What Is The Source of Creativity? . . . Or, Are We as Individuals Only Pimples on the Skin of Consciousness?

I have come to view myself as an orifice for a Greater Consciousness, a Well at the bottom of which Creation springs. While researching the idea of “source” I came across the following TED Talk by Elizabeth Gilbert, and I think she explains my thoughts concisely and well.

Advertisements

223 thoughts on “What Is The Source of Creativity? . . . Or, Are We as Individuals Only Pimples on the Skin of Consciousness?

  1. This was a beautiful talk. I loved it.

    I also love the title of this thread. This whole subject resonates with me.

    It is the transcendence that goes beyond self.

    .

    • Well, it may be worthwhile to compare the essence of this talk with how Hubbard looks at this area, because most of our friends takes Hubbard’s viewpoint.

      .

      • What seems to make sense to me is that there are viewpoints and viewpoints can cluster. These clusters comprise a local frame of reference. The view from any viewpoint in a cluster is similar to any other viewpoint in that cluster. An example of a cluster would be Scientology; a political party; a social caste, astrophysics on earth, etc.,. We could also just refer to one of these clusters as a “frame of reference” with common definition.

      • So, the clustered viewpoints forming a local frame of reference have a view; a paradigm; a group attitude; group technology; group opinion, and the group considerations become consistent for that group; that frame of reference.

      • Scientology’s Xenu and disconnection works for Scientologists. NAZI’s ethnic cleansing works for the national socialist party. Over the top neutering of pets works for the Humane Society. Polygamy works for the FLDS Church. Within these frames of references or bubbles if you prefer, the practices, pecadillos, and outright crimes can seem consistent and reasonable. However, outside these frames of references their point of view may seem outrageous.

  2. Assuming another’s point of view is a creative effort. Only through the assuming of another’s point of view can there be compromise, consistency, and harmony among people and their environment.

    • The viewpoints in a cluster cannot think freely. They have to think within their common ‘frame of reference.’ At time this can cause friction. An example would be COS Scientologists versus Independent Scientologists.

      That friction would be difficult to resolve unless both sides decides to examine their fixed ‘frame of reference.’

      • Thanks Nia. I like your additive of compassion. Diplomacy without the component of compassion then amounts to international salesmanship. Not so good as compassionate negotiation. In the new world I hope we are envisioning and building, I hope we remember as you say to include compassion.

        Whenever I am mindful of my symbiotic relationship with my fellow beings, compassion presents itself naturally and without effort or phoniness.

        • Hello Chris,

          Though it has taken me a while to respond to this, I read it right away and appreciated the sentiments immediately.

          I also would like to add, acknowledging that this is a departure and begging indulgence for a need to communicate this, what with the spate of senseless violence in the U.S. right now, that I think we achieve peace not through the suppression of violence or indeed through the suppression of anything at all. This is a new thought for me. After Sandy Hook, I thought suppression was the way to go. But now I think we have to achieve peace with all the channels open. We do this by not allowing our attention to turn to violence. Direct one’s attention not to violence, but to peace. In all its many forms, in all the smallest of ways in which it presents itself within our daily lives.

          Thank you for your thought-provoking post. I’m sure I’m not done and appreciate the welcome here as well as the support of my blog.

          Warm regards,

          Nia

  3. The Creative Consciousness; the Essence of ourselves is common to the entire Universe. It is our damnable compulsive individuality AKA inflated egos which are the root source of conflict and disharmony.

      • Vinaire, you just ignore hus data about “PANDETERMISM”, about the ability to “BE” each and the whole “Dynamics”, and you misunderstand is work “The Factors”.

        Emphasis on “individuality” and “autodetermination” is lower on the “Tones Scale” than “BEEN” said “other” viewpoints, “other” beens.

  4. I see no reason to relegate infinite potential to the purgatory of only potential. In this unfathomably large universe, I think that where there is potential, there is actuality. I want to propose that infinite potential = infinite actuality.

    This is not a stretch of faith, but a mathematically real possibility.

    • It seems that potential has its own existence in a different form of manifestation as expressed elsewhere as

      As-isness does not necessarily mean complete disappearance.

      As-isness of matter seems to result in energy.
      As-isness of energy seems to result in space.
      As-isness of space seems to result in unknowable.

      And,
      As-isness of energy pictures seems to result in experience.
      As-isness of experience seems to result in information.
      As-isness of information seems to result in hypothesis.
      As-isness of hypothesis seems to result in theory.
      As-isness of theory seems to result in principles.
      As-isness of principles seems to result in axioms.
      As-isness of axioms seems to result in self.
      As-isness of self seems to result in unknowable.

      We may reinterpret the above as,

      The potential of matter lies in energy.
      The potential of energy lies in space.
      And so on…

      Infinite potential is unknowable.

      • Yes, you may say so. With as-is-ness, only the immediate form disappears, and a more fundamental form appears. This continues until the unknowable is reached.

      • I was not agree since long, Vinaire, and still not agree on your last statement, despite the fact your previous gradients scale of as-ness looks to me very interesting.

        The reason of my disagreement is still the same: you looks to me still stuck on a “self-single-isolated” fundamental consciousness, while my EXPERIENCE and understanding is that WE ARE FUNDAMENTALLY INTERCONNECTED, not as a implanted way to think but as THE FUNDAMENTAL REALITY AND EASTHETIC WAVES on which the possible implant about “been a whole” has been made.

        Therfore, WE CAN KNOW EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING, JUST BECAUSE “WE” ARE EVERYTHING, FUNDAMENTALLY.

        We are EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING, JUST BECAUSE WE ASSUM THEM, because WE DON’T “NOT-IS” OUR RESPONSABILITY FOR, and WE “PERCEIVE” THEM AS SUCH, ONLY BY THE LEVEL WE ASSUM THEM.

      • You may reduce the length of a link by using the following construct (NOTE: use ” in place of ‘]’).

        [a href=”the link”]the phrase to appear[/a]

        .

      • What multi-multi-verse?
        The root meaning of universe is “entire, all, literally, turned into one.”
        So, the root meaning of multi-multi-verse would be “entire, all, literally, turned into many, many.”
        Is that correct?

        .

        • Good catch on that Vin. My language is inconsistent. What I am trying to communicate is that what may seem as different dimensions and different universes, still can be made to fit into the current universe.

        • So, we’ll go with “entire, all, literally, turned into one.” … universe.

          Any and all dimensions should be considered together in their entirety as one.

          .

        • There are not then the three universes of Hubbard?

          I wonder if each mind has its own digital address? Sort of the way we put appliances such as fire alarm sensors in a fire alarm system. Each component exists within the single fire alarm system but seems unaware of the other components. The CPU monitors and routes signaling. Something like this could account for the invisibility of your thoughts from me and vice versa. Again, my mind wanders toward the usefulness of fractals, cellular automata, and the work of Alan Turing.

        • Yes. Maybe this is for the best. We can now talk about additional dimensions, but they will now, for the time being, fall within the partly known but mostly unknown universe.

          I do agree that we do not need a multi-verse world view for our thinking to encompass big bangs, before big bangs, after big bangs, black holes, other/more dimensions, etc.,. That thinking about multi-verses may be unnecessary.

