 'holistic'! In effect, the 'left-brain' person is, more or less, a 'scientist', the 'right-brain', again more or less, is an 'artist'. A little introspection also makes us aware that the left seems to be turned outward towards the external world while the right is turned inward towards our inner-being. The business of the 'left is to 'cope' with everyday problems The business of the right' is to deal with our inner-state and feelings (And it also seems to be in charge of our energy supply).
Consider this. If I were to wake up one morning, with many things to do through the day, and then realized that it was cold, cloudy and rainy outside; now if 'I' (the 'left') -discouraged by the weather- reflected gloomily about the situation and wished that 'I could stay home instead'; the 'right' would overhear 'me', and soon it would feel depressed too and will recoil on it-self, 'depriving' me from the energy necessary to go out and do the work! (Unless I vanquish my 'scruples', i.e. re-state my need to go out to do these things, I will be dragging myself through a very dull and boring day!)
Now, on the other hand, if I was suffering from a long day of work, fatigued, and was almost half asleep, then something of an emergency -or crisis- happens, like the neighboring house being on fire, the fatigue would immediately vanish and I would become wide awake, with an 'energy' that will be difficult for me to explain its 'real' source, or its 'magnitude!
Using Wilson's simile It is the Stan/Ollie relation. Ollie consciousness the 'left- is basically the boss. Stan the right, the unconscious takes his queues from Ollie. If Ollie is cheerful, Stan is positively ecstatic. If Ollie is angry or unsatisfied, Stan would recoil onto himself, feeling puzzled and at loss Stan always 'over-reacts. In short there is a build-up of 'feedback' between the 'two', both 'negatively' and 'positively!
Norman Vincent Peale may not have been a great intellect, but he understood something about the human mind that Freud managed to overlook. It also seems that the so-called 'other mode of consciousness' perceiving horizons of distant facts and meanings, is the work of the right brain the subjective or the unconscious mind! What Freud described as 'a moldering cellar full of rats and centipedes, an ocean full of squids and sharks', is quite simply a libel on that invaluable and highly creative area of the brain. For instance, we are bound to 'enter into' music if it is more than just a meaningless noise... But when we become so 'absorbed' in a piece of music, and feel like 'identifying' ourselves with the composer, with his inner-feelings at the time of composing, we would be experiencing an unusually deep sense of empathy, ten times as deeply as usual! In fact, this 'other mode' of consciousness is a state of perception rather than empathy or an awareness of a wider range of 'fact'-of the actuality of the world outside.
Much of the law of Psychic Phenomena is concerned with the incredible powers of the subjective mind, but, we must avoid falling into the obvious trap of regarding the right as a hero and the left as a villain. The error is more dangerous because it is not entirely without foundation. The left does tend to behave like a nagging and self-opinionated housewife, obsessed with its own trivial purposes, continually imposing its own simplistic notions on the complexity of reality.
However, Hudson made another basic observation about the objective and the subjective that would shed much light on the 'two brains' functioning's and domain of specialty, which, again, would prove indispensable to the inter-connectivity, and essential synchronicity, between the two and the work of so called Inspiration! And would also, put the left in its proper place! It would restore its original function or purpose! The objective mind is capable of reasoning both inductively and deductively while the subjective mind is only capable of deductive reasoning. Induction is the ability to swoop from a number of given 'facts' to the general principle underlying them; i.e. the recognition of laws. Deductive reasoning starts out from the laws and can predict the facts that follow from them. This seems at first contradictory; surely, if the right brain, subjective mind, sees over-all patterns -another name for laws- then it should be capable of reasoning from the particular to the general? The answer is that it can only do so after the left-brain has provided the 'facts'. When the left-brain has provided the trees the right will recognize a forest. But inductive reasoning is a feedback between the left and the right. So if; the left-brain has been put to sleep by hypnosis, the right can only operate deductively. Its deductions may be as brilliant as those of Sherlock Holmes; but it cannot see its way to new laws or principles. Only the left can do that, with the aid of the right.
So, and in a sense, what we call inspiration, is the result of the 'two brains simultaneously working together' at their best. One -the right, provides the idea, the theme, and the other -the left works on executing it perfectly or as perfect as possible! i.e. It seems that, again, we are talking about one form or mode, so to speak, of FacultyX. Towards the end of The Law of Psychic Phenomena Hudson made these extraordinary statements:
1. The subjective mind exercises complete control over the functions and sensations of the body.
2. The subjective mind is amenable to control by the suggestions of the objective mind.
These two propositions being true, the conclusion is obvious, that the functions and sensations of the body can be controlled by suggestions of the objective mind.
T. J. Hudson's last statements, described by Wilson as, "Extraordinary Statements" are the 'hinge' on which Psychology, and probably everything else hangs! The implications are that, the Psychology of Freud along with the rest of the unconscious school (that the Unconscious is nothing but a dungeon full of spiders and monsters) and that the Unconscious for its massive powers, is also -or according to 'their' observations, should be- the 'real' master (the driver) of the Psyche, and therefore of the rest of the 'body'; and that the Conscious mind in this respect, is no more than a carriage (carrying orders), or at most, a passive observer or 'partner' that cannot do a thing before, or towards, the massive powers of the Unconscious; anyway is a psychology of Total Miscalculations!
The brain may be a Frankenstein's Castle', but we shall not find "mad monsters lurking in its cellars". Also, it is apparent that the unconscious mind with its 'real' massive powers can do miraculous things, but it also needs the conscious mind to steer it out, to steer the 'whole (of us) out! Just as the safety -and the maneuvering- of the 'huge' ship, depends on the intelligence of the 'little' man behind the wheel! Or, as in the 'little boy leading the 'elephant'! In fact, this is where the 'Freudians' went totally wrong: It is the 'little man' -the captain- that actually 'drives' -controls- the 'ship'; and that the 'size' -the massive powers of the 'unconscious'-, in this case, is totally irrelevant! A misconception! It is only Our 'pessimistic romantic nature or temper', that 'drives' us to believe otherwise; no more, no less (and Freud was not an exception!)
It would certainly lead us to 'false observations' like this one; that the 'right', the 'subjective', the 'unconscious', (because of its massive size and great powers) is -or should be- the 'real leader'! It may be that, 'right-brain moods -of relaxation and expansion- are so obviously desirable, they fill us with optimism and replenish our energies, but the ' unconscious (Stan) is not cut out to drive or to control, to be the 'leader' and make decisions! (If cases of 'secondary personalities' is anything to go by, 'surrender to the right' would be no solution at all.) But even in cases or moods less extreme or drastic than that, the 'right' should not be the one to lead or make decisions about it! i.e. for its deductions, or rather for its inability to perceive logical consequences for instance, if things are done under 'its' supervision, or command, nine times out of Ten, it would lead to a disaster! Again, the 'right' may produce the 'musical theme', the 'idea', but the 'left' is the one that should 'write' the score down, 'conduct' it, or 'execute' it!
All this underlines something that should be quite clear in any case; that in a sense, we are all split brain patients. Hysterics! For part of the time, we are entrapped in our 'left-brain' ego of 'everydayness trivialities'! And for the rest of the time, we are doing things, 'driven' by some mysterious force, not knowing why we are doing them! And this is what mostly hindering us from arriving at the so-called "Totality of Oneself".
(H.S.) 17-2-2000 "Frankenstein's Castle" The Right Brain "Door To Wisdom" ©1980.ColinWilson.
"Poltergeist" A Study In Destructive Hauntings";. ©1981.ColinWilson.
"Two Sides of the Brain" An Essay by Robert E. Ornstein. From
"Understanding Mysticism" Edt. by Richard Woods.©1980.R.Woods.
"The Laurel and Hardy Theory of Consciousness" From "The Essential Colin Wilson". ©1985. ColinWilson.

Posted by: painter Oct 28 2008, 08:44 PM

Whoa whoa whoa!
Let's slow down a bit.


Each of us has a point of view informed by all the influences we've incorporated in our lives. However, what I'm aiming toward is not a discussion of our various points of view but something else. As I said above:

QUOTE (painter @ Oct 18 2008, 10:47 AM) *
. . .
We do not really know ourselves from the inside out. We've not even been taught that such a thing is possible. And for this reason, no matter how much we know or think we know or how many years of schooling we've had, we're all ignorant, all "asleep" in relation to this other level or quality of intelligence that may be possible for us.
. . .
All of us are unique specimens and yet all of us are in the same boat. We're all "neurotic" in the sense of fragmented, divided against ourselves and one another, living lives that are largely fictions, mostly cut off from and unaware of the possibility of connecting with something deeper, a form of intelligence within ourselves that doesn't come from "out there," can not be found "out there."

It is this possibility of discovering something from within ourselves that is my focus.


I'm asking that those of you who wish to engage in this thread try something different. For the time being, leave aside everything you think you know, everything you've heard and read and been influenced by, accepted as fact or disagreed with, and ask yourself this simple question: "What do I know without doubt to be true?"

Now, of course, I'm not asking about our knowledge of the external world. Hopefully that is obvious. What do we know from the inside out?

Lets see if we can have a discussion from a different place in ourselves. We're all very clever. Our brains never cease their chatter and commentary. Opinions form, come and go. We all have a lot of information stored in us and at our disposal, literally at our finger tips. But that isn't what this is about, isn't what I'm getting at. Not at all. So, lets slow down, take this one step at a time. Tell me who you are -- and how you know.

Posted by: Christophera Oct 28 2008, 11:17 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Oct 26 2008, 11:44 PM) *
What do we know from the inside out?


Tell me who you are -- and how you know.


Our feelings, the limbic system. Thoughts creating feelings with past and present structures of memory and cognition or memory of it.


Christopher A. Brown. I know because of various direct experience percieved by sensory organs managed and coordinated unconsciously. I suspect I have not been given a copy of the complete, unedited, original information. Limited evidentiary excursions have created some consistency, knowable when they find the same thing, or when there is selectable repeatability over time. Other people, having faces and names known to me communicate to me that amongst themselves they have similiar perceptions while the findings have created structures of instinctual response in me through the limbic system called feelings.



Somehow I feel I might have not gotten the context of the questions right, but have tried to provide a fitting answer to what context I could find that had definition for me.

Posted by: painter Oct 29 2008, 01:29 PM

QUOTE (Christophera @ Oct 28 2008, 08:17 PM) *
Christopher A. Brown.


That is your name but is your name who you are? Many of the other ideas you express for 'how' you know sound second hand, ideas, concepts read in books and accepted as factual.

What do you know about yourself that no one has told you, that you've seen for yourself?


To all: I'm having computer issues and for the next several days will not have regular on-line access.

Posted by: Christophera Oct 29 2008, 03:03 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Oct 27 2008, 04:29 PM) *
That is your name but is your name who you are? Many of the other ideas you express for 'how' you know sound second hand, ideas, concepts read in books and accepted as factual.

What do you know about yourself that no one has told you, that you've seen for yourself?



Okay, context expands.


What I read being expressed could be interpreted that you seek to identify if an archtypical basis might exist for each of us, or that an archtypes intentions are in a sense what we are, if not who we are. If such were true, it would undoubtly be unconscious, but have conscious manifestations occasionally that transcended our modern western motivational basis and be equitable with ancient beliefs.


Ancient belief systems include such concepts. The concept of an avatars expression for example. Or, dharma and it's meaningful product.

Posted by: KP50 Oct 29 2008, 03:04 PM

I am a product of my background and random events that have taken place. I used to think I knew what I was, these days I just know what I am not.

I'm in for the discussion.

