Excellent posts, Ted and Lena.
I think you are special. You are letting things flow from your inside out, and that is good. I hope you are a good listener. Ted's and Lena's points of view can make you broaden your perspectives. I hope I can contribute too. Some people may see these exchanges as discussions. I see them as mutual learnings and for whoever wants to explore. Hope your life gets easier and you can progress without too much struggle. Now going back to our business:
Will: So you like "subjective component" eh? I must say I think it's clumsy and bad. But anyone can say anything, use any descriptors they want, and indeed that's not really the point.
Claudio: I like so many things. I used that word for the corresponding context of a phrase. Will, I detect some possible ego playing here.
Will: Indeed what is the point? You seem to think finding the spearation point between subjective and objective data sets is some big goal. Is that what the big question is?
Claudio: It is not one point or the big question. That's ego playing. You are trying to find THE SOLUTION for everything. If I try to define THE POINT I would say: "THE JOURNEY". I think Cole posted something about it. We are sharing our journeys now, that is one of the big points here. We are learning from it. Like I said we are not capable right now to have a clear separation but I am interested in learning about the two and their relationships. In NPMR this is very important. You can experience things and sometimes, specially at the beginning it is not easy to differentiate between what you created and some externally created information. I think Tom or other very experienced in NPMR can make this distinction easier, for me I still have a big room for improvement.
Will: Where subjectivity "ends" and objectivity "begins" ? Ha its like these discussions get so... whats the word, sorta abstract they aren't about too much after a while. I don't think that's the goal, finding a new separation point, though. I think its putting it all together and getting a big picture and all that, no?
Claudio: I think I answered this above.
Will: The left brain type thinking sees a perfect ARRANGEMENT as its goal.
Claudio: Cataloguing this way is a sign of ego. I like to continue progress in the left side as well as on the right and I wish that for everybody. If you or anybody else wants to keep limiting themselves to their side is their free will.
Will: It would like to be able to say: this is this, this ends here, this starts here, and this is what's doing this, and this is what's doing that.
Claudio: That's good. Science works on it. You can work on it too. As long as you don't get frustrated with uncertainty it is good.
Will: The new thing is ONENESS, HOLISM, UNSEEN CONNECTION. I was even watching some BBC thing from 1980. That's almost 30 years ago and it was all about that - had interviews with physicist David Bohm and others. Here's the link, check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnL0f8EQIhU
Claudio: Thanks. What was the new thing 20 years ago now is not. You can always find new things. Your exploration is good for you.
Will: I think its gone way beyond just some more sophisticated way of determining the separation points of some ordinary arrangement, Claudio. I gotta say, man. We can discuss how symbolic (i.e. verbal and even numerical) logic relates there but clearly what the wave of the future is, is holism. mind or thought as such is a holism - the element BEHIND all the form, behind what's arising in a form sense. Or you could say, what's containing it. But even mind is just a word and so on. You could call it anything - spirit, consciousness, even God.
Claudio: I agree, how you call it is not so important. If you like the holistic path go for it. I think you can learn a lot from Ted. He's been there, than that. I prefer the NPMR path and learning from MBT and others.
Will: Nobody knows or can know how to break it up into components because it IS the totality in some fundamental sense.
Claudio: Phrases starting with: "Nobody knows" are ego phrases. You cannot prove that nobody knows. That's for the speaker to feel better. I use the phrase sometimes though, but as long as we identify ego or our thoughts are not in the ego direction it is OK. What you are is more important than what you say.
Will: What Tom has going is cool and pragmatic and useful, but he acknowledges that its only a tool, a description for exploring it.
Claudio: That's ego again. Will, you are very special. If you work on your ego you will achieve more. Be humble and open to what you can learn from Tom or anybody.
Will: p.s. I just want to say that I also think there is, in a basic sense, something OBJECTIVELY real. That is, beyond subjective delusion patterns. But that is bound to be something far different than the world we perceive through perceptions notoriously shifting channels. Things ARE. It's just that we need to move beyond separation based thinking in general to even begin to amplify the knowing of them into a different sort of REALER KNOWING.
Claudio: These thoughts are good. This is why I think you are special. You have a potential in you. Don't take my critics as bad. Learn from Tom, Ted, and everybody.
Will: Even simpler: things are but there is more to them, and that more is how they are connected, which ordinary thought and perception don't usually show. Its as though the consciousness pattern of connection ITSELF leads somewhere totally new, progressively connecting and expanding and thus realizing.
Claudio: See my last response above. MBT is a good path to what you are looking for, but don't limit yourself. Explore everything that you find interesting and keep in mind that you are special and have a big potential.
All the best for you man!