          But we need there to be a continuity of physics in all places at all times, don’t we?

  5. On comment comment-312 I would say:

    infinite potential = infinite actuality = unknowable (Ů)

    We may use the symbol Ů (U with an small empty circle above it) to represent the unknowable mathematically. I hope this symbol comes through OK. I selected it from MS Word.

    .

  6. This is a response to comment-342.

    The three universes of Hubbard is simply a convenient device to understand his theory. It is an arbitrary division. In actuality, as Hubbard himself said, these three universes overlap each other.

    I am sure each mind has its own digital address, and so does each idea and thought. In fact, anything manifested and identifiable must have a digital address. This area is ripe for further research.

    .

  7. Great video. She makes a good case for Functional Mythology. Imagining a muse makes the muse appear me thinks. We are story-based beings. We might as well enjoy them.

    • Good post KG. Enjoy them, yes.

      Take a look at the arrangement of your statement. I think it is a good statement except that currently I am seeing the arrangement of your statement as an inversion which makes the individual the Source when in fact the individual may very well be only the product. The individual is not the suppressed god who imagines. I think it is the individual who has been imagined. You are right to say the muse comes forth and I say the muse is you. Anyway, it’s fun to conjecture.

    • Could be katageek, it is good to have fun with mythology and writing, but not about “one’s own” responsability.

      But indeed the concept here of “one’s own responsability”, I would better said: “ours”, looks to me inelevant.

      “WE” create.

      WE are like the fingers in a hand: we are both single, individualties, but we are a whole interconnected.

      WE have the choice to stuck our conscieness in the nail or to extend it to the whole hand going back through the finger and even go further to the entier body. Then our creation could be A CONSCIOUS COMMON CREATION which takes IN OUR INFINITE INTERCONNECTED CONSCIOUNESS.

      ML.

      • IDEALGOAL:

        “Then our creation could be A CONSCIOUS COMMON CREATION which takes IN OUR INFINITE INTERCONNECTED CONSCIOUNESS.”

        With no proof other than experience and testimony. I see that the only way to enjoy this is through mythology.

        Would I like this to be true? Hell yeah. I think it is a beautiful model of how I would want the universe to be.

        But then there is reality and delusion and … well …

        We’re pretty fucked there. But through “belief dependant realism” AKA: “Faith” whatever we really are can experience a feeling of said reality whether or not it is true.

        Regardless, enjoy the view!

        • Perhaps, the superpower of all super powers is this. . .

          “Today, I believe in ((RELIGION)) as the only true way.”

          ((A DAY PASSES))

          “Today I choose to believe that ((ANOTHER RELIGION)) as the only true way.”

          ((ANOTHER DAY PASSES))

          “Today, I choose to believe in NO religion at all and call this all a bunch of horses hit!”

          Belief, we can choose to keep or discard AT … ANY … TIME.

        • KG: “Perhaps, the superpower of all super powers is this. . .”

          Chris: God will not like this. No sir, not one bit. You can’t just go around believing what you want.

        • Indeed, dear katageek, about believes in religions but IMO I don’t feel a need indeed to “believe” in a religion as in any other systems, but I can appreciate the practical value of a technology, like scientology is. Neverthless, about “one’s one creations”, everyone should be free to believe in any reality “one” like to create, “alone” or with “others”; like the games we imagine as children (I very wish you are still a child this way, dear katageek 😉 ).

        • Hehe! Looks to me you very like to create! 🙂 dear katageek.

          I would take this approximated quote from the leader of a group, Kevin Trudeau, maned “G.I.N.” he took from earlier writter:

          ~ “One tends to be/do/have what he think the most about!”

          As the reality could be is just the result of our thoughts (I would rather say “considerations” and “postulates” in scienotolgist meaning) could be you could still hope that some of your wishes would have a chance to appear one day or an other. I would say better: more you communicate on, so bring “others” attention on the reality you would like to see occuring, more you have chances to make it happen 😉

          ML Didier.

        • SKEPTIC: “You are delusional. Your body is creating these spiritual experiences.”
          FUNCTIONAL MYTHOLOGIST: “You mean my body can create anything I want and then experience those creations at some level? Fuck yeah! Let’s roll.”
          SKEPTIC: “Um…”

        • A view exists only because there is a perception-point.
          There is a perception-point only because there is a consideration.
          A consideration is probably a speculation about the unknowable.

          Whether it is “I”, “we”, or “ours”, a blob of consciousness or whatever, it is merely a consideration.

          .

        • The “we” is was talking about is fundamentally not differenciated and to not need any viewpoint at this level. Aside this ultimate truth, relative truths depend of the viewpoint we assume. You assume specific viewpoints on reality and extrapolate and I do the same but differently because I assume different viewpoints.

        • Anything said about the ultimate reality is a consideration. What you write on this subject are simply your considerations.

          I prefer using the consideration of “unknowable” because I truly cannot make any statement about the ultimate reality.

          .

        • These are your considerations and I’m not agree with, but you do have the right to have them as I has the right to have mine…

        • Of course, these are considerations. What else could they be? Nobody can get away from considerations. Consideration create and define one. It is not the other way around.

          There are no absolute right or wrong considerations. All considerations are relative.

          A bunch of considerations can be consistent or inconsistent.

          .

      • Well the term is one I made up for myself. I see I’m not the only one. This guy’s definition doesn’t fit with mine.

        A body metaphor is something we create in our bodies through practice that feels like it is real. Like our mouth salivating over an imagined bite into a lemon. Or a “flow of energy” in Tai Chi.

    • Thanks too Maria for this interesting vid, IMO. But from my set of viewpoints it is very like many time in the history of sciences on this planet: wrong explainations for true phenomenons.

      Like hu talk about “brain” selectivity for waves length hu would have better refers to the concept of “mind”, at least!

      “Past” is the CONSIDERATIONS about what we were, just has a CONSIDERATION that “was” “past”; “future” THE CURENT SUMMED-UP OF CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT.

      One can “read” the “future” while reading, perceiving, the present postulates We maintain.

      But this “future” is only a POSSIBILITY because We can change our “POSTULATES” and “CONSIDERATIONS”.

      Indeed, that is why a good way to “influence” the “future” is to infuence on these “considerations”, “postulates”, would be “our owns” or “others”.

      The “waves” are not the CAUSE but the EFFET of our present considerations. And yes, each POSTULATE creates specific waves which adds together and create our reality.

  8. I have not been able to find a Creative Process inside my self, which I would then be able to analyze in all its “parts”, to subsecuently optimize and execute consciously and at will.
    In my mind I can make all sorts of considerations which combine into “new” ones, but they all seem to be based on earlier ones. I can create pictures and I can sometimes align myself with the flow of life in harmonic ways which seem to work favourably for me and my environment, but I´m not even close to create something out of nothing.

    Seems there is magic “inside” (or outside?) all of us, but is something the “self” cannot get hold of, with the exception of very rare and precious moments in our lives.