Posted by: lunk Oct 29 2008, 03:58 PM

Personality can exist without conscious memory.
I've seen it before,
memory fades but the personality and the character,
still remain.
I've also heard the statement that mountains will rise and crumble.
seas will rise and evaporate to nothing , but people don't change.

So, I think that there is a unique force, to, and inside, each individual,
that remains constant at least life long, that leaves here, after that.

English is a difficult language to find words for this kind of topic.

That force is our essence, and it is no different in potential than anyone elses.
I think that although the potential being the same, is often explained as us, being
all the same, or one, and that, I think, is untrue.

...and this may be at the heart of the entire situation.

If one can be convinced that they are not a whole to themselves
and only a fraction to the entire population,
their potential is vastly diminished,
allowing for someone else to do the dividing.

imo, lunk

my mind is wandering again

Posted by: dMole Oct 29 2008, 08:03 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Oct 27 2008, 12:26 PM) *
(Thanks for the complements, by the way, but I kinda wish people would let go of that. I'm just a guy. Like everyone, I have my pluses and minuses, my ups and downs.)

Yup, you're an ornery old bastard painter! laughing1.gif Just kidding- but I had to take that one (and some might consider that a compliment coming from me). wink.gif

Posted by: Christophera Oct 30 2008, 01:21 PM

QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 27 2008, 11:03 PM) *
Yup, you're an ornery old bastard painter! laughing1.gif Just kidding- but I had to take that one (and some might consider that a compliment coming from me). wink.gif


You mean he knows how to start a thread difficult to stay on topic with, or, .... a thread which is dificult to define the topic of. A challenge is a good thing! Particuarly in this area of knowing ourselves, our humanity and its potentials or extents.

lunk posts a point which I recognize.

QUOTE (lunk @ Oct 27 2008, 06:58 PM) *
Personality can exist without conscious memory.
I've seen it before,
memory fades but the personality and the character,
still remain.


The phylogenetic DNA is of the unconscious. Patterns of response based on stimuli that have nothing to do with the present and are a compilation of past experiences encoded into our ancestors by their life experiences and perhaps carried into the ether (see link below as to "how carried") to be reactivated/returned to existence by the compatibility/similarity of our genetic structure to that of our ancestors.

QUOTE (lunk @ Oct 27 2008, 06:58 PM) *
English is a difficult language to find words for this kind of topic.


I've considered that english was derived/developed from its base in order to prevent finding words on this topic. Kidding!

If we were shaman sitting in a cave 10,000 years ago, we would have less problems inventing the words we needed while being in agreement of the definitions. Most of those people were hunted down and exterminated, prevented from speaking their languages.

QUOTE (lunk @ Oct 27 2008, 06:58 PM) *
That force is our essence, and it is no different in potential than anyone elses.
I think that although the potential being the same, is often explained as us, being
all the same, or one, and that, I think, is untrue.

...and this may be at the heart of the entire situation.

If one can be convinced that they are not a whole to themselves
and only a fraction to the entire population,
their potential is vastly diminished,
allowing for someone else to do the dividing.

imo, lunk

my mind is wandering again



There may be more than one intrinsic force. One which is just the carrier of the other. The other is an individual energy riding on the force of life.

I've considered that basic force as "mitogenetic radiation". In the way I've presented it here, our individualality would be inherited and encoded upon our life. That life provides us a connection to a universal whole and represents a way and opportunity for certain mixing of intention and knowledg into our individual exsitences.


http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/mitogenetic.html

Gurwitsch's work, like that of his great Ukrainian-Russian scientific contemporary Vernadsky, was a direct outgrowth of the work of Louis Pasteur, and ultimately of Kepler and Leibniz. Exactly for that reason, it was systematically suppressed; both in the West—where the Rockefeller Foundation directly targetted Gurwitsch's and related work from the late 1920s on, as a threat to its promotion of reductionist "molecular biology"—and, to a somewhat lesser extent, in the Soviet Union itself.


Ironically, we see that the main economic proponent of the WTC was involved with supression of the knowledge.

Posted by: Sanders Oct 30 2008, 04:17 PM

QUOTE (Christophera @ Nov 3 2008, 12:21 PM) *
... a thread which is difficult to define the topic of. A challenge is a good thing!


Good observation.

Painter's been talking about this stuff about as long as I've been rambling on about my dragon-blood-line. laugh.gif

I'll admit, I read a few posts however-long back and didn't really connect with the content. But I've been thinking about this more, and it occurred to me that my own personal experience in learning Japanese relates directly to this thread ... so I thought I'd "share".

(I put that word in parenthesis because I abhor it so ... but I suppose it's well suited here.)

Japanese and English are so totally different in structure that one cannot think in one language and talk in the other - it's just not possible beyond a pre-school level of speech. In order to speak in Japanese, one must learn to think in Japanese.

When I first came to Japan and had been studying a while, I became friends with a guy who spoke both languages fluently, and I was bothering him constantly with questions .... "how to you say this in Japanese???". Often his response was, "hmmmm, hmmmm, you don't really ever say that in Japanese. Nope, you can't really translate that."

That happened over and over, and I began to think Japanese was a sucky language, with no depth. But I was in Japan, so I learned it anyway.

Years later, after I was more or less fluent, my Japanese friends would often ask me, "hey, how do you say this in English???". And I would respond, "hmmmm, hmmmm, you don't really ever say that in English. Nope, you can't really translate that."

The point is, the two languages are squewed - there are areas that don't intersect. In order to understand certain words, you have to experience their meanings - I'm talking about experiences/feelings/meanings that are well understood in one culture - enough to require a word to describe it - but not in another. I'm sure this is true for any comparison of two languages/cultures, but I can't imagine any two that are more different than Japanese and English.

(BTW - many are aware that the Japanese incorporate a lot of English words into their language - that is true .... but it's no help! They call a convertible an "open-car" ... first time I heard that I thought someone forgot to lock their car-door!)

Anyway ....

As I became proficient in Japanese, I noticed there were two me's. The Japanese language, with its crazy obsession with politeness levels and protocol, rendered a new "me" who thought in Japanese and was somewhat different than the "me" that thought and talked in English. I know this for a fact because I felt it, it was very disturbing, and, when Japanese friends witnessed me hanging out with English speakers they always commented that I appeared to be a different person. It took years to integrate the two "me's".

It made me painfully aware of how interlocked the language we think in, and what we think, and who we "think" we are, are interlocked. Language is a half-@ss attempt at a common system of communication that everyone can understand ... the downside is, we think in words, and are unable to think of things that those "set" words and phrases can't already describe. I know this because I have learned new "meanings" - connected to experiences. that are not readily expressible in the English language. There is a Japanese character, pronounced "En", which when you say it in Japan everyone knows exactly what you are talking about, yet it would take a whole paragraph (or a page for that matter) to explain it in an English dictionary.

To think without words? Seems difficult - if not impossible - but potentially liberating to what degree I can't imagine. My experiences with the two languages, and the fact that I work in music, which is a sort of "geometric" language in and all to itself, makes me think that, while more than likely unattainable, it's the right direction to point toward. Words, after all, are inventions - and while they can be incredibly useful for communication, they also limit the range of thought ... I wouldn't call language a prison, and I think freedom and beauty and all that sort of stuff can probably best be found within the confines of a defined medium .... but thinking without using a pre-determined and sometimes woefully inadequate (as I found out learning a very different language) system of words to form thoughts ... is something I'm very interested in.

Posted by: Christophera Oct 31 2008, 04:31 AM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Oct 28 2008, 07:17 PM) *
It made me painfully aware of how interlocked the language we think in, and what we think, and who we "think" we are, are interlocked. Language is a half-@ss attempt at a common system of communication that everyone can understand ... the downside is, we think in words, and are unable to think of things that those "set" words and phrases can't already describe. I know this because I have learned new "meanings" - connected to experiences. that are not readily expressible in the English language.



Yes, another very important aspect. The meanings of the sounds. Their origins. Phylogenetic reponses comprise at least a part of what could be seen as learned, or "awakening" behaviors, that bring a phylogenetic set of responses that are emotional and visceral.

Good characterization of the different mental handles and containers comprising language over time. Very important.

Consider that there is the possibility that english has a hidden usage within a sabotaged gramatical structure. I do not seem to do well with grammatical rules so I can't discuss this at length with regard to technical grammer.
However, the individual who introduced me to PLENIPOTENTIARY-JUDGE :David-Wynn :Miller has used these techniques successfully in traffic court. Essentially they thought he was a nut at first, he was asked to plead and he used a very interesting phrase that made him a witness rather than the accused. The judge said, "I guess that means your not guilty then?". The later subpoenaed cop showed up and my freind was found guilty. He paid a fine and a fee for appeal but never made the appeal. After about 4 months all of the money was returned with a notice saying the charges had been dismissed.

Here is David-Wynn :Miller's site,

http://dwmlc.com/

And a sample of what is proposed for language that may have some of the missing aspects. This is serious legalese in an already hyper purified grammatical structure that seems to qualify the language itself while demonstrating its mathematical relation. I don't get that part, but somehow the way the words hit home seems to feel more real.

~12 FOR THESE FICTIONAL-MODIFICATIONS OF THESE FACTS ARE WITH THESE CLAIMS OF THE FICTIONAL-LANGUAGE-FORMAT=NO-CONTRACT-WRITINGS WITH THE MODIFICATION OF THE NOUNS=NO-NO WITH THE ADVERB-SYNTAX=MODIFIER, ADJECTIVE-SYNTAX=COLOR AND WITH THE SINGLE-WORD=PRONOUN-SYNTAX=NO-NO-NO, OR ADVERB-ADJEVTIVE-PRONOUN-SYNTAX, WITH THE VOIDING OF A POSITIONAL-LODIO-FACT-PHRASE[PREPOSITIONAL-PHRASE], WITH THESE ADVERB-VERB-AILING-FICTION-COMMUNICATION-SYNTAX OR ADVERB-ADJECTIVE-PRONOUN-AILING-FICTIONAL-COMMUNICATION-SYNTAX. 1>2, 4<1>2, 3<>4<1>3<>4, 3>3<>4, 4<1<>1>3<>4 :NOTE: NUMBERS ARE USED AS A SPACE-SAVING-OPERATION


Below is another passage from another page. As you can see, the structure can be understandable. Notice the very clear basic thought that a "trial" is practice. The origins of the words we use are not as clearly known as we might think.

~6 FOR THESE EVIDENCE-FACTS IN A TRIAL ARE WITH THE CLAIM OF THE EXPERIMENT WITH THE THOUGHT-PROCESS OF THE THINKING-PERSON. FOR THE WORD "TRIAL" IS WITH THE TERM="EXPERIMENT" OR PRACTICE FOR THE LACK OF THE KNOWLEDGE-FACTS, THINKING OF THE MIND IS FOR THE CAUSING OF THE REASONING OF THE MOTION. HENCE: CAUSE AND EFFECT.

If we were speaking Japanese, at least somebody would know what we are saying, but noooooooooo, we speak english.

Posted by: lunk Oct 31 2008, 08:25 AM

It's interesting that information between computers is binary.
It takes a lot of 0s and 1s to say hello. When I read the side of the box of cereal,
it's written in English and French, here in Canada.
The French always takes up much more room on the label than English, saying the same thing.
Binary has 2 "words", English has 200 000 words, we would need the side of a barn to write out the ingredients for that same box of cereal, in readable size binary.
The more words in a language, the fewer words needed to say something.
Now, someone in India figured out that if you take the number of colours recognized by the scanner, and printed by a printer, something like 16000, and multiply that by the number of smallest, recognizable shapes possible, you get a language that has millions of "words" in the form of a picture, printed on paper. Using this method, it is possible to store the binary data from a large hard drive on a single sheet of paper. Now considering the number of photos that can be stored on a hard drive, it seems entirely possible to me that mass storage of tetra bites could be stored on a small MB thumb drive, as it is no longer a question of lots of storage room, but just the processing power to "read" it.

