Words and the thoughts they contain are being taken for granted.

Do we have a word for: "something that exists yet doesn't"? I dare say not. There has been no standardization of that consciousness indication sequence. No "establishment support" for it. It doesn't "make sense perception." i.e. doesn't make sense.

Do we have a word for: "the quickly moving past wasted energy of thought error to BEGIN." No not really.

Do we have a word for: "The source which is nothing" In fact we may, but don't recognize it, see it that way. It's the word: "mind." Also the word "God."

Good god my friends do you see what is going on here? Standardized awareness. It frustrates the contact with conceptual realities that lead on a gradient toward greater and greater connection realization. Or it can do that. Why? Because its CRYSTALIZED into standardized meaning.

So you get, basically, playbacks. Playback of a debate such as: God exists. No he doesn't and here's my scientific proof.... blah blah blah. Oh yeah? well he does, here's my experiential proof blah blah blah.

All the while NOT KNOWING WHAT THE WORD "GOD" MEANS or that is CAN MEAN.

Let's say it means: "creative nothingness." Ok some metaphysical hipster can dig that concept but in general standard social reality it is not a common one.

"creative nothingness what the fuck is that?" Good question. Even that's clumsy, primarily because its cobbled together from two other symbolic standardizations of awareness.

In my opinion this issue is too blatantly important to overlook. Cosmologically speaking, we need a new language. A whole new understanding of language and indeed thought that way.

For instance what gives rise to the particle that's detected in the double slit experiment? We've got the word particle and a detection device for finding it. But not looked at, it's in superposition wave ghostly reality of some kind. Let's say we even had a COMMON word for "oscillatory existence instance" or "wavicle." Then awareness and sense perception would conform. Still not anything like TOTALITY STATE (GNOSIS) but more connection and thus released connective realer meaning.

The big bang say has underlying words like "explosion" and "bang" and "sudden." Don't think these don't have any effect. They do. Follow it back. These bring in physical reference frames and might exclude linguistically really necessary stuff of a more [selfrelationexperience] nature to even CONTACT what it is/was.

more connection linguistically into merged meaning (released meaning into common meaning) would result in less wastage of thought energy and less hassle. Advancedsimplicity. TOTALITYORIENTING. GODVIBEOFRECOGNIZINGITSELF.

Will

It seems obvious to me that one of the specific challenges to overcome in this PMR is communicating meaning having to use words, that perhaps once we can all NPMR and meanings can be transferred that way then we will have outgrown this PMR. I think Douglas Adams said that then this would all go poof, and something even weirder would appear.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Yeah. There's just a lot of thought energy contained in words. And also potential for wrong thought or misinterpretation that way. Look how my "jeez" sparked off some goofy debate that lasted for 20 posts. My Jeez and the subsequent joke were more or less meaningless. Really, it's embarassing sometimes this stuff. That got taken WAY too seriously. But that's the kind of thing standardized meaning does. The "you people" had vague connotations of something pejorative (I guess) but there weren't many other ways grammatically for me to phrase that joke. Therefore the grammar did ITS thing. Still blew my mind how that coulda been anything except wasted a little board space. And yeah I ran out of some time and nobody's told me how to delete something so rather than leave an empty post I just left that there. But goddamn what a bunch of noise about nothing.
Words are really "re used" meaning. Necessary now but, you're right Bette, if we had psychic communication we could toss words to a large degree.
I know this type of thing isnt usually a popular kind of view here on this board where its all about talking about digital descriptions and being sorta "technical-pragmatic" about things. That pragmatism is what's cool about mbt. I like it for that reason too. But in fact this kind of ontological thing is also at the heart of things like quantum physics and is along the lines of the observer effect and all that. You got a word concept for something and bingo, it's considered "an entity" or real, or whatever. In other words it has boundaries as stated by the word.
Now the thing that's actually there IS, but its in the boundaries that the misunderstandings occur. I.E. if its compart-mentalized it disconnects from the rest of what it is, or appears to disconnect. To decohere in quantum terms.
I know this is what its "all about" here in maya, earth life, simulation, whatever land. Individuations going on and things. But that in itself raises questions. Is that what its "all about"? Or is that some error prone "approach" to what its all about?
So we gotta deal with things as apparently discrete units AS IS, but also aware that that can be a blinder scenario. A source of potential error. Things connect in all kinds of strange ways that word thought doesn't necessarily recognize.