    I have to recognize my best moments occur when I get in touch with something which exceedes me, like getting a glimpse of a super-set which contains all the answers, all the posible knowledge, which is not actual knowledge but more exactly the source of knowledge, the potential to know.
    Or maybe an instant in which one is able to look at things from above, from a point close to source, close to infinity, close to the unknowable.

    A sudden look at very very basic considerations. An awareness which exeedes individual awareness, and which most of the times we lose like a dream which vanishes when we return to our normal selves.

    Seems like getting rid of all the complexities and considerations which are part of the “mind” and of the “self” is what actually help us grow, (or should I say ungrow?).

    So it may not be a process of developing certain characteristics what will increase our creativity, but exactly the contrary, getting rid of all the chaff. Creativity cannot be mechanical, it is the origin of mechanics.

    Seems like “self” exists at the level of mechanical cause and effect, not creative cause, and when “we” move towards pure cause, the self as we know it tends to transcend or vanish.

    Maybe only close to pure cause is when “we” can look at pure, basic considerations, which is also the moment of its creation, and that is when they pervade into our “present time” material universe.

    • Excellent synopsis. I both agree and am limited in just the ways you describe.

      Regarding filters: I am wondering if these are being provided by space-time which I visualize as a convoluted, recursive, and self-similar construct. I was called a flogger of fractals and this may be true. But am I overdoing it? As the fractal construct grows and grows it becomes immensely complicated and could account for a number of opportunities for looking back through itself in order view itself until the view became very congested.
      Regarding memory: I am wondering if memory is provided for us by space time. I am wondering if in some way we selectively look at a slice of space time which anyone might be able to view but don’t.
      Regarding reality: I am wondering if there might be a Real World Out There, that Consciousness cuts off pieces of itself using considerations and imbues these packages of consciousness welded to considerations with small and low powered abilities to think and to act.

      • So this cut off consciousness welded to considerations with limited abilities to think and act would be a “self unit”, and its highest possible achievement would be to as-is the considerations to which it is welded and then reunite back with the original consciousness?
        This would revert the flow of iterations back into nothingness.
        Or maybe the purpose is the other way arround, to weld consciousness
        completely to the RWOT, and imbue it with life? …….Oh Jeeezzz, I´m back into the THETA-MEST theory!

        I have to study fractals more closely, I´m missing something there. Could they iterate like this? :
        Self
        Axioms
        Principles
        Theory
        Hypothesis
        Information
        Experience
        Energy pictures (New image of Self, and back to the beginning)

        • Sorry. I might be eating my own tail yet again, yum.

          Yes, you duplicated my conjecture — I wasn’t think Theta-MEST when I wrote that but please tell me what you are looking at?

          I might be ignorantly lumping all re-iterative math formulas under the fractal but you get the idea… to answer your question, YES, I think so. That scale, to me any scale which can show how one layer melts or freezes its way into its adjacent layer thus does lend itself to fractal computations. Vin is like some kind of genius or something the way he conjures these scales. My admiration to you both.

          I on the other hand am in addition to a flogger of fractals, also a flogger of metaphors. Thus my “pimples on the skin of consciousness” and was proud of myself for showing restraint by not popping any of them!

          We should do a thread where we explore how we each think; how we inspire; visualize; deduct; induct; etc.,. Whatever is real to each of us. The fractal metaphor is powerful for me and I also enjoy how it points me toward thinking of the universe as discretely built; discretely iterated.

        • Again to your question about the scale and fractals: Ideas like yours about going through a scale and arriving back at the starting poing such as “self to self” are sometimes described in circles. I don’t see circles when I try to diagram one of these shapes but I do see them shaped as helical coils when they oscillate and when they are fractal I visualize conical helical coils. They don’t have beginning or ending points thus diagramming infinite contraction and expansion — sort of like the physical universe? I see the big bang more like the conical helical coil than other shapes. I also see the physical universe spinning and oscillating…just a conjecture.

      • Maybe we don´t have to move trough the fractal searching for a start point which will never be reached.
        Maybe doesn´t matter in which part of the fractal we are, If we can see the fractal itself as it is, or if we can spot the basic inconsistency of the fractal itself, we can transcend it.

        I mean, if there is a Real Fractal Out There.

        • Good one! Yes, I’ve used fractals to help me understand the orders of magnitude that plague my sleep. Right! I also don’t think it matters which iteration we find ourselves in, this only defines our frame of reference. The human frame of reference is very very small and large depending. I see something relevent; something consistent if I would describe the considerations as iterations in the math sense. I see iterations everywhere in Nature, science, and society. The cellular automata that we touched on weeks ago helps me take the boogey-man out of randomity. In other words, I see mathematical explanations for everything that I experience. This has a tremendously calming and joyous effect and still, the instinct within my animal exterior tells me to wonder at who I really am. This seems like the Source of Creativity.

          Some days I feel like a puppet on a string in somebody else’s game. My interpretation; my understanding of this is that explanation of the other post of being a crust of considerations surrrounding a bit of that unknown author consciousness. Even then, I make room for that consciousness to itself be defined in the same fractal way. I don’t know these things but pieces of these statements are real to me and I do imagine and I do create (I think) and sometimes, on good days, I am able to make some of my ideas manifest while dutifully following all the rules, of course!

      • I actually very much like your idea of packages of consciousness. Even if you are eating your tail, I actually think the Universe is constructed with a raw matter of contradictions and the fractals are an expression of them. I wonder if it can be seen in their basic math, maybe that is the reason why they spring from imaginary numbers, square of a negative being the basic contradiction. I also see them as helicoidal springs.

        • Yes! Raw matter of contradictions. Beautiful! Thus the effort goes into making the inconsistencies consistent, something like the wave collapse. The waves seem to be able to endure kind of forever as they travel through space but not the particles. We collapse the waves into particles with the Hubble Telescope, etc.,.

          I have realized for a long time that creating a game that would endure is next to impossible. Check out governments and cultures on earth. Making things hold still, even apparently so is a problem. It would suck if you go to the grocery store and come home to your address only to find your home is not there anymore. Yet if you go to the grocery for long enough then come home, that is exactly what will happen!

      • Sorry, I’m posting with my iPhone on a bus, at 4:05 AM. My earlier post should read:
        The square root of a negative being their basic contradiction. And I also see them as conical helical springs.

  9. This is in response to comment-524

    What you have so nicely written seems quite consistent to me. Here are some thoughts:

    (1) The ultimate creative process is unknowable. I use the word unknowable to be on a constant look out for assumptions and presuppositions.

    (2) There is no pure cause. It seems to contain some sort of presupposition.

    (3) What pays the most is looking at the fundamentals (axioms, principles, theories) for inconsistencies.

    (4) The filters are primarily made up of unrecognized inconsistencies at the fundamental levels.

    (5) Coming up with original (new) combinations is also creating something out of nothing. All great inventions (like the light bulb) are just that. There is always an element in it which was never there before. Creativity seems to be proportional to the impact it has. Look at the steam engine, the computer, the digital age.

    (6) It is filters that suppress creativity. A ‘fixed self’ tends to act as most substantial filter.

    .

    • (1) The ultimate creative process is unknowable. I use the word unknowable to be on a constant look out for assumptions and presuppositions.