The method of storing data in pictures is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Storage.

imo, lunk

Posted by: dMole Oct 31 2008, 03:14 PM

Not to completely derail painter's thread, but lunk just brushed against 3 very fascinating subjects:

Quantum computers (still officially theoretical, or are they "classified"?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

Steganography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography

The human subconscious mind is arguably both of the above (and many other things).

Posted by: Christophera Nov 2 2008, 11:38 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Oct 16 2008, 12:51 AM) *
First I am inviting you to engage with me and one another in some discussion here about this topic. However, I am very aware that discussion of this topic is by necessity limited so long as it remains nothing more than discussion. To go further requires something more of us: Specifically a willingness to engage in exercises and experiments which can begin to move us beyond mere discussion into the realm of actual experience and knowledge based upon that experience.


Who or what we really are matters. How we know matters. Take this logic for example of why.

If we, as mental beings are approximately 86% unconscious and spend 1/3 of our lives in an unconscious state; return with no conscious awareness of it; is it irresponsible for us to not become adept at knowing at least something about the unconscious useful in determining how much of our conscious existence and control over our behaviors is unconscious.

Would this apply moreso, particuarly, when we, as a group, don't seem to be able to discern WHY some things that we do not want to happen, are supposed to have safeguards are hapenning more and more?

Posted by: dMole Nov 2 2008, 11:56 PM

I suppose that time, linearity, and a definition of "perception" are waaay off topic here then? [Those are only 3 tiny little words after all... wink.gif ] [Unfortunately, Painter is having "technical difficulties" through the electronic grapevine]

Posted by: GroundPounder Nov 9 2008, 07:38 PM

alright painter, you piqued my curiousity.

what do you mean by reading? are we talking reading minds, tea leaves, body language or the standard left brained symbol interpretation stuff? or are you soliciting our thoughts on the word 'read' and what it means to us?

Posted by: lunk Nov 10 2008, 01:40 AM

Ooh, hey,
my hand's up, I got the answer,
can I answer GP,
Painter,
please?

I think this is what painter means by learning to read.

cheers, lunk

Posted by: painter Nov 10 2008, 04:18 AM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Nov 9 2008, 03:38 PM) *
alright painter, you piqued my curiousity.

what do you mean by reading? are we talking reading minds, tea leaves, body language or the standard left brained symbol interpretation stuff? or are you soliciting our thoughts on the word 'read' and what it means to us?


I see friend lunk can barely contain himself, so excited is he to have 'the answer'. wink.gif

He is right to some extent to suggest through his punctuated poetry that in this thread I'm taking on a role somewhat like a teacher. There is something I'm hoping everyone here will begin to learn. As has been pointed out up thread "reading" comprehension isn't it. I am asking people to bring me something, an honest observation of themselves. I've phrased the question several different ways but, so far, people have been cautious. This is somewhat understandable. This is a little different than our usual back-and-forth. This isn't about sharing our thoughts and opinions, however clever or silly they may be. That is happening, obviously, but that isn't what I'm looking for.

At this moment as I write these words I'm trying something. After that last period I paused for a bit waiting to see what words would come next. These did. In the moments when I pause between sentences and stare blankly at the blinking insert bar, I intentionally relax a little bit and allow the significance of words in my head to subside. I'm intentionally altering the focus of my attention, redistributing it, you might say. I stop. I sense my breathing, the temperature of the air on my hands. Sometimes I close my eyes so as to not be distracted by the energy pouring in through them. But even with my eyes closed, I don't stop looking. I just 'look' at 'looking' with my eyes closed and, at the same time, broaden my awareness of my physical body. I notice that it is a bit more difficult to sustain this awareness of 'myself' and simultaneously compose and type out sentences. The hands seem to know how to type fairly well (I'm a fast typist), so they don't require much attention. The connection between them and what else is going on in my head, the way thoughts form and get translated into energy that can move my muscles and tap out these words on my keyboard is quite mysterious. But what fascinates me is that there is this possibility of being more aware of myself as I do things. If I only read these words and think about them, however, without also making this effort to broaden the focus of my attention as I read and write here in this thread, then nothing will be gained.

Posted by: The artful dodger Nov 10 2008, 10:27 AM

Fantastic thread... many thanks for posting.

Isn't it interesting to see a discussion of "reading" when that term is taken (I hope!!) to reach beyond words and search for that certain something that we all are has descended into a discussion of the semantics of language - or perhaps I miss the point entirely!!

However, the talk of the semantics of language itself is fascinating. I have always viewed language as something of a tyranny that restricts true expression and yet also as a liberation as some communication may be better than none although there is a school of thought suggesting that the development of language was the death of who and what we are and the very beginning of the kind of control we so enjoy today!

Sorry for the ramble but I shall try to end with an attempted answer to a question posed earlier... I have no idea who I am, I feel that the thing that I am is constrained by a lifetime of influences, language and culture to the extent that the 'me' that is has become so deeply buried that I rarely get to see it...

Posted by: dMole Nov 10 2008, 10:57 AM

TAD just reminded me of an excellent book that was actually "required liberal ed reading" at University so many years ago:

Steven Pinker, The Language Instinct

http://www.amazon.com/Language-Instinct-Steven-Pinker/dp/0060976519

That was arguably hands-down the best "required book" I ever encountered in college.

This one looks interesting too in this context (although I haven't read it yet):

http://www.amazon.com/How-Mind-Works-Steven-Pinker/dp/0393318486/ref=pd_sim_b_2

Posted by: painter Nov 11 2008, 03:52 AM

You probably noticed that I changed this topic's title from "Learning how to read" to "Learning how to be free." Personally, I like the first title better but it seems people are getting caught up in the "read" part of it when, as I've said, to me the important part is the "learning". In any case, let me state from the start that there is no difference: A man who is not free does not know how to read.

I want to point everyone to http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15526&hl= which expresses two things relevant to the topic at hand. Within it he quotes at some length another author who is talking about the multitude of "veils" through which one must pass to achieve genuine freedom. Moreover, within his OP, Lasthorseman gives at least two examples of at least relative, if momentary, "freedom". That is, examples of a quality of self awareness within which he knew something, understood something, about himself. He did not read this in any book.

By passing through the 9/11 looking glass, all of us here have arrived at a certain understanding about the true nature of our relationship to the social environment within which we find ourselves: We are not free. Or, put differently, we are "free" relatively, within limits -- most of which remain invisible to us. We are all conditioned by and dependent upon a complex social system over which we have limited control and possibly even less understanding. Having passed through this looking glass, however, we now find ourselves looking at the world and ourselves in it quite differently than we did before. Where before, perhaps, if someone were to have pointed out to us that we are not free, we might not have believed them, might have derided them as "crazy" and might have pointed to any number of examples as evidence that we are, in fact, free. But now that sense of more or less certainty has vanished and we find ourselves in a kind of prison populated primarily with fellow inmates who have little to no knowledge of their confines or jailers and, consequently, have little or no interest in insurrection, much less escape.

The possibility of escape is what I'm attempting to offer. But I'm full aware, as each of you should be by now, that a man can not escape a prison he does not see. What I have to offer is the "red pill" that shows us just how deep the rabbit hole goes. Shows us, if you will, that the prison is not only something "out there" in the world of events and bogus Illuminati: It is within us. And none of us can escape this prison who has not seen it and tried to pry apart the bars.

There is a way out, however, because "freedom" is our birthright. The incarceration that we share is not natural to us and, deep, deep within, somehow we know this -- that "splinter in the mind" that keeps us searching for a "truth" that can not be spoken, only known.

PS: If thought and habit are the cinder blocks and the bars, attention is the key.

Posted by: dMole Nov 11 2008, 06:20 AM

I wouldn't say I'm "caught up" in that word painter- it's just a really good f*cking book- I thought I'd share with y'all. wink.gif Meanwhile, back on topic...

I've freed myself of many things. I don't think mine is the path, method, means or ??? for most however.

Posted by: GroundPounder Nov 11 2008, 07:28 AM

saw the new title, thought it was a new topic...excellent

plato's cave -> the matrix -> the eight veils

has anybody read 'a course in miracles' or 'the disappearance of the universe' ?

Posted by: Sanders Nov 11 2008, 12:59 PM

I don't care which title ...

But the action of changing it was as thought provoking as anything in the thread. How to read - how to be free. Call it my own bias struggling with a bizzare language, "thinking" detached from words is a real challenge. They say that learning your 3rd, 4th, 5th language is much easier than your 2nd. I can't say personally, but I know a guy who speaks (fluently) 11 or 12. He's working on numbers 13 and 14 at the moment - just cause he's bored. An Indian (i.e. from India) guy actually - I talked to him about this, about the ability to think in concepts without the attachment of specific words. He assured me it gets easier as one learns more languages ... and that when he thinks of a concept, he sees it in his mind in various languages, but more as an image.

I was horrible at French ... I tried so hard to learn it. But Japanese, which they say is supposed to be really hard, was easy for me. Go figure! ... But, there's a reason, I'm good with images, not words. The Japanese language is based on characters - every word has an associated character - usually with 2 (or more) pronunciations - but a specific meaning. Once you can connect the image to the meaning, you can usually guess the pronunciation. I found this process easy, and I jumped right into learning the characters - I suppose that's why I was able to learn Japanese much more quickly than French. They say that it's a right-brain, left-brain thing, that Asian languages are more suited to right-brain people, Latin-languages to left. I believe it, cause I'm one of those (to a fault) "lefties" (right-brain).

I'm rambling on about this, because its part of my daily life, and I connect to this topic in this way in a concrete sense. But really, in my own opinion, this is all (what "all" means is up to you) a very personal journey. And there are no short cuts ... and there is no "goal" per-se, the goal is always just out of reach - but you reach and you find yourself reaching for the next new level of understanding in a week or a month or a year ... and its all about thinking out of the box - or, should I say, out of 'your own' box. The "box" is the matrix, the reality you have imprinted (allowed to be imprinted) in your head. New ideas can take you outside of your box, you walk around out there a little bit, you reject it or you embrace it, or something in-between, but the important thing is to walk around outside of the box.

Ahhh, life is, ultimately, about taking risks. The more, the greater risks one takes, the fuller one's life becomes - whether they succeed or fail ... because failure actually is the best part - it is from failure that we learn the most. But the risks we take in the way we THINK are the safest of all risks, yet the ones least explored.

"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth.

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same.

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."



...If you don't know who wrote that, you suck. biggrin.gif

Posted by: painter Nov 11 2008, 01:45 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Nov 11 2008, 03:28 AM) *
saw the new title, thought it was a new topic...excellent

plato's cave -> the matrix -> the eight veils


QUOTE
... the traditional teachings ... make a fundamental distinction between consciousness on the one hand and the contents of consciousness such as our perceptions of things, our sense of personal identity, our emotions and our thoughts in all their color and gradations on the other hand.

This ancient distinction has two crucial messages for us. On the one hand, it tell us that what we feel to be the best of ourselves as human beings is only part of a total structure containing layers of mind, feeling and sensation far more active, subtle and encompassing (like the cosmic spheres) than what we have settled for as our best. These lawyers are very numerous and need to be peeled back, as it were, or broken through one by one along the path of inner growth, until an individual touches in himself the fundamental intelligent forces in the cosmos.