      Yes, I would also dare say we are unknowables, or our own basic essence is unknowable, or maybe to move self aside, our essence vanishes into the unknowable.

      (2) There is no pure cause. It seems to contain some sort of presupposition.

      I almost agree, but from my chair here, pure cause can not be proven to exist, and can not be proven to be nonexistent either, so I use it as a theoretical construct which I place together with infinity and the unknowable.
      Maybe I´m only manifesting my own desire for a cause to make things consistent in my view, but still the concept of no cause seems arbitrary to me as well. So I consider valid to play with all kinds of concepts, in an effort to discover new things, as long as I don´t forget they exist only in my mind, and make my best effort to be non-judgemental in the final analysis.

      (3) What pays the most is looking at the fundamentals (axioms, principles, theories) for inconsistencies.

      Agreed 100%

      (4) The filters are primarily made up of unrecognized inconsistencies at the fundamental levels.

      Yes, the main path seems to consist in getting rid of all the junk.

      (5) Coming up with original (new) combinations is also creating something out of nothing. All great inventions (like the light bulb) are just that. There is always an element in it which was never there before. Creativity seems to be proportional to the impact it has. Look at the steam engine, the computer, the digital age.

      Good point!

      (6) It is filters that suppress creativity. A ‘fixed self’ tends to act as most substantial filter.

      Extremely interesting point you and Chris are touching here with “fixed selves” or “clustered viewpoints”
      Chris also says “Assuming another’s point of view is a creative effort”, which is a very beautiful statement.

      This seems to lead into the basic question of how did we got into this mess in the first place, evidence here seems to indicate we have followed a descending spiral, is it so?
      How is it that we lose the ability to create different viewpoints, to flow between different viewpoints, and more importantly, to assume the point of view of other people? of our adversaries?
      Is it true that viewpoints become identified with the points of view? If so, how does it happen?
      Why do we grant a consideration the status of absolute truth and let it control our behaviour?
      What exactly makes the difference between a “fixed self” and a free flowing self which doesn´t even have to be a self anymore?

      Everything seems to converge at complete agreement ( In the sense of inability to perceive inconsistencies, inability to look outside ) which then becomes identification, solidification, blindness.

      • Playing with some ideas about Self:

        Fixed Self:
        Self is manifested, observable, known, the field of infinite potential has collapsed into a more or less solid state, those fixed characteristics give it the illusion of permanence and survival, but could we say also that it is also at effect to the degree that it has become solid and fixed?

        Free flowing Self:
        Self is becoming fluid but at the same time tending to vanish, the closer it is to infinite potential = infinite actuality = unknowable (Ů).
        Self would be moving towards a theoretical state of pure cause which lies at the limit when this function tends to infinity and therefore is unattainable

        There are no characteristics which the self could add to himself in order to move towards pure cause. They would only make him more solid, and more at effect.
        There are only characteristics the self can substract from itself to become more free and more fluid, at the expense of apparently losing its own self, but which also seem to be an act of transcendence into ……… Ů.

      • (1) Yes, it is the concept of unknowable (neti, neti) that helped us discover that any ‘self’, such as thetan, cannot be the final cause as Hubbard thought.

        (2) To me cause, actually, gets its definition from effect. Cause cannot appear alone not accompanied by effect, at least, according to my observation. “Pure Cause” seems to assume otherwise.

        (6) I doubt if it is possible to assume another’s viewpoint completely. It may just be a wishful thinking. I wrote about it this morning on my blog: KHTK LOOKING: AN OVERVIEW. It seems that the payoff is more natural, cleaner and greater, if one simply focuses on resolving inconsistencies as they arise.

        (7) Mess occurs when alter-is-ness gets out of balance with as-is-ness due to not-is-ness. Not-is-ness occurs with the use of justifications. Solution is to start cutting across justifications. That is what KHTK Looking does.

        (8) A clean viewpoint is simply picking up a point from which to view the whole situation, and then picking up another point, and then another, until the situation starts to make sense, and thus dissolve. This point is not a ‘self” but a reference point, which provides a good view. Identifying viewpoint with self is arbitrary and inconsistent in my view.

        (9) It is identification of viewpoint with the self is what fixes both the viewpoint and the self. One should be able to change viewpoints at will.

        (10) One should not be shooting for agreement among different ‘selves’. One should be shooting for the resolution of the situation.

        (11) Problems and situations do not resolve when the the ‘selves’ involved are fixed. Selves are part of the situation and should dissolve with the situation.

        .

      • Yes Rafael, “Is it so?” Many paths consistently harp that man has descended while other paths assert his evolution upward. Which of these is true? Or could a man come into this frame of reference and begin this evolution or devolution from this point as a beginning? This is so interesting to me.

        This seems to lead into the basic question of how did we got into this mess in the first place, evidence here seems to indicate we have followed a descending spiral, is it so?

      • Good list of questions:

        How is it that we lose the ability to create different viewpoints, to flow between different viewpoints, and more importantly, to assume the point of view of other people? of our adversaries? Is it true that viewpoints become identified with the points of view? If so, how does it happen? Why do we grant a consideration the status of absolute truth and let it control our behaviour? What exactly makes the difference between a “fixed self” and a free flowing self which doesn´t even have to be a self anymore?

      • So agreement may not be all its cracked up to be? Not a positive thing? Please give me more of your view on this:

        Everything seems to converge at complete agreement ( In the sense of inability to perceive inconsistencies, inability to look outside ) which then becomes identification, solidification, blindness.

      • a·gree·ment  noun
        1. the act of agreeing or of coming to a mutual arrangement.
        2. the state of being in accord.
        3. an arrangement that is accepted by all parties to a transaction.
        4. a contract or other document delineating such an arrangement.
        5. unanimity of opinion; harmony in feeling: agreement among the members of the faculty.

        TECH DICTIONARY
        AGREEMENT,
        1. a mutual knowingness, a mutual postulatingness towards certain end products. (SH Spec 71, 6110C25) 2 . two or more people making the same postulates stick. (SH Spec 62, 6110C04) 3. ability to co-act with or mimic or be mimicked by. (5303M24) 4. a specialized consideration, it is shared in common, and this we call an agreement. (5702C26)

        So, agreement on filters can be two ‘selves’ sharing the same filters. Two people can be very aberrated yet in perfect ARC. High ARC does not necessarily lead to as-is-ness.

        Look at the forced high ARC among churchies. Something is not quite consistent. It seems that there can be high ARC which is really low on the Tone scale.

        I would say that agreement is neither positive nor negative. It is what it is. And what one is agreeing on is also what that thing is.

        The point is that agreement has nothing to do with as-is-ness type understanding or realization.

        .

        • Good post Vin. But as to your comment here: “The point is that agreement has nothing to do with as-is-ness type understanding

          or realization.”

          I just wanted to say that we should keep in mind that as-is refers to the moment of creation and of destruction. Therefore, as-is creation is that moment of iteration and that inception of a new frame of reference. In this regard, “looking to dissolve” is only half the story.

          I am too busy working right now and want to catch up so I can spend some time on these ideas. I have many to share but I am spreading my time too thin… Maybe I should create some more for myself.