At the same time, this distinction also communicates that the search for consciousness is a constant necessity for man. It is telling us that anything in ourselves, no matter how fine, subtle or intelligent, no matter how virtuous or close to reality, no matter how still or violent--any action, any thought, any intuition or experience--immediately absorbs all our attention and automatically becomes transformed into contents around which gather all the opinions, feelings and distorted sensations that are the supports of our secondhand sense of identity. In short, we are told that the evolution of consciousness is always "vertical" to the constant (horizontal or time bound) stream of mental, emotional and sensory associations within the human organism, and comprehensive of them (somewhat like a "fourth dimension"). And, seen in this light, it is not really a question of concentric layers of awareness embedded like the skins of an onion within the self, but only one skin, one veil, that constantly forms regardless of the quality or intensity of the psychic field at any given moment.


Jacob Needleman, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=4643&view=findpost&p=7895238, pp 20, 22.

Posted by: painter Nov 11 2008, 02:02 PM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Nov 11 2008, 08:59 AM) *
... "thinking" detached from words is a real challenge ...


I understand why you would say this for it certainly seems to be true. But is it? The word "imagination" references the ability to see in the mind what is not present to the eyes; we have no equivalent single word for "imagining the sound of one's own voice". When I imagine my own voice in my head, I 'think' I'm 'thinking'; but am I? Look at it and study it for yourself -- observe for yourself what is actually going on rather than what you've read or been told or lead to believe. Can I suspend this internal monologue? What happens when I just "am aware" without the habitual tendency to describe or translate or compare?

QUOTE
I'm rambling on about this, because its part of my daily life, and I connect to this topic in this way in a concrete sense. But really, in my own opinion, this is all (what "all" means is up to you) a very personal journey. And there are no short cuts ... and there is no "goal" per-se, the goal is always just out of reach - but you reach and you find yourself reaching for the next new level of understanding in a week or a month or a year ... and its all about thinking out of the box - or, should I say, out of 'your own' box. The "box" is the matrix, the reality you have imprinted (allowed to be imprinted) in your head. New ideas can take you outside of your box, you walk around out there a little bit, you reject it or you embrace it, or something in-between, but the important thing is to walk around outside of the box.


Yes. Only one caution: It isn't only about "thinking". The habits which imprison us are not only matters of ideation; there are also habits of the physical body and the emotions. What there seldom is is a direct observation, without judgement or criticism (which is also habitual), of the depth of these habits. Just seeing: "Such is so."

To understand any of this we have to learn to "pay attention" in a new way.

Posted by: painter Nov 11 2008, 02:48 PM

QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 11 2008, 02:20 AM) *
I've freed myself of many things. I don't think mine is the path, method, means or ??? for most however.


I have no doubt both sentences are true for you. And you are right, one man's dessert may be another man's poison. Still, if we know anything, especially something learned directly, not from a book (however interesting or informative it may be), we have something few men have. A very valuable asset. Nothing of this kind can be given to anyone. It must be earned for one's self and, indeed, every man's path is different.

But there are relevant questions. What can feed my hunger to know directly, feed the wish to be free inwardly, regardless of my external conditions? If I begin to see, as all here have to some degree, that the outer world is a prison, a market place for slaves (many of whom mistaking themselves for masters), then there arises the wish to free oneself from these external conditions -- and rightly so. But what is the inner counterpart to that dynamic? What do I need to see in myself and, perhaps even more importantly, how can I even begin to see it?

Posted by: Wingmaster05 Nov 11 2008, 02:52 PM

To answer the question, "tell me who you are"...

I am a product of my desires. I define myself by what interests me most. I am a vegetarian/vegan because i am most concerned with the welfare of animals. I am an alternative history buff because I understanding of the world changed with the understanding of one event; 9/11. I am quiet and shy because I enjoy time to myself...what the people around me have to offer are usually unimportant or detrimental to my philosophy (that stems from my desire), and therefore alone-ness to me is most liberating.

My environment also determines who i am. The people around me do not think as I do. They are most concerned about sports, jobs and money. I don't want to abandon my friends, so i maintain a persona, my old 'me' that was sarcastic, playful, and still into the general entertainment that most people enjoy.

Posted by: painter Nov 11 2008, 03:16 PM

QUOTE (Wingmaster05 @ Nov 11 2008, 10:52 AM) *
To answer the question, "tell me who you are"...

I am a product of my desires. I define myself by what interests me most. I am a vegetarian/vegan because i am most concerned with the welfare of animals. I am an alternative history buff because I understanding of the world changed with the understanding of one event; 9/11. I am quiet and shy because I enjoy time to myself...what the people around me have to offer are usually unimportant or detrimental to my philosophy (that stems from my desire), and therefore alone-ness to me is most liberating.

My environment also determines who i am. The people around me do not think as I do. They are most concerned about sports, jobs and money. I don't want to abandon my friends, so i maintain a persona, my old 'me' that was sarcastic, playful, and still into the general entertainment that most people enjoy.


Thank you, Wingmaster.

Do you have a question? -- I don't mean a superficial question such as you might ask a friend or some 'authority' to answer for you. I'm not even asking you to tell me what your question is if you have one. I'm asking, do you have a question that is your own? Perhaps it doesn't even form itself in words in your mind but, nevertheless, it is an inner influence or impulse that motivates you to search for something 'more' in your life. You don't have to tell me, you don't have to answer my question to you. But I'm asking you to ask yourself, to look within yourself, to see what is there -- not for 'me' or for 'us' but for yourself.

Posted by: lunk Nov 11 2008, 08:38 PM

The answers are everywhere.
It's formulating the right question,
I have problems with.

It's a thinking/knowing thing.

...I think

lunk

Posted by: Rickysa Nov 12 2008, 11:57 AM

I am the same person I was as a small child

I still feel the same way, and view the world around me in the same way....

I have a job, family, and the day-to-day trappings involved in such,

but I still feel the same way I did way back when

I feel I am here, at this time, because something extraordinary is going to happen...I was born into this time for this reason

I feel that there is an additional dimension(s) surrounding us, and that there is some form of barrier that prevents us from experiencing it

I have had enough "synchronistic" episodes in my everyday life that I know the above sentence to be true

I know that I enjoy the hell out of lucid dreaming in trying to get some sort of handle/understanding of the conscious/sub-conscious mind smile.gif

I have had practice (due to dealing with anxiety) in quietly taking in (sensory) all of what is going on around me, and being at one with it....

sorry for the rambling answer to a difficult question smile.gif

Rick

Posted by: painter Nov 12 2008, 02:01 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 11 2008, 04:38 PM) *
The answers are everywhere.
It's formulating the right question,
I have problems with.

It's a thinking/knowing thing.

...I think

lunk


There is an impulse to respond to your words. Something in me wants to respond.

At first, words begin to form in me associatively, automatically, mechanically, reactively. I read your words and words begin to form in a certain part of my brain immediately -- some witty or serious or 'intelligent' thing to say. But in this instance I let that go and admit to myself that I don't really know what needs to be said. Yet I know that I don't know and that is something. That is real for me. True for me.

So, I take my time. I'm in no hurry. I'm watching or at least attempting to watch the movement of attention within myself. I allow the attention to open to include my body a little more completely, to feel the energy that is here in me now -- so far as I'm able. When I'm ready, that is, when I can simultaneously sustain some awareness of sensation, I begin to allow the typed words come -- allow the 'word formation' part of my brain and the well practiced fingers to do what they mechanically know to do so well. But there is a bit of an inner struggle going on because the word formation process has a tendency to absorb all my attention. Its like water drawn by gravity or iron filings drawn to a magnet; this is where and how my attention is in the habit of being. When this happens I 'forget' about the intention of remaining more aware of myself and loose the direct connection with this intention to spread my attention more evenly through my body. As I try to observe all this I see that my effort isn't even or constant. I see that if I'm not careful or diligent, my attention will become absorbed by a 'thought' or even drawn completely away from the present into a 'day dream' or 'fantasy'. I struggle, a little bit, against this habit. I work at sustaining some awareness of the whole of myself. Work at remembering this other intention so that even when I 'forget', soon it comes back again and I re-member myself a little more fully.

It takes time. It takes interest. It takes practice. It takes a certain quantity and quality of energy. I have to want to do this or at least try. But what am I? And how can I even begin to know except by making some inner effort to be aware, to take this question seriously and to be honest with myself when I see that mostly this question is lost, almost completely lost. Forgotten. Irrelevant in contrast to all the other interests and concerns that absorb my attention. From somewhere there has to arise a wish to know, a wish to be, that becomes a new 'center of gravity', a new 'magnet', that calls my attention back into more of myself and into the moment.

This cycle is repeated over and over and over again. But something is forming. A new 'crystallization' has begun to appear. Something more is now possible.

Posted by: painter Nov 12 2008, 02:30 PM

QUOTE (Rickysa @ Nov 12 2008, 07:57 AM) *
I am the same person I was as a small child

I still feel the same way, and view the world around me in the same way....

I have a job, family, and the day-to-day trappings involved in such,

but I still feel the same way I did way back when

I feel I am here, at this time, because something extraordinary is going to happen...I was born into this time for this reason

I feel that there is an additional dimension(s) surrounding us, and that there is some form of barrier that prevents us from experiencing it

I have had enough "synchronistic" episodes in my everyday life that I know the above sentence to be true

I know that I enjoy the hell out of lucid dreaming in trying to get some sort of handle/understanding of the conscious/sub-conscious mind smile.gif

I have had practice (due to dealing with anxiety) in quietly taking in (sensory) all of what is going on around me, and being at one with it....

sorry for the rambling answer to a difficult question smile.gif

Rick


Yes, it requires practice and patience and a kind of wish or wordless impulse or desire. It is very subtle. It doesn't have much weight or gravity or importance in relation to what I call "my life." It can seem almost inconsequential. No one has ever told us otherwise. Our attention is drawn to other things: Trapped, imprisoned, even "consumed" may not be too strong a word. But I have to see this for myself. Being told or even 'believing' that such is so isn't enough.

As for being the child, yes, something is there from the beginning. Something essential, an essence that remains although it may be completely buried beneath the formation of the social mask, the persona, that we are taught to identify with as "myself". This essence is our hope but because it was seldom if ever fed or nourished with its proper food, it has not grown along with the body and all our other faculties. It remains 'latent' -- but, still, a genuine hope. Finding it and feeding it in the midst of life can become a new aim.

Posted by: painter Nov 14 2008, 12:13 PM

I've written several posts on other threads, most in reply to other members, that are relevant to this thread so I'm going to copy and paste them here:

Source: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=15516&view=findpost&p=10758715



QUOTE (beatles64 @ Nov 12 2008, 12:38 PM) *
Please allow me to pick up the pieces of my blown mind [cleanup]

This post is the most recent "event" that I "feel" I have been "waiting for".....it made sense so much that it didn't make any sense, I feel I understand, but what I understand, is that I don't yet understand....

I have the tools...

and so do you....

..so, I guess, the rest is up to me?

EDIT: A couple of things "spoke" to me more clearly.....and now I am finding myself reading George Harrison's lyrics VERY CAREFULLY....

As The Insider said, the truth is "within you, without you"


Yes, but I advise discretion. That is to say, although there are some very big pearls in there, the fact is they are wrapped in a container of BS. Discretion, the ability to "read" (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15266 pinned in this forum), to see what is Pearl and what is BS is essential.

The biggest reason why I know "Insider" isn't telling us the truth -- don't misunderstand, he says many true things, but he isn't telling us the truth about himself -- is that he has completely left out the most important thing. For example in this "answer":

QUOTE
Temperance: conscious form of restraint based on selfknowing to achieve inner order of the Soul (which is the unseen you as a whole, the Soul is not a part of you, you are one). Restraining the emotions/desires/passions/energies does not mean cutting it off (that will harm you, beware), but channeling them to work for higher causes after taming them gently. This all does lead to a sober life, yet simpler, filled with gifts because you fully become your own master, instead of your emotions/desires/passions dictating you how to be. Simultaneously with this process you will be cleansing yourself and will be ready to be enlightened by the Universal Mind. Be like that which you want to connect with as much as possible.


He has left out the KEY -- how it is that any "temperance" or "gentle taming" of the emotions/desires/passions/energies is possible. I can't emphasize enough how very important this is. Without the KEY, nothing is possible other than making matters worse than they already are. This is the fundamental point that has to be understood whenever one approaches genuine esoteric knowledge. (Genuine as opposed the fake 'esotericism' that Insider also, and accurately, warns us about).

The KEY is this: The awareness that we can "do" nothing, "learn" nothing, "understand" nothing, and "tame" nothing -- in fact "be" nothing --without a simultaneous inner effort to extend the range of our attention beyond its normal, habitual circuit. This is why genuine esotericism is esoteric. It isn't that anything is hidden, that is a truth he states, but that it is invisible to us because we do not hold, exercise or value the KEY, which is the energy of attention itself. Ordinarily our attention is focused either outwardly toward a figure in the world or, conversely, in some attempt to focus "inwardly" toward sensations or thoughts and feelings. What isn't made evident is that attention can intentionally be divided to operate in more than one direction simultaneously. (I'm not talking about mere 'multi-tasking' but it is related.) This is the "key" and without it nothing can be achieved. For anything to be achieved, conscious attention needs to be sustained simultaneously both toward the "object" and toward the "self". This establishes a new current of energy that initiates a relationship with a higher, reconciling force.

This "key," by the way, is the fundamental meaning of the pyramid symbol we are so familiar with (and many so suspicious of). This simplified diagram, below, represents the actualization of a particular cosmic law:



This is the "affirming" or ascending path, the path of evolution, which is superimposed with the equally lawful (cosmic law) "denying" or descending path or the path of involution seen in the "Star of David." The interweaving of these two fundamental cosmic forces represent the "third" balancing or "reconciling" cosmic force:



Finally, Insider puts forth "the Soul" as "the unseen you as a whole." While this is not a false statement, as stated it re-establishes the inaccurate presentment that "the Soul" is something actual, and not potential; that it exists already, fully formed and independent of any conscious choice or action. This is false, or at least problematic. "The Soul" is "the unseen you as a whole" only when the full meaning of the symbol above is actualized as a fully intentional and conscious energetic exchange with what Insider calls "the One". EDIT TO ADD: From the perspective of a higher dimension, "the Soul" may already exist, fully formed -- but this is outside temporal boundaries. Within temporal boundaries it exists only in potential.


Posted by: painter Nov 14 2008, 12:15 PM

Source: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=15513&view=findpost&p=10758596



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 11 2008, 05:17 AM) *
If civilizations were known to rise and fall, by a dominant minority,
who wanted to preserve the harvested knowledge of each civilization,
the moon would make a wonderful archive.

Did anyone notice, everyone is suddenly going to the moon again.
...I wonder, what's up...


Ancient knowledge is everywhere, all around us and in us. But it is the nature of esotericism that this knowledge can not be received or understood if it is not accompanied by an intentional, inner effort to be qualitatively and quantitatively more aware or more conscious. It isn't a matter of a passive acquisition of "more information" recorded like data on a disc. Knowledge is more than information. Transformation is the possibility, attention is the key:

QUOTE
During one conversation with G. [G. I. Gurdjieff] in our group, which was beginning to become permanent, I asked: “Why, if ancient knowledge has been preserved and if, speaking in general, there exists a knowledge distinct from our science and philosophy or even surpassing it, is it so carefully concealed, why is it not made common property? Why are the men who possess this knowledge unwilling to let it pass into the general circulation of life for the sake of a better and more successful struggle against deceit, evil, and ignorance?

This is, I think, a question which usually arises in everyone’s mind on first acquaintance with the ideas of esotericism.

“There are two answers to that,” said G. “In the first place, this knowledge is not concealed; and in the second place, it cannot, from its very nature, become common property. We will consider the second of these statements first. I will prove to you afterwards that knowledge” (he emphasized the word) “is far more accessible to those capable of assimilating it than is usually supposed; and that the whole trouble is that people either do not want it or cannot receive it.

“But first of all another thing must be understood, namely, that knowledge cannot belong to all, cannot even belong to many. Such is the law. You do not understand this because you do not understand that knowledge, like everything else in the world, is material. It is material, and this means that it possesses all the characteristics of materiality. One of the first characteristics of materiality is that matter is always limited, that is to say, the quantity of matter in a given place and under given conditions is limited. Even the sand of the desert and the water of the sea is a definite and unchangeable quantity. So that, if knowledge is material, then it means that there is a definite quantity of it in a given place at a given time. It may be said that, in the course of a certain period of time, say a century, humanity has a definite amount of knowledge at its disposal. But we know, even from an ordinary observation of life, that the matter of knowledge possesses entirely different qualities according to whether it is taken in small or large quantities. Taken in a large quantity in a given place, that is by one man, let us say, or by a small group of men, it produces very good results; taken in a small quantity (that is, by every one of a very large number of people), it gives no results at all; or it may give even negative results, contrary to those expected. Thus if a certain definite quantity of knowledge is distributed among millions of people, each individual will receive very little, and this small amount of knowledge will change nothing either in his life or in his understanding of things. And however large the number of people who receive this small amount of knowledge, it will change nothing in their lives, except, perhaps, to make them still more difficult.

“But if, on the contrary, large quantities of knowledge are concentrated in a small number of people, then this knowledge will give very great results. From this point of view it is far more advantageous that knowledge should be preserved among a small number of people and not dispersed among the masses.

“If we take a certain quantity of gold and decide to gild a number of objects with it, we must know, or calculate, exactly what number of objects can be gilded with this quantity of gold. If we try to gild a greater number, they will be covered with gold unevenly, in patches, and will look much worse than if they had no gold at all; in fact we shall lose our gold.

“The distribution of knowledge is based upon exactly the same principle. If knowledge is given to all, nobody will get any. If it is preserved among a few, each will receive not only enough to keep, but to increase, what he receives.

“At the first glance this theory seems very unjust, since the position of those who are, so to speak, denied knowledge in order that others may receive a greater share may seem very sad and undeservedly harder than it ought to be. Actually, however, this is not so at all; and in the distribution of knowledge there is not the slightest injustice.

“The fact is that the enormous majority of people do not want any knowledge whatever; they refuse their share of it and do not even take the ration allotted to them, in the general distribution, for the purposes of life. This is particularly evident in times of mass madness such as wars, revolutions, and so on, when men suddenly seem to lose even the small amount of common sense they had and turn into complete automatons, giving themselves over to wholesale destruction in vast numbers, in other words, even losing the instinct of self-preservation. Owing to this, enormous quantities of knowledge remain, so to speak, unclaimed and can be distributed among those who realize its value.

“There is nothing unjust in this, because those who receive knowledge take nothing that belongs to others, deprive others of nothing; they take only what others have rejected as useless and what would in any case be lost if they did not take it.

“The collecting of knowledge by some depends on the rejection of knowledge by others.

“There are periods in the life of humanity, which generally coincide with the beginning of the fall of cultures and civilizations, when the masses irretrievably lose their reason and begin to destroy everything that has been created by centuries and millenniums of culture. Such periods of mass madness, often coinciding with geological cataclysms, climatic changes, and similar phenomena of a planetary character, release a very great quantity of the matter of knowledge. This, in its turn, necessitates the work of collecting this matter of knowledge which would otherwise be lost. Thus the work of collecting scattered matter of knowledge frequently coincides with the beginning of the destruction and fall of cultures and civilizations.

“This aspect of the question is clear. The crowd neither wants nor seeks knowledge, and the leaders of the crowd, in their own interests, try to strengthen its fear and dislike of everything new and unknown. The slavery in which mankind lives is based upon this fear. It is even difficult to imagine all the horror of this slavery. We do not understand what people are losing. But in order to understand the cause of this slavery it is enough to see how people live, what constitutes the aim of their existence, the object of their desires, passions, and aspirations, of what they think, of what they talk, what they serve and what they worship.

Consider what the cultured humanity of our time spends money on; even leaving the war out, what commands the highest price; where the biggest crowds are. If we think for a moment about these questions it becomes clear that humanity, as it is now, with the interests it lives by, cannot expect to have anything different from what it has. But, as I have already said, it cannot be otherwise. Imagine that for the whole of mankind half a pound of knowledge is allotted a year. If this knowledge is distributed among everyone, each will receive so little that he will remain the fool he was. But, thanks to the fact that very few want to have this knowledge, those who take it are able to get, let us say, a grain each, and acquire the possibility of becoming more intelligent. All cannot become intelligent even if they wish. And if they did become intelligent it would not help matters. There exists a general equilibrium which cannot be upset.

“That is one aspect. The other, as I have already said, consists in the fact that no one is concealing anything; there is no mystery whatever. But the acquisition or transmission of true knowledge demands great labor and great effort both of him who receives and of him who gives. And those who possess this knowledge are doing everything they can to transmit and communicate it to the greatest possible number of people, to facilitate people’s approach to it and enable them to prepare themselves to receive the truth. But knowledge cannot be given by force to anyone and, as I have already said, an unprejudiced survey of the average man’s life, of what fills his day and of the things he is interested in, will at once show whether it is possible to accuse men who possess knowledge of concealing it, of not wishing to give it to people, or of not wishing to teach people what they know themselves.

“He who wants knowledge must himself make the initial efforts to find the source of knowledge and to approach it, taking advantage of the help and indications which are given to all, but which people, as a rule, do not want to see or recognize. Knowledge cannot come to people without effort on their own part. They understand this very well in connection with ordinary knowledge, but in the case of great knowledge, when they admit the possibility of its existence, they find it possible to expect something different. Everyone knows very well that if, for instance, a man wants to learn Chinese, it will take several years of intense work; everyone knows that five years are needed to grasp the principles of medicine, and perhaps twice as many years for the study of painting or music. And yet there are theories which affirm that knowledge can come to people without any effort on their part, that they can acquire it even in sleep. The very existence of such theories constitutes an additional explanation of why knowledge cannot come to people. At the same time it is essential to understand that man’s independent efforts to attain anything in this direction can also give no results. A man can only attain knowledge with the help of those who possess it. This must be understood from the very beginning. One must learn from him who knows.”

From P. D. Ouspensky's, In Search of the Miraculous, quoting G. I. Gurdjieff, pp 35, 36.


Posted by: painter Nov 14 2008, 12:16 PM

Source: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=15513&view=findpost&p=10758718



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 12 2008, 05:04 AM) *
QUOTE
A man can only attain knowledge with the help of those who possess it.


No, but it could shorten the learning experience.


1: You're still taking "knowledge" as representing information. That is not what is being spoken of. 2: The "learning experience" for what is being spoken about, great knowledge, can not be shortened. It takes as long as it takes. If one does not find "those who possess it," it will not happen at all. Think of it as an exchange of a particular quality of energy. It demands something from both he who gives and he who receives.

QUOTE
I think this guy is getting gold and knowledge mixed up.


The former is a symbol for the latter.

QUOTE
There are a lot of ambiguities in these statements.


How so?