        • To me, as-is create would be coming up with an original idea, which was not there before, such as, Edison coming up with the idea of a light bulb.

          It seems that as-is dissolve and as-is create go hand-in-hand. It is a conversion of some sort. For example, confusion dissolves and realization appears.

          .

        • Vinaire:

          It seems that as-is dissolve and as-is create go hand-in-hand. It is a conversion of some sort. For example, confusion dissolves and realization appears.

          Chris: I see that. This universe certainly has got a lot of conversions going on! You have to me a unique ability to see these changes of state.

      • These are some scattered thoughts, unpolished. Sometimes I like to post them that way because they prompt the receiver to finish them with their own observations, like on brainstorming. Also, sometimes, when I think too much about something, my observation loses its purity. (My own filters kick in).
        ( Flash thought: Is it possible that Ron was using drugs to get rid of all the filters, and channel upper level information with high purity? )

        I´ve been working on agreement and the inconsistencies it brings about.
        What is the meaning of meaning, interpretation, understanding? (Sometimes we give meaning to things based on pure agreement, without looking or understanding)

        When we look at something, what happens, exactly?
        Sometimes, we try to create a duplicate of it inside our minds, and, if things are some sort or another of static waves, then we are trying to create the same wave structure inside our minds, and that becomes our interpretation, our understanding, our “scientific model” of the RWOT (Real World Out There).
        If then we consider our interpretation a perfect representation of the RWOT, it becomes some sort of absolute reality which from then on blocks our own creativity, we let our thoughts be molded by it. It becomes a filter, and we could even stop looking at the world outside us.

        Agreement acts as a glue for the structure which supports our relationships and society.
        Inside our own minds, agreement in our own considerations give us mental structure, functionality, but also solidity. Any apparent consistency in our considerations, being made of waves which reached a stable state, tends to become invisible and blocks any upper layer of contradictions.

        The moment we agree with something, we tune into it, we synchronize waves with it, and also accept it as something real or desirable; desirable meaning that if it is not real yet, it becomes a goal to have; so reality is our havingness, but there can be not only desired havingness, sometimes it is enforced havingness ( Like the RWOT? ), and sometimes we go to the bottom of the DEI scale ( Desire Enforce Inhibit ) and inhibiting havingness possibly enter the field of delusion.

        What seems real for us?
        What seems consistent for us? Or what we agree (willingly or unwillingly) is real?
        Consistency and agreement are not the same thing, but there seems to be an upper point where they vanish together with reality (could this even include the RWOT?), and a lower point where they become more and more solid, and the lower self could be made of all the things we have agreed so thoroughly with, and seen as so thoroughly consistent, so as to become completely identified with. A mock of pure static (Static: something which has no motion, no wave-lenght), made of stationary waves.

        Maybe what CAN HAPPEN, exactly, when we look at something with complete mindfulness, is that we can move up to a point where the filters vanish, the mind vanishes, and even the self vanishes, and then we are not creating duplicates of the RWOT in “our” “minds”, but instead are just channeling God, or The Field of Infinite Posibilities or Actualities, …..or Pure Cause ……. or Potential, ….. or Creativity…………….. in short, The Unknowable.

        This phenomenon could be called the bursted pimple, if you like. 😉

        • This is response to the following comment by Rafael:
          comment-849

          Rafael: “Sometimes we give meaning to things based on pure agreement, without looking or understanding.”

          This made me wonder how do we recognize that a table is a table? We see something as a table because we have already agreed upon it. That is like using an existing programming of the mind. So, agreement seems to act like programming in the mind. So it seems that when we agree, whether knowingly or unknowingly, we install some programming in our mind. From then on this programming works as installed, unless we reexamine and change it. If we happen to agree unknowingly, then we are not aware enough to change this programming. Cultural agreements are like that. Maybe be such agreements also exist among cult members, who are unaware of them, and therefore, cannot change them.

          So, when we look non-judgmentally at inconsistencies, it is very likely that such programming also comes to view. At that moment we can change such programming whether we were previously aware of it or not.

          .

        • This is response to the following comment by Rafael:
          comment-849

          Rafael: “Is it possible that Ron was using drugs to get rid of all the filters, and channel upper level information with high purity?”

          “Drugs and filters” is an interesting subject. We know that when filters are bypassed intuitions occur. Intuition is a process that goes beyond logic. It is like more direct looking and it goes back to some more fundamental programming… closer to something like genetic programming. What could be beyond genetic programming? I have no idea. It seems like electronic distribution around nuclei of macromolecules, such as DNA, contributes to more fundamental programming.

          Drugs affect the mind in a way to activate more basic programming. Filters are thus bypassed. Vedas talk about soma, a drug derived from soma plant, which provided great insights to the Vedic priests. So, drugs have a long history in contributing to the knowledge of mankind. I am sure that there is knowledge about safely taking drugs in a controlled way to so as to benefit from them without harm to the body and mind. This will be a subject that would very much be frowned upon today.

          I would very much like to know about the chemical effect of drugs at the macromolecular level.

          .

        • Rafael said:

          Flash thought: Is it possible that Ron was using drugs to get rid of all the filters, and channel upper level information with high purity?

          Chris: Good possibility. A question that I have never voiced was why he both used drugs and publicly and heartily rejected their use? We were forced to dry out PC’s for 6 weeks from taking aspirin which in retrospect seems utterly unnecessary.

        • This is response to the following comment by Rafael:
          comment-849

          Rafael:“When we look at something, what happens, exactly?”

          When we look at something the input either goes in smooth resonance with the background of knowledge, or it creates a dissonance. When it is in smooth resonance with the background knowledge we feel good and comfortable and our attention moves on. But when there is dissonance, we feel jarred and our attention gets drawn in. Keep in mind that this happens even when we make no conscious attempt to evaluate what we are looking at. We simply get the feeling that something is not right.

          The smooth resonance means that the input is consistent, but this consistency is context based only. The dissonance definitely means that there is an inconsistency, and one should look at that area more closely. One needs to be mindful here to cut through any justification and see what is really there. Here one is not concerned with wrongness or rightness because these things are not absolute. One is simply interested in leveling out the inconsistency by fully recognizing the structure of it. As soon as the person gets the whole picture of the inconsistency the leveling takes place all by itself. The considerations adjust trhemselves accordingly.

          There is no need to create a duplicate of the input in our mind. The input is there interacting with the background of the mind like a wave interacting with a bunch of waves. The interaction either resonates with the mind or jars it in some way to a greater or lesser degree.

          When one is not being mindful, then justifications pour in strengthening the filters.

          .

        • Vinaire, This is a useful comment. I would like to add that it looks like to me that context provides a type of macro resonance. There is an underlying dissonance to be found in all thought. Therefore, this process of locating inconsistent thought can go on I suppose without limit.

          To me it becomes important to be mindful that “non-judgemental looking” is a concept to be striven for. I would not expect it to be achievable.

        • This is a response to the following comment by Rafael:
          comment-849

          Rafael:“What seems real for us?”

          Our reality is determined by the background of knowledge (experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, axioms, etc.) in our mind. This background appears consistent to us with the justifications provided by the filters. When the current perception interacts with this background of knowledge and the filters, a resonance or dissonance may occurs as described earlier.