QUOTE
How does knowledge get preserved if it's always getting wiped out?


Knolwedge never gets wiped out.

QUOTE
Where is it stored outside of time?


Everything is, always.

QUOTE
Inventions from civilizations in the past,
all destroyed?

I think not.


Perhaps so, but they may not be available to us.

QUOTE
It only take one simple idea and life could be so much easier.

...take the wheel.

imo, lunk


Life can not be made "easier," it can only be made more comfortable such that we sleep all the more soundly.

I'm reminded of how Plato, in the Phadreus IIRC, relates a story he puts in the mouth of Socrates, saying he was told by a Sybil that an Egyptian Pharoh protested to the god Thoth: "The discovery of the alphabet will create forgetfulness in the learner's soul because they will not use their memories, they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. You give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth. They will be heroes of many things and will have learned nothing. They will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing."

Turns out he was right.


Posted by: painter Nov 14 2008, 12:17 PM

Source: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=15513&view=findpost&p=10758741



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 12 2008, 04:05 PM) *
I'm still trying to grasp if it is a particle or a wave.

I would say that gold is like knowledge, and can be expressed
just as well as an idea.
Instead of saying that knowledge is solid like gold.

In reality a nugget of gold is not much different than any other rock on the beach.
While knowledge is worth more than either.

What has weight, but is unmeasurable?
Knowledge.

So, I have to side with the wave, at the moment.

The premise of knowledge being material, like gold, is backwards.

What is knowledge?
How does it differ from information?

I know, dumb questions,
but I must ask.

imo, lunk


There is never a "dumb" question if you must ask it.

First of all, esoteric knowledge is generally presented to the novice, and is commonly available to most everyone, through myth, symbol and metaphor. There are many reasons why this is necessary but like so many things having to do with this subject, the reasons aren't always obvious. In fact they seldom are obvious to us. But perhaps it will help if we begin with at least a partial awareness that the function of esoteric knowledge is the transformation of the human being from one state (our 'ordinary' state) to another state. One common metaphor that is used to express this idea is sleep vs awakening. So it can be said, the purpose of esoteric knowledge is to "awaken" the human being from his his ordinary state of "sleep". "Sleep" is a metaphor not to be taken too literally but, at the same time, it is a far more 'apt' metaphor than we can commonly admit. Those of us who have gone through the 9/11 looking glass see "sleeping" people everywhere all around us, people who are "hypnotized" by government, media, and so on -- and we know we were once one of them (and may suspect that to some degree we still are).

From the point of view of esotericism, the human being is "asleep" to his higher potential. That is, "asleep" to -- or unaware of -- his potential to be far more conscious than he ordinarily is. However, there is a fundamental problem. The man does not know that he is "asleep," does not experience himself as "asleep". Usually if you tell a man he is "asleep" he will get quite irritated and find various means of proving you are wrong. He is an adult with adult responsibilities, perhaps he is quite well educated, maybe even a man of some importance with a lot of money -- or not. In any case, he is quite certain that if he were "asleep" he would know it -- just as many who haven't gone through the 9/11 looking glass assume that it is too big a lie to be kept secret (or whatever excuse you wish). Or, worse, the man told that he is "asleep" may "believe" you just enough that he then takes this idea and turns it into some fantastical "dream" about what it would mean to "awaken". He begins to fantasize about himself and about the history and future of humanity and read all sorts of books, attending lectures and workshops led by authoritative crack-pot sycophants eager to fleece him to his grave.

sh*t happens.

As regards your questions, I think I've said this elsewhere on this forum in some context or other but we can construct a hierarchy that looks something like this:

data > information > knowledge > understanding > wisdom > awakening > transcendence
(Your word choice may vary.)


This hierarchy is not only quantitative but qualitative -- becoming increasingly qualitative as it progresses. Regardless of your data set or range of samples, no amount of data can become "information" until it is perceived and organized, sorted and stored in some way. Similarly, a large quantity of information will not produce "knowledge" until it is somehow put to use.

I hesitate to say anything beyond the mid-point of this schematic, "knowledge," because to go further up this 'ladder' requires qualities that are very difficult to define. Still, I think you can 'get it' at least that even a very knowledgeable man may not be a very "understanding" man. He may be very powerful but he may not "understand" the world, the other people around him, or even himself -- and never quite manages to no matter how many books he reads or authorities he consults. Something qualitative is missing.

But, so far, all that I've been describing with this little flow chart is ordinary knowledge such as you and I possess as we are. We're not yet talking about the kind of great knowledge that Gurdjieff says is "material" and for which he uses "gold" to represent symbolically. To even begin to understand this requires that 'something qualitative' that is missing from mere knowledge in the ordinary sense.

At another place in the book quoted above, Gurdjieff says a man's understanding is equal to his level of being. This word "being" is a bit hairy but suffice it to say that although a rock, a flower, a dog and a man may all "exist", they do not have the same "being". What is being proposed, here, is that men, too, can have different levels of "being" (which, in esoteric terms, can range almost as much as the examples I've used). According to this idea, a man can not understand anything beyond his level of being. Perhaps we could just as well say that a man's understanding is his level of being. If you want to know what a man is as opposed to what he believes himself to be or pretends to be, look at his level of understanding -- of himself, the world, others, etc. You and I and almost any man or woman we come in contact with are on the same level of being (more or less). Therefore, to understand something greater than we do -- and humanity in general does -- requires not only an increase in knowledge but also an increase in being.

The question you are asking (if I've understood you) is, in what sense of the word is this knowledge, esoteric knowledge, "material" in nature. Chances are this is a "new" idea, not one you've ever come across before and, indeed, it seems counter-intuitive -- which is to say, contradicted by everything you know or think you know already. Most everyone would agree with you, I'm sure. In what sense can "knowledge" be "matter"?

Perhaps it will help if we both agree that matter is energy of a certain density, having certain properties that can be analyzed and comprehended. You've seen before where I've said that living beings are transformers of energy. We take in the matter of food and air into our bodies and they, in turn, through various autonomic processes extract the elements and nutrients that are then transformed into all the functional properties of our organism. However, what is not commonly understood is that air and physical food (including water) are not the only materials that enter our bodies. Right now as I sit here typing this and as you sit there reading, our senses are being bombarded with a flood of energetic stimuli. We are being "fed" constantly through our nervous system, "stimulated" we call it, far more so than we commonly realize. And we can prove this to ourselves through intentionally shifting our attention. If I suggest, for example, that while reading these words you shift a part of your attention to sensing your left foot, you may find that, although it isn't easy, it can be done. Wiggle your toes if you need to and sense what that feels like. Perhaps now you can also sense your socks (if you're wearing any) or the pressure of your shoes at specific points on your foot. All that energy of sensation was already there stimulating your brain but it did not rise to the level of your 'conscious attention' because you were not paying attention to it. You should be able to verify this directly for yourself. But I'll go a bit further because if your experience of this is at all like mine as you continue to read these words within a relatively short time you will once again forget to pay attention to your foot and this stimulation, though still there, will no longer be available to your awareness. This is a fundamental model of the entirety of the human condition: We are but we do not continuously and directly know that we are. This is our "level of being." We have learned and been conditioned to focus our attention in specific ways in order to accomplish given tasks. For example, all of us here know how to "read" in the conventional, 'reading comprehension' sense and it isn't necessary to have a sensation of one's left foot (or, indeed, much of any sensation of the body what ever) to do so. Whether it is reading or writing or talking or walking or screwing or driving a car or taking a sh*t or performing brain surgery or plotting the overthrow of the American Republic and the institution of a New World Order -- it is all the same. All these things are done by men and women who are operating out of a certain very restricted level of being, completely unaware that something more might be possible for us if we could only learn to pay attention in a new way.

Gurdjieff speaks of the "matter of knowledge" because he's speaking of the possibility of receiving more directly, consciously and intentionally, the "energy of impressions," -- the "food" necessary for our transformation -- trough a simultaneous growth of both knowledge and being. The whole esoteric proposal is actually quite simple: We will change as the center of gravity of our attention changes. But to read these words is one thing, to engage in the activity is quite another and not without certain risks. Mostly these 'risks' are of no particular consequence. For one thing, most people, even when they come across this idea, and even if they find it momentarily a little bit interesting, soon forget all about it and, like having taken the blue pill instead of the red one, they wake up the next morning believing whatever they want to believe, brush themselves off, and go about their lives as though nothing had happened. It is, indeed, extremely rare that someone becomes sufficiently interested in this proposal to begin to make efforts and experiments coupled with researching the necessary texts that may, in time, lead them to encounter "one who knows". Well, at least someone who honestly knows they don't know enough but may have a clue. Perhaps even someone who has begun to learn how to digest and transform the energies of impressions such that they have begun to develop within themselves a new being.

IMO: painter


Posted by: painter Nov 14 2008, 12:18 PM

Source: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=15513&view=findpost&p=10758781



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 13 2008, 06:46 AM) *
Now I feel like I'm swimming underneath the thick primordial muck
with only and inkling of a memory that there is
a less viscous atmosphere above.

hmm...attention...
how does one maintain, awareness of the moment, constantly,
without drifting off into distraction?

still wiggling left toe,
cheers, lunk


Your sense of humor will be a help when it doesn't work against you, as well as the quality of "memory" you speak of.

The answer to your question has to be found for yourself. That is part of the beauty of it. But, in brief, how do we learn to do anything we want to learn? In most respects this is no different. We have to want to enough to overcome the inner and outer obstacles that inevitably come up, we have want to do the necessary preliminary work and research and then we have to want to enough to take the step beyond "theorizing" or "dreaming about" it to actually make the effort to try something, to practice and observe and learn directly from these observations. This is where the "matter of knowledge" comes into play because when we actually learn something, a certain amount of material has been digested and incorporated into our being. Something gets "deposited" and is not so easily lost or taken away. If this progresses, the center of gravity of our attention becomes more even, more stable, more consistent and possibly deepens.

However, there are also "differences". For one thing, it may be helpful to understand that this "drifting into distraction" is lawful (cosmic law). This is the human condition as we are at our current level of being. I'm always a little reluctant to say things like that because it creates in the mind of the reader that I "understand" what these laws are and how they work but the truth is my "understanding" and "knowledge" of these things is limited. What one must be cautious of here is "believing" anything that has not been confirmed by one's own experiential observation. I certainly have confirmed for myself that achieving the aim of maintaining an more or less continuous awareness of the moment is almost impossible. It seems like it should be the simplest, easiest thing imaginable but the fact is it isn't. The question, then, becomes something like "why?" and "what can I do about it?" Esoteric writings indicate that the "reason" is "lawful" (as everything that happens is lawful, however much we may not understand this). "Laws" are "forces" at work. In this instance we are speaking of forces in exactly the same way that certain physical principals of the universe are "lawful". As an analogy, if I toss a rock into the air it will come back down according to the "law of gravity" and when and where it will come down can be predicted provided I understand the principals of "law" that are at work. Moreover, if I can toss the rock at the correct trajectory and with sufficient velocity, the rock can break free of Earth's gravity. But all this, too, is "lawful". It isn't that the "law" has been broken but that it has been understood and compensated for. The rock is not free from "the law of gravity" or any other physical constraint but has moved beyond the influence of the Earth's gravity. Perhaps it will become an orbiting satellite or perhaps it will continue onward out into space. All this, too, is "lawfully" determined.

So, I have to study this phenomena in myself. It may be helpful to also study what has been written by others about this but it will be of no use to study what others have written or said if I do not simultaneously make the effort to try. There are practices and experiments which may also be a help. I might discover that certain conditions are also helpful. The closest I can come to giving you any specific suggestions at this point is to say that I find it helpful to consider that it is somewhat like breathing. I can not only breath in or only breath out, there is a natural rhythm to my breathing that changes with changing conditions. I can observe this for myself. Perhaps in certain quiet conditions when my attention isn't demanded by external influences, I can study this 'rhythm' and movement of attention.

Finally I'll only say that nothing is possible outside the laws which govern our existence. This simple thing that interests us would be impossible were it not for the fact that it is lawfully possible for us to pay attention to our attention itself -- at least now and then, at least a little bit, at least under certain conditions or at least when we remember to try. You began your post above with an analogy and a moment of self-awareness. You are not literally "swimming underneath the thick primordial muck." But there is a truth there, an awareness of something. You've presented it to yourself and to us with an analogy coupled with an "inkling of a memory that there is a less viscous atmosphere above". Just as a stone can be catapulted into orbit or further out and free from the influence of Earth's gravity, intuitively you sense that there is a possibility to be differently than you are. This intuition is a signpost to the path. We only need to be careful not to become too fixated on how our minds articulate these impressions of what may be possible such that they become further distractions. (This is why religions, lawfully, always fail, by the way; and this is the source of the admonitions against "idolatry", which themselves, in turn, have become 'idols' of a sort.) The ordinary mind that has been conditioned by life may not understand any of this very well and yet something within us that the ordinary mind blinds us to (the way the sun blinds us to the constant shining of the stars) is capable of knowing -- and capable of growing. But it is very subtle and easily lost or distorted. Even saying anything in words about it is two-edged for, on the one hand, it may need to be said because it resonates with what is lawfully and truly possible but, on the other hand, if it simply is recorded by the ordinary mind or some portion of it and becomes a matter for "belief" or "disbelief," its transformative potential is lost. This, too, is lawful.

Read again what I wrote in the OP of my "Learning How to Read/Be Free" thread and we'll take it from there.


Posted by: GroundPounder Nov 14 2008, 01:59 PM

has any body read 'disappearance of the universe' or 'a course in miracles'?

that whole gurdjieff/ouspensky thing grabbed me for a bit some years back. it doesn't really resonate w/ me anymore.

did like the bhagavad gita, seem to grok it better today.

your soul/spirit (pick a word) is the real you....

my two cents

Posted by: sb5walker Nov 14 2008, 11:07 PM

Painter, great series of posts - offers me an opportunity to temporarily break out of my normal patterns of thought. Thank you.

There are a couple things I would like to comment on and ask about.

The first is intuition. In a post above you respond to Lunk: "intuitively you sense that there is a possibility to be differently than you are. This intuition is a signpost to the path."

This reminds me of the struggle I have with this and in fact any online forum: it engages my rational faculty, usually at the expense of my intuitive faculty. (Because of a phenomenon analogous to physical exercise: the muscle I exercise grows and strengthens, while the one I ignore atrophies.)

I find that my intuition is a source of "knowing" (I put that in quotes to highlight the fact that I am not qualified to speak on the term) that may otherwise be unavailable to me. My sense of Western Culture is that it tends to raise up the Holy Rational Mind as the be-all, end-all of existence. I refer to it mockingly as my "brilliant, calculating mind" à la the Coyote in the Coyote and Roadrunner cartoons familiar to Americans. In other words, I find my mind can fool me. I relate to the bumper sticker that reads: "Don't believe everything you think." I felt this way before I came into contact with traditional Native American cultures, but my experiences among traditional people have reinforced this perspective within me. I really feel we in Western Culture are out of balance between the more active Rational faculty and the receptive Intuitive faculty.

For me, what I call "intuition" can take various forms. Perhaps they are not all the same phenomenon. At a simple level, when the phone rings, I may "know" who is calling. (Okay, now in the age of caller ID we all know who's calling. But- do we really?) Another manifestation may be guidance on the intentions of another person. Occasionally after making a choice I may have a "bad feeling" about it. I have been paying attention to my intuition for a number of years and one thing I've learned is that when I have a bad feeling about something, I had better take another look at that choice. A few times, I acted to my benefit based solely on an intuition in the complete absence of objective facts. I am no expert, though. Often I have trouble discerning whether I've just experienced genuine intuition, or some stray fart of imagination.

I don't believe nor mean to suggest that the rational mind is not useful, but I regard it as a tool, rather than something worthy of near-worship. (And I'm not at all suggesting your counsel regarding applying our attention is not needed: in fact my intuition tells me that what you are trying to teach us is important.) Neither do I believe that I could survive on intuition alone, but rather that I should develop it to the appropriate degree to work in harmony and in balance with my other faculties, including the ones I may not yet know about.

Okay, so this is my first question: does your own experience or the work you are involved with have anything to say about intuition, and if so, how does it relate to what you are trying to impart in this topic?


The second inquiry has to do with what you said about being.


QUOTE (painter @ Nov 12 2008, 02:17 PM) *
Source: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=15513&view=findpost&p=10758741

At another place in the book quoted above, Gurdjieff says a man's understanding is equal to his level of being. This word "being" is a bit hairy but suffice it to say that although a rock, a flower, a dog and a man may all "exist", they do not have the same "being". What is being proposed, here, is that men, too, can have different levels of "being" (which, in esoteric terms, can range almost as much as the examples I've used). According to this idea, a man can not understand anything beyond his level of being. Perhaps we could just as well say that a man's understanding is his level of being. If you want to know what a man is as opposed to what he believes himself to be or pretends to be, look at his level of understanding -- of himself, the world, others, etc. You and I and almost any man or woman we come in contact with are on the same level of being (more or less). Therefore, to understand something greater than we do -- and humanity in general does -- requires not only an increase in knowledge but also an increase in being.


I relate to this idea of being. I very quickly learned there is something available in a properly-conducted traditional ceremony that can not be gained through discussion or reading. It is a quality of energy, that somehow affects me. Somehow it raises my "understanding" (again with the quotes, and for the same reason). I notice this energy seems to develop as a result of actively participating in the ceremony. In discussing this once with an elder, she referred to the story of Jesus turning water into wine and suggested that it was through the <i>pouring</i> of the water that it became wine. Her comment stuck with me.

So I'm on board with the importance of increasing my "being", but I am unclear how this may be accomplished through the medium of an online forum. You state in your original post that:

QUOTE (painter @ Oct 15 2008, 11:51 PM) *
...I am inviting you to engage with me and one another in some discussion here about this topic. However, I am very aware that discussion of this topic is by necessity limited so long as it remains nothing more than discussion. To go further requires something more of us: Specifically a willingness to engage in exercises and experiments which can begin to move us beyond mere discussion into the realm of actual experience and knowledge based upon that experience.


Do you really believe there is some possibility to achieve this "online"?

Posted by: painter Nov 15 2008, 02:28 AM

QUOTE (sb5walker @ Nov 14 2008, 07:07 PM) *
I'm on board with the importance of increasing my "being", but I am unclear how this may be accomplished through the medium of an online forum. ... Do you really believe there is some possibility to achieve this "online"?


That depends on all of us. In general I agree with what you are saying and appreciate your concern. As you've asked the question the obvious answer is "no"-- "being" can not be achieved "online" any more than it can be achieved from reading a book or looking at a work of art. And yet, historically, symbols, architecture, books, works of art and so on have been used for millennia to communicate ideas about being to people who were not present in either time or space with those who created them. Online communication has a lot of similarities with reading a book (and your concern regarding engaging the "rational faculty" wink.gif is an important one) but is also different. It is a bit more participatory, for one thing. One gets to ask questions or state one's point of view. We're all authors and audience. Obviously (like most everything) it is both a blessing and a curse.

Something to ponder: One far wiser than myself once said, "Words do not spoil the silence for those who have ears to hear what is being left unsaid."

From the point of view of esotericism, a ceremony is a condition that is created for the purpose of increasing the possibility of something new appearing within the awareness of the participants. So, perhaps rather than thinking of this as "achieving" anything, it might help to think of this as an opportunity to engage in creating conditions for one's self and others. Obviously there are limitations to this medium and perhaps more could be achieved if we were all in the same place at the same time. As your experiences has shown you, we are energy transformers and when we gather in the same place at the same time with a common aim a certain 'charge' can build up. That said, if the participants in a ceremony bring nothing of themselves to it then nothing much is likely to occur. Doesn't matter how steeped in tradition the ceremony is, how grand the edifice in which it occurs or how sacred the symbols and rituals employed. All these things are (or were at one time) meant to be a help toward a growth of being, which is why they came into existence, but if the participants bring nothing, try nothing, observe nothing, nothing can appear and nothing will be achieved. The same is true for reading books, online forums and everything else.

QUOTE
Often I have trouble discerning whether I've just experienced genuine intuition, or some stray fart of imagination. ... does your own experience or the work you are involved with have anything to say about intuition, and if so, how does it relate to what you are trying to impart in this topic?


Your observation is accurate and it is a good question. When dealing with subtle 'intuitions' or 'feelings' how can I know whether they are, or to what extent they are, real vs imaginary? But before we can begin to ask that question we're going to have to answer the same question in relation to most everything we assume is real for us already. Our "thoughts," for example, are not subtle but are they any more "real" than "some stray fart of imagination"? The point is, we have to observe, study, and try and see more clearly for ourselves what is going on inside us.

The work I'm involved with seldom uses the word "intuition" but does speak of "feeling" -- not to be confused with emotion. Intuition, to me, is a quality of feeling that "knows" something. From where might this felt knowledge come?

Posted by: lunk Nov 16 2008, 06:40 AM

Intuition, vs, subliminally planted predictive programming.
How does one tell the difference?

I think, that intuition that is based on personal life experiences,
is real.

Where as, answers, drawn from others or media,
are the results of the predictive programming through a controlling media.

I think, for instance, that if shows on TV like the Lone Gunman, were not shown to
the public, well before 9/11, we would all have, intuitively realized, that it was false flag.

The predictive programming seeds of doubt were sown
and the result was, that we ignored our natural intuition.

imo, lunk

Posted by: Willow Feb 8 2009, 12:56 PM

Finding this very interesting, having been asking myself the same question for several years now. Who, or what, am I?

I feel that I’m not my name… that’s just a label others use to refer to me.

I feel that I’m not my job, or my interests… they’re just things that whatever I am is doing.

I feel that I’m not my thoughts (though I am aware that Descartes would not agree!)… because I am having them.

The closest I’ve come so far in answering this question is that whatever I am, I am the observer of all these other things.

Maybe it’s enough simply to say, I am?
(reminds me of that ol' line: 'I'm a human being, not a human doing')

I’ve been trying similar things to some mentioned here… such as simply observing what is going on around me without judgement (not easy); observing my thoughts without following them or allowing myself (whatever that is!) to get drawn into them, and gradually learning to sometimes suspend thought altogether in an attempt to be aware of what remains.

Can’t say I’ve particularly found any answers… but I have found I seem to be much less reactive to problems and issues… a lot calmer… a more peaceful what-ever-I-am.
I’ve also found ‘myself’ feeling as if I am beginning to understand things more deeply… but in ways that cannot really be put into words…
Perhaps this relates to Painter’s idea of ‘learning to read / be free’?
Or maybe not! blink.gif

If it’s any consolation, Painter, the question of ‘Who am I?’ is one explored in depth in at least one classroom every year… with some very interesting things experienced and hypotheses suggested.

A popular response is "I am life"... but my next question is... and what does that mean?! blink.gif rolleyes.gif

Posted by: painter Feb 9 2009, 03:12 AM

QUOTE (Willow @ Feb 8 2009, 08:56 AM) *
... and what does that mean?! blink.gif rolleyes.gif


Well, well, well. Welcome to the forum, Willow. thumbsup.gif

I'd almost given up hope!