          Here mindfulness is crucial. Mindfulness will help reduce the filters by not accepting the justifications provided by them. But a lack of mindfulness will simply allow the justifications to strengthen the filters further.

          .

        • This is a response to the following comment by Rafael:
          comment-849

          Rafael:“What seems consistent for us? Or what we agree (willingly or unwillingly) is real?”

          Funny enough our attention doesn’t automatically go to what is consistent. Consistency sort of stays in the background and determines our realityt. It is not necessary to pay attention to consistency. Let the attention do what it does naturally. It goes to inconsistencies.

          All that is important is mindfulness that counters justifications and helps spot inconsistencies

          .

        • Rafael: Agreement acts as a glue for the structure which supports our relationships and society.

          Chris: I’ve been looking at agreement as well. It seems that first I have a perception. Then as a second step I agree with myself about what I see. I can try to reduce my filters and let it through clean but it is not that easy to accomplish. Truthfully, I can’t exactly tell you what I mean by let it through clean. I don’t know how I would know for sure when I was perceiving or if I ever have or ever can know what it means to perceive without filter. I seem to be able to notice and dissolve a filter but beyond that, I don’t know for sure.

        • The filter is not the right target. The correct target is the first inconsistency which becomes obvious to you. Then the next… and the next… and so on.

          .

      • When we look at something, when we make an evaluation, when we have a consideration, when we observe somebody and invalidate him, when we understand something………are we not just collapsing waves inside our minds into different levels of stationary, more or less solid states?

        • Rafael: When we look at something, when we make an evaluation, when we have a consideration, when we observe somebody and invalidate him, when we understand something………are we not just collapsing waves inside our minds into different levels of stationary, more or less solid states?

          Chris: I think so. This is how I am operating at this moment. This is so interesting. If perception is the collapse of a wave-function in our minds, then we are “holding” an idea of what is out there, something is out there. This is our idea. Now we begin to compare and come up with a new idea, say of building a garage. Now are we generating wave-function or particles or is it that straightforward? We have an idea in our minds and then we decide to bring it out, to manifest it. And we do. What has occurred and how does it fit in?

        • What manifests as perception in our mind seems to be the outcome of external input + our agreements + our filters + genetic programming + DNA structure.”

          .

      • Vinaire:
        ” agreement seems to act like programming in the mind. So it seems that when we agree, whether knowingly or unknowingly, we install some programming in our mind. From then on this programming works as installed, unless we reexamine and change it. If we happen to agree unknowingly, then we are not aware enough to change this programming. Cultural agreements are like that. Maybe be such agreements also exist among cult members, who are unaware of them, and therefore, cannot change them.”

        Rafael:
        Gosh! Beautiful Look ! 🙂

      • What I meant was that I am using almost none of the time which exists. I am cycling very slowly as are we all. If I could tune up my clock speed by say double, I still would be using almost none of the available time even though doubling my participation. I am working on another OP for this. which I hope will be stimulating.

        • I would say the present moment for a person would be where the attention goes naturally.

          The agreed upon present moment is by the clock it seems.

          .

  10. This is in response to comment-551

    (1) What you call a fractal construct seems to me an unrecognized inconsistency at a fundamental level, which then colors everything that comes forward from that level no matter how consistent.

    (2) Space-time are outcome of some fundamental considerations. The only way to get to those considerations is by being on a lookout for inconsistencies at fundamental levels of axioms, principles and theories. That is what scientists are doing through the scientific method.

    (3) Looking becomes much easier and less complicated as one proceeds directly to the fundamental levels.

    (4) It is filter that brings about selectivity. One targets the filter by targeting inconsistencies.

    (5) What may pay off is asking yourself: What is memory? What is knowledge? What is reality? What is consciousness? What are considerations? These are the fundamental concepts. How did these concepts come about?

    .

  11. Chris said, “I on the other hand am in addition to a flogger of fractals, also a flogger of metaphors. Thus my “pimples on the skin of consciousness” and was proud of myself for showing restraint by not popping any of them!”

    LOL! Now you are competing with Eliza’s Sabre Toothed Tiger in terms of being poetic”

    .

  12. Rafael said, ” I actually think the Universe is constructed with a raw matter of contradictions and the fractals are an expression of them. I wonder if it can be seen in their basic math, …”

    This goes along with the concept of endurance of is-ness due to alter-is-ness and not-is-ness. Where math is concerned, this is what I see –> THE FUNDAMENTAL INCONSISTENCY

    .

  13. Now this post gives something to think about –> comment-593 by Chris

    Something about the Wave Collapse Theory has always bothered me. This provides a fresh viewpoint.

    Yes, there seems to be an effort to make inconsistencies remain as they are, and just slap some more inconsistencies on top. That is the easy way out. That seems to be some sort of spiritual entropy.

    Leveling inconsistencies is going against the tide… it is like reversing this spiritual entropy.

    .

  14. This is a response to the following comment by Rafael
    comment-849

    Consistency is very similar to agreement, but consistency seems to compare to agreement like infinite-valued logic compares to two-valued logic.

    Agreement is between two persons, or between two viewpoints. There is some sort of likeness between the two. But consistency is between a drop of water and rest of the sea. A drop may be dissimilar with some distant part of the sea, but it is compatible.

    So, agreement implies similarity as built into the ARC principle. But consistency implies compatibility. There is such a variety in this universe, but it is all consistent in some natural way.

    Consistency goes deeper than agreement.

    .

  15. This is a response to the following comment by Rafael
    comment-849

    Static is beyond consideration. Static is unknowable.

    Any consideration applied to Static is our own consideration. It does not define Static.

    Static is simply the placeholder for whatever might be the ultimate reality.

    .

  16. This is a response to the following comment by Rafael
    comment-849

    “Consistency and agreement are not the same thing, but there seems to be an upper point where they vanish together with reality (could this even include the RWOT?)”

    I have come across this acronym RWOT meaning Real World Out There. It may best be represented by an onion, because there seem to be many layers to reality.

    Wikipedia states:
    “In philosophy, reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.

    “Philosophers, mathematicians, and others ancient and modern such as Aristotle, Plato, Frege, Wittgenstein, Russell etc., have made a distinction between thought corresponding to reality, coherent abstractions, and that which cannot even be rationally thought. By contrast existence is often restricted solely to that which has physical existence or has a direct basis in it in the way that thoughts do in the brain.

    “Reality is often contrasted with what is imaginary, delusional, (only) in the mind, dreams, what is abstract, what is false, or what is fictional. The truth refers to what is real, while falsity refers to what is not. Fictions are considered not real.”

    (1) Reality may be what a person sees, feels, or perceives. But that is a function of a person’s filters. So, the first layer of reality would come off as a person’r filters come off.

    (2) Now the person sees a reality that is no longer being modified by a person’s filters. But the mind is still interpreting this reality from the input received.

    (3) Here feedback from drug experiences might be of help, but I am not very familiar with this area. Mind seems to be interpreting this reality from a more basic programming built into the cellular structure.

    (4) Beyond that the reality may come from the programming built into the molecular structure, such as DNA. I wonder how DNA itself might appear at this level!

    (5) After this the conjectures are simply so weird that I won’t even go there. 🙂

    .

      • There is manifestation. There is awareness and perception.

        This is what the fundamentals, such as, Scientology Axiom # 1 state.

        Underlying manifestation (postulation and perception)
        There is no MEST layer
        There is no ‘self’ layer
        There is no layer of consideration

        Mathematics are considerations. At most, mathematics may be trying to explain what manifestation is. It cannot talk about any layer underlying manifestation.

        No consideration can underlie manifestation because, if so, we would then have to look at how that consideration got manifested. This leads to an interminable fractal again.

        .

  17. This is a response to the following comment by Chris
    comment-854

    Here is an example:

    Suppose the justification or assumption is that all people have two ears. Whenever this person looks at the profile of another person he automatically assumes there is another ear on the other side.Suppose this person is looking for a criminal with one ear. He sees the profile of the criminal but it doesn’t cross his mind to look at him more closely because of his assumption. So the criminal escapes.

    .

  18. A response to Chris Thompson

    comment-975

    Just because there is contextual resonance, it doesn’t exclude the possibility that the whole context could be in dissonance with a deeper reality. A good example is Scientology.

    Whole of Scientology is consistent within the context of Axiom #1 about individuality. However, when one looks at AXIOM ZERO from the Vedas, The inconsistencies in Scientology Axioms suddenly become quite visible.

    .

      • I shall not go digging for inconsistencies. I shall look at them as they arise.

        I shall leave it to the mind to present them to me. Mind would have determined the context by then.

        .

  19. I´m doing an experiment in creativity, started outflowing admiration in every direction. For starters it feels good, turns into a state of harmony and seems to grow nicely. I´m not doing it with any precise intention of receiving something in return.

    I´ve been kind of stuck applying mindfulness, maybe because of an MU I was looking in a passive way, just receiving the inflow of my environment and felt like it had turned into a stuck flow, so I decided to reverse it. Could it be possible to look in an state of outflow?, not creating considerations to look at, but simply outflowing admiration towards my environment…….or some other type of flow……

    Am I squirreling mindfulness?
    What do you think? I´ll let you know if something happens!!

    • Rafael: Am I squirreling mindfulness? What do you think? I´ll let you know if something happens!!

      Chris: I read your post and not knowing what to write, I ran an errand across town and thought about your question while I drove.

      So I thought what metaphor to use? When I am mindful, I seem to go off “automatic” and run the activity directly. For instance, in Vin’s breathing drill, I run my diaphragm by manual thought rather than “brain-stem automaticity.” I’m sure I am not telling you anything that you aren’t well versed in.

      When I watch a movie that is interesting, I am mindful of it. So I suppose that being interested is important to focus the attention where I want it focused.

      “Conscious and aware” are two watch-words that I would use to describe mindfulness and to differentiate from kicking an activity into automatic and no longer being mindful.

      Sometimes I mull over my own thoughts, sometimes in the past, and when I do this I guess I am being mindful of the past. When I was thinking about your question while driving, I was driving on automatic while being mindful about your question. It turned out ok but maybe that wasn’t a good way to drive my car.

      Good question. You really made me think. I will be interested to hear what you discover!

      • Per KHTK Exercise 1.1:

        4. Be attentive of your breathing. Make no attempt to regulate the breathing. Simply observe the natural pattern of breath going in and out.

        This is the key to mindfulness. One does not interfere with what one is observing. Do not assume that there is automaticity. If it is there then fine… accept it… because that is what it is. There should be no effort to change the reality. It is all about seeing things as they are.

        .

        • Vin, I understand your exercise. But practically and theoretically, I find it difficult not to interfere with what I observe. Being mindful not to interfere with what I observe would for me be a fantasy, a consideration piled on top of the observation that I create.

        • I don’t even worry about whether i am interfering with what I am observing. If it happens, it happens and I note it. That is part of observation.

          .

        • I should have said, “I don’t even think about whether i am interfering with what I am observing.” That thought doesn’t even cross my mind.

          .

        • I wonder if there is any meaningful perception possible before passing through every possible filter of considerations that we own?

          And when we “lose” a consideration, is it gone or rather is it filtered by an “anti-bias” filter? (like a spell-check dictionary)

        • All meanings come from filters (frames of references). When there is no filter there would be no meaning either.

          Considerations do not go anywhere. We either use them or not use them. We get attached to them or stay detached from them.

          .

    • And Rafael, for me, mindfulness has scope. Like the way we see with our eyes, we can choose to focus on a wide field or narrow. It seems that I can be mindful of many things around me or I can narrow that focus the way I do at a noisy party when I am trying to pick out the words of a conversation from the background noise. Also, our children who “never listen to us” yet hear their name whispered in the the next room over when you don’t want them to hear! They can be excruciatingly mindful!

  20. I will give a personal example of non-judgmental looking. Once when working outdoors in winter I became hypothermic. Holding a wrench and some nuts and bolts in my gloved hands, I was supposed to assemble them. I could see the nuts and bolts and wrench clearly and yet my brain was unable to process the next step or attach a label to the nuts and bolts. I became motionless and unable to make a decision of any kind toward the nuts and bolts. From another center I knew I needed to warm up so that’s what I finally went and did. This and a few others are the nearest type of experience that I’ve had in life which indicates to be what I understand about Alzheimer’s. I could not make a judgement, could not even attach a label or name toward something that I was looking at and clearly seeing. That for me is the essence of non-judgmental looking at its most non-judgmental. You will not agree and that’s fine. You will say that attaching the label of nut to the nuts and bolt to the bolts is not being judgmental. We’ve discussed this before. I just see it differently.

    I would admit that judgment within the same frame of reference is the most nearly non-biased-judgement. Judgement from outside that same frame of reference as that being judged deviates further; becomes more biased.

  21. To me, non-judgmental looking is relative.
    (1) It is not adding any judgments to what is there.
    (2) It is noticing the judgment which is already there.

    Perception is a judgment. Actually, it is layer upon layers of judgments like the layers of an onion. So, non-judgmental looking is looking at the topmost layer of judgment that is already there.

    .

    • Each of us describing our perception is a stab at describing what truth is to us. We can say “layers” and we can also say “frames of reference.” Both refer to “discreteness” and to “context.”

      When we try to define truth we cannot get away from context as an integral part of the process. Maybe the most integral part.

      Possibly there is no such thing as truth outside of a firm and well defined context?

      • Truth is relative. There is no absolute truth.

        One level of truth = what we perceive through our filter.
        Another level of truth = what we may perceive when that known filter is not longer being used.

        But if a filter is basically a “frame of reference” then there must be a new filter that is interpreting for us this new level of truth.

        As we become aware of filters that we were not aware of before, and then stop using them, we achieve increasingly clearer view of what is there.

        .

        • Vin: But if a filter is basically a “frame of reference” then there must be a new filter that is interpreting for us this new level of truth.

          Chris: Please spend another minute on this comment. I didn’t follow.

        • One perceives the input through some circuitry, or through some programming, even when that circuitry or programming is built into the genetic materials.

          There is no direct perception. There is always some filter involved.