Posted by: Willow Feb 10 2009, 03:54 PM

Why, thank you smile.gif

Would be more than happy to engage in the sort of discussions / experiments you suggest.

After all, where there's hope, there's life!

Posted by: Willow Feb 15 2009, 02:10 PM

Been thinking about your ‘go find your question’ statement on the 'Zeitgeist' thread, Painter. Really got me puzzled. I realise you may not have meant it in this way, but your use of the singular prompted me to try and think of a most important, 'ultimate question' as it were.

What is the ‘ultimate question’? Is there an ultimate question? Can there be an ultimate question in an infinite universe? But perhaps there can be within the finite moment of me, here and now.

According to my often perplexed and humorously frustrated students, my favourite question is “Why?”

After some reflection, my current question is thus wise:

After everything external is stripped away… and I mean everything – all influences and conditioning, every external stimulus, every physical sensation, every thought, every emotion… what is left? huh.gif

Posted by: painter Mar 9 2009, 12:23 AM

QUOTE (Willow @ Feb 15 2009, 11:10 AM) *
After some reflection, my current question is thus wise:

After everything external is stripped away… and I mean everything – all influences and conditioning, every external stimulus, every physical sensation, every thought, every emotion… what is left? huh.gif


thumbsup.gif

But we must begin where we are and that is anything but pure or empty.

And this is exactly as it must and should be. Exactly right.

Negate nothing. Include everything.

Watch, listen, learn.

Posted by: Sanders Mar 11 2009, 01:42 PM

You know, for any Kubrick fans out there there is a documentary about him that was done titled 'Kubrick: A Life in Pictures' which I watched recently (it's on Youtube if you look). It talks a little about the widely held notion that the man was obsessive and reclusive (verging on crazy). Interviews with his wife Christiana at their home in Britain however makes it abundantly clear that he had a happy and full home life and enjoyed the freedom to strive for perfection while doing what he loved, surrounded by his family and the talented people he worked with ... nothing like the way he was portrayed by critics. Asked what was the secret to Kubrick's great success, both in his work and in his personal life, Christiana answers, simply, "attention".

Posted by: painter Mar 11 2009, 02:08 PM

"Attention" is the key to everything.

What we've yet to understand from the inside out is that there are different kinds and qualities of attention.

That's the problem.

We let our attention get cut off from its source and, thus, we loose a direct connection to our most vital re-source. Thus we wander more or less aimlessly through life, not sure why we are here or what we're supposed to be doing -- except as dictated by influences from the outer world. In this state we are forever captives, prisoners, slaves to a system that we neither understand nor control.

Posted by: Willow Mar 11 2009, 03:12 PM

Pardon my technical ineptitude (haven't clue how to post a link, so this probably won't work rolleyes.gif), but I found the Hubert Benoit document Painter directed me to: 'Acceptance - Temporal Attention and Total Attention' to be extremely useful in developing understanding of this essential concept.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15516

(If it doesn't work, maybe someone kind and more 'ept' will put it right for me! whistle.gif )

Posted by: The artful dodger Mar 11 2009, 03:22 PM

Willow, although I could turn around 180 degrees and ask you directly.... this way seems a little more interesting...

"After everything external is stripped away… and I mean everything – all influences and conditioning, every external stimulus, every physical sensation, every thought, every emotion… what is left?"

Is there not a need for that which we perceive ourselves to be as well as a place for the search - i.e. we start from where we are - the need, perhaps is to recognise the incomplete nature of what that is at any given moment otherwise the baby leaves with the bath water. Or perhaps I misunderstand.

Posted by: The artful dodger Mar 11 2009, 03:29 PM

Sorry Painter - you've already been there!!

I've just learned a lesson in watching, listening and learning whistle.gif

Posted by: Willow Mar 11 2009, 03:29 PM

QUOTE (The artful dodger @ Mar 11 2009, 07:22 PM) *
Willow, although I could turn around 180 degrees and ask you directly.... this way seems a little more interesting...

"After everything external is stripped away… and I mean everything – all influences and conditioning, every external stimulus, every physical sensation, every thought, every emotion… what is left?"

Is there not a need for that which we perceive ourselves to be as well as a place for the search - i.e. we start from where we are - the need, perhaps is to recognise the incomplete nature of what that is at any given moment otherwise the baby leaves with the bath water. Or perhaps I misunderstand.


On the contrary! IMHO, that's it exactly. As you are so fond of saying: 'We have to start from where we are!'

In fact, that is one of the key points the aforementioned document addresses. It is only through increasing our temporal attention... our full and total awareness and acceptance of where we are and what currently is, without prejudice, that the wider dimension can begin to be perceived.

The idea is not to leave anything behind, but to add to it.

Posted by: gugu2dede2 Aug 6 2010, 04:25 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Oct 18 2008, 05:47 PM) *
Thanks, bill. That's correct, I'm not talking about reading in the ordinary sense or not only in the ordinary sense. I don't know if you've looked at the "esoteric" thread linked above. Although it has been left incomplete, in it I've attempted to point toward something and perhaps arouse some curiosity.

I appreciate your mention of my "considerable intellect," education (or the lack thereof), semantics and the relationship between language and culture. All these things are relevant to some extent but what I'm getting at is that regardless of how "smart" we are or think we are, how "educated" we are or are not, there is another level of intelligence and education that, for the most part, neither our language or our culture has touched or awakened in us. It isn't that what I'm getting at is "more complex than basic decoding of symbols." it is actually something quite simple: We do not really know ourselves from the inside out. We've not even been taught that such a thing is possible. And for this reason, no matter how much we know or think we know or how many years of schooling we've had, we're all ignorant, all "asleep" in relation to this other level or quality of intelligence that may be possible for us.

In the West, so called "education" relies primarily on the formation of the ability to recall certain pieces of information and the ability to put those pieces of information together in a way that our culture and society finds "useful." All this comes from outside and is inscribed upon the more or less "blank slate" that we are when we are born into this world. There is nothing wrong with this in and of itself. Human society has its needs.

The problem is this so called "education" is both fragmented and incomplete. It produces what I call "educated idiots." That is, people who know or think they know a great deal but who do not know themselves from direct observation and, therefore, do not know how they know and do not know the limits of their so called "knowledge." Such people may make good sheep or good robots for maintaining, implementing, propagating and perpetuating a culture or so called "civilization," but, as such, they are less than fully human. The full potential of the human being is neither developed or actualized in us because it is neither needed nor wanted. To the extent that any lip-service is even given to the possibility, it is usually presented in the context of some rather narrowly defined, limited and often perverted sense of "excellence." Society makes roll-models of geniuses who dazzle us with their ingenuity or creativity or physical ability while everywhere they forget their umbrellas, can not sustain meaningful relationships and/or are addicted to behaviors, thoughts and feelings they can scarcely acknowledge, let alone control. I don't mean to single out any one group or class of people. All of us are unique specimens and yet all of us are in the same boat. We're all "neurotic" in the sense of fragmented, divided against ourselves and one another, living lives that are largely fictions, mostly cut off from and unaware of the possibility of connecting with something deeper, a form of intelligence within ourselves that doesn't come from "out there," can not be found "out there."

It is this possibility of discovering something from within ourselves that is my focus.

I mentioned some of this in the 'esoteric' thread but just to underscore it on a personal note, I was born and raised on a farm in Indiana and came of age in the 1950s/60s. By accepted standards I was not a particularly "good" student. Although I was the first person from my family to even get accepted into an "institution of higher learning," I soon dropped out. Up into my mid twenties, early thirties, I was incapable of writing a coherent sentence, much less connecting together a complex series of thoughts. I say this because I'm aware that my ability to write now often gives people a wrong impression -- that this is something I've always been able to do or is a result of being 'educated'. Not so. Not exactly. I was fortunate enough to have had a 'nontraditional' high school education and have continued my education on my own throughout my life. Much of this has been through my own curiosity, interest and inquiry. Then in about 1980, I began to come into contact with a few people who have significantly influenced and guided my own inner search. This has come in the form of introducing me to certain ideas as can be found in books but, more importantly, introducing me to the possibility of coming to know something from within myself, for myself. Influences in life can not be avoided. We're all influenced by the world around us. To pursue the kind of search I had embarked upon, it was necessary to come into contact with certain ideas to, in a sense, 'till the soil'. Guidance, then, became necessary to cultivate the seed and sprout and help clear away the competing weeds of distraction. But the real 'fruit' and 'harvest' of what I'm pointing toward has to come from within as a result of my own interest and willingness to engage. Nothing of this nature can be given to anyone from anyone -- which is as it should be. Although 'help' is needed, ultimately the responsibility lies with us. One can not free slaves who are satisfied with their slavery or, using another metaphor, free inmates who have grown accustomed to and comfortable in their prison. (Edit to add: especially if they are slaves or prisoners from birth -- as we all are -- perhaps knowing nothing of or only heard rumors of some mysterious thing called 'freedom'.) Perhaps we can sneak the tools in past the slave master or the guards but the slave or the prisoner has to free himself. He has to know that he is a slave and a prisoner and he has to want to escape. Only then will he make use of the tools provided.

If the writer "Carlos Castaneda" is to be believed,is this what you are alluding to.??

Posted by: greenrayriver Aug 7 2010, 11:49 AM

QUOTE
First I am inviting you to engage with me and one another in some discussion here about this topic. However, I am very aware that discussion of this topic is by necessity limited so long as it remains nothing more than discussion. To go further requires something more of us: Specifically a willingness to engage in exercises and experiments which can begin to move us beyond mere discussion into the realm of actual experience and knowledge based upon that experience.
QUOTE




I was institutionalized in an American public school. My entire childhood wasted, while I dreamed and looked out the window. I resented that “education”. I then rejected educational brainwashing for my 4 children. Coming up with the motto that, “if someone was gonna fuck up my kids…it might as well be me, since only I love them, and I have their best interest at heart”. Taking personal responsibility for doing things differently than the so called norm when it came to what I wanted my children to learn from me.
Learning is like breathing and eating, you will do it. When a woman is breastfeeding her child, their faces are about 16 inches apart, you are definitely learning on a level you have no control over. It is so primal and evolved, (we are mammals after all). From the moment of birth when baby bonds and imprints, and the baby puts faces to the voices, after listening for months, learning is taking place. Learning what is safe to learn. Learning through touch, being carried on the mothers body. Knowing every event through the physicality of the mothers movements. Survival depends on developing impulses, jump right toward the safety of the trees or left into a tigers mouth. Music and dance innate in each footstep of the mothers grace. And that is just for starters. Learning by living, using nature as a guide. Staying connected human to human, skin to skin. Is it over simplifying to say if you don’t learn naturally, you must compensate unnaturally? Propping a formula filled bottle in a baby’s mouth, and walking away, sends a message…baby reads it loud and clear. You are on your own baby. There may be a right way and a wrong way to learn. Everything else hinges on that beginning, right brain/right breast, switch sides, left brain/left breast. Breastfeeding might seem like it is off the topic of intellect, but to me its not. Breastfed babies have higher IQ’s. Yet breastfeeding is taboo. A woman being available to actually hold the baby, and feed the baby, does not fit into what society deems important. Careers are encouraged, but never a career in mothering. The breast is universal, crossing all language barriers, across time, unused and misrepresented. Talk about dumbing down, from cradle to grave. Break the bond that ties. Create neurotics, you can control. Instead of well adjusted individuals who know how to read the writing on the wall.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)