          There are many layers to this onion. In other words, fractal is involved here too.

          .

      • Chris: Possibly there is no such thing as truth outside of a firm and well defined context?

        Vin: Truth is relative
        As we become aware of filters that we were not aware of before, and then stop using them, we achieve increasingly clearer view of what is there
        There is no direct perception. There is always some filter involved.

        Rafael: Yes…. What if at the very end….there is no possible way to look if there is not at least one filter, one frame of reference to look at things with?.. what if otherwise we would not be able to establish a focus or a scope for mindfulness as you said and it all would seem like random, undecodable signals like the noise at the TV?

        Then our best shot would be to willingly and knowingly decide what frame of reference to use, and then look at things that way. Then we could, again mindfully change the frame of reference or context or filter and look again, and then compare views.

        Which could be the best frame or filter we could use to look?

        The ones I´m trying right now are
        Admiration
        Love
        The consideration: “Life is marvelous”

        Of course, some of the filters I have used before were “Life sucks”, fear, hatred, etc.

        • LOL! That is a wonderful look.

          To make sense out of something we have to use a filter (context, or a frame of reference). When it is a known filter then it is OK. Problem occurs when the filter is unknown.

          .

        • Very astute Rafael. I can see that and use it. Especially astute regarding the very last filter. So are we individually the Source of our own filters? Do we have that creativity? Maybe. But not totally do we? Aren’t some genetic? Genetic modified by environment? Etc.? Do we have at least that free will?

        • Any “I”, “you”, “he”, she”, or “who” is a construct (center of considerations).
          New considerations come from interactions among existing considerations.
          Where do the earliest considerations come from?
          That is unknowable… ha, ha (I love annoying Chris!)

          .

        • I just don´t know Chris, I´m still trying to find a way to know if it is genetic, but maybe that is something we´ll never know….Is there free will? is it unknowable? Maybe I´ll go Katageek style, stop worrying about it and just enjoy the ride giving some poetic meaning to it all Haha!!

          Maybe the words of the craziest one of the 4 Unknowables at the end will turn out to be the wisest!! (…..who is the craziest?…..that is absolutely unknowable!! Hahaha!!)

        • It is tempting, but let’s don’t throw our hands up quite yet. I don’t know if anyone else does this, but a mistake that I have commonly made when solving a problem is to make the assumption that all the possible choices are known; all in the open; all laying on the table.

          Some of my best insights come when I relax at being confronted with a paradox. I say to myself, “OK, I’ve got a paradox, therefore, the choices presented are not representative of all the choices.”

          Sometimes when physicists become electrified and wobbly because of noticing “spooky effects,” they are admonished to “Shut up and calculate!” Thus wisely “re-grounding” themselves using the tools of their trade. Likewise, I think in philosophy we can apply this same principle to a benefit by telling ourselves, “Shutup and keep looking!” Thus wisely “re-grounding” ourselves by using the tools of our trade.

        • “Unknowable” does not mean that you give up and do not look. “Unknowable” simply means that when think you know it all, have another look because there is more.

          .

        • Vinaire: “Unknowable” does not mean that you give up and do not look. “Unknowable” simply means that when think you know it all, have another look because there is more.

          Chris: hehe My comment was to Rafael’s “maybe that is something that we’ll never know.” And not in response to your unknowable. Rafael is one of the very best thinkers, most open minded, and easily assimilates information on these couple blogs that I watch. I would not want his reach blunted.

          Which brings up another idea I’ve been turning over. The promise of infinite fractal constructs could be misinterpreted as a promise of tedious sameness after tedious sameness – no. It can account for infinite randomity as well which gives me hope for looking and studying to remain interesting.

          It is up to me to remain interested.

  22. UNKNOWABLE simply means that the point when you think you know it all cannot be reached. There would always be something more to know. So never rest but keep on looking.

    When you think that you have the most perfect theory that neatly packages everything up, that is the time to take another good look.

    .

  23. When I wrote, “Time decays every truth,” I used the word decay because I was thinking of entropy and how energy “wants” to disperse until it reaches equilibrium. The energy is not gone, but only dispersed until there is no local potential difference.

    But re-thinking that, I realized I need to work on my own definition and understanding of time.

  24. Vin, When I asked “Do you see nirvana as entropy of the self?”
    You answered, “Entropy function is Q/T. It is the disorder built into the reference point itself. In Nirvana there is no reference point. The reference point of the self is gone.
    The question naturally arises, “What is left then?” The only way I can answer that question is by stating, “There is no fixation left.” I know that is a negative answer because that is the best I can do. Identifying anything positive would be a fixation.”

    Chris: I’m not following what you mean by reference point. About the self dissolving, I want to ask then about “what is left” is it not inconsistent that the expression which used to be the self, equalizing and finding equilibrium, has not reached the null state we call entropy?

    • By reference point I mean something like a stable datum in a confusion, or what you call a ‘frame of reference’. The last reference point is the self. When that reference point is not there one feels totally naked, helpless, and swirling around in a confusion if the considerations are still there. In this case, the reference point is very likely being not-ised.

      The as-is of refernce point would also as-is all the associated considerations. It would be a scenario akin to zero divided by zero. The status of entropy (Q/T) in this case would be hard to determine.

      Self is like the donut hole where the donot is made up of tightly interelated considerations. As-isness of self can only occur along with the as-isness of the “donut” of considerations.

      A not-isness of the “donut hole” will get one feeling totally lost.

      .

      • Ok Vin, I got that but now I don’t follow what you mean by “not isness of the donut hole will get one totally lost.”

        And to be clear about the donut hole metaphor, I get you mean the donut hole(self) depends utterly on the donut hole (considerations) for structure. Once the donut is gone, so is the hole.

    • It seems that each consideration is its own “eye”.

      To me, the “eye” is the perception-point. The perception-point is the conjugate of manifestation.

      .

      • Vinaire: It seems that each consideration is its own “eye”.

        Chris: That seems excellent to me. As I eliminate my body senses for instance by shutting my eyes, what you say becomes more apparent to me. When I do my “TV snow” experiments, I am always cognizant that it is not my two eyes in front of my face which produce forms in the random snow.

  25. You guys may like this. It’s a pretty good intro to Sacred Geometry. The first 7 minutes are probably familiar to you, but the latter parts are amazing … and then …

    He goes there.

    ALIENS? REALLY?

    ((THUD … THUD … THUD…))

    (sigh)

    I was really enjoying this till then. I think there is something to sacred geometry as a practice. Not that I believe in Voodoo, but I think building a mythology around math and geometry is pretty cool.

    The statements he makes that “Consciousness is geometry” is tantalizing, but … a priori.

    Sadly, his art and story telling out pace his reason. He even goes into the “Message in the Water” bullshit, even though it is proven to be total BUNK.

    Oh well, back to meditating on the platonic solids and phi…

  26. Cursory research showed me another concept from another ideology which also duplicates the meaning I’m trying to communicate in the OP above. It is “universal form or omni-form” or Vishrarupa from Hinduism. I like omni-form better as it communicates more precisely to me… personal preference. This closely duplicates my own belief in God based on my many years of research into my mind, soul, spirit, and heart.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s