Will

"Is", "is." "is" — the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment.---Bob Wilson

that's Robert Anton Wilson the novelist.

Now don't get me wrong here - Everything IS, thud, boom, clank. Its just as valid to say that. Even its boundaries are. I.E. there are such things as boundaries, surfaces, forms. But its a type of habituated focus that EMPHASIZES those that seems to lead to the hassles. From another VIEWPOINT, the boundaries ar merely forms the connectivity takes. That seems to open up endless new possibilities and language has everything to do with this.

This is comparable to my understanding of the word "truth". Up to an uncertain point truth is dynamic.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Hello:

In my opinion, spending time trying to expand the meaning of words and create something from them tends to create confusion.

Taking into account that words are just tools to express information and information comes from consciousness as thoughts (which tend to be symbolic and based on previous information) we should treat them as such, specially when talking about Consciousness.

I see some people like Beau, Bette, and probably Will that give words a lot of extra power and combine them to try to find some new meanings, but that may just lead you to some conclusions that don't have a true basement.

Will, when you give that extra power to words think that you may be adding your subjective component. In this board it is encouraged to make clear distinctions of the subjective component and the reality. This is one of the reasons we don't focus so much in personal interpretations. If you take somebody else's interpretation for granted you can add some beliefs that can limit yourself.

Trying to go into meditation and the language of the soul gets you to pure thoughts and clearer interpretations of information (IMO).

I am not against poetry. I respect poetry, but usually it won't lead you to understand how things work. You can get beauty and entertainment from it as well as feelings and more but if you take poetry to describe big truth it may lead you to confusion. Poetry as beautiful as it can be and I am not against it is not the basic true language of the soul.


Will, again, try to be careful when choosing the topic to post. What has this to do with Cosmology? I think it should go to Wud I say? or may be Philosophy. If you keep doing this you give Ted more work to do, cleaning after your mess. Organize your thoughts, then post. Usually the posts come cleaner this way. Don't put disorganized posts and wait for others to try to clean them and figure out where the pieces of the puzzle should go.

Claudio



'

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

Words are the hammer used to nail down meanings.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Good one and as such watch the nails of the toes (both little and big) before hammering. Handle words with care. Is this also going with "Anything you said can be used against you."?

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

Hi Claudio,

"In this board it is encouraged to make clear distinctions of the subjective component and the reality." - Claudio. I gotta say, this is like the most biased sort of statement grammatically. Look what we have in this sentence: a reality that is just there, out there, or even if not out there, the one real situation. Then we have as some "component (part)" of this called subjectivity.
I know what you're getting at Claudio, but its just this that I'm trying to change. I'm not talking about poetry as such, except insofar as poetry attempts to recombine verbal meaning packets and so on.
In one sense I agree with Claudio in that we have to get beyond subjectivity in order to begin to see, to wake up to what's real, whats there, what is. But it is just the standardized, habituated meaning structures that are inhibitiang that, confusing it, rather than facilitatiing it.

So check out how this is taking form:

Will: There is a big IS and standardized word thought encourages illusory separations and compartmentalizations. So begin to connect and move beyond compartmentalizations to go beyond subjective limitation, SEE MORE, get bigger picture meaning.

Claudio: There is a big IS and and standardized word thought adequately expresses it. So stay away from recombining and connecting word meanings because they will lead to confusion, subjective experience of "your own" meanings, and thus limited vision. Stay with the established meaning units to get bigger picture.

Odd how people can arrive at the same conclusion with different routes isn't it?

In fact maybe both could work, depending on the approach, eh? But I seriously see and feel a habituation scenario going on with word meaning that can be worked with. Too many pat, tacit meanings. Not a problem if you're not prone to that, and Claudio you're probably reasonably free thinking. But still, THERE IT IS. What we need is a much better balance of the current "states of meaning" and a readily evolving, provisional approach. Just the awareness itself that word thought is provisional and in process is all that's really needed. New thought forms on its own if given adequate freedom. It's not necessarily consciously invented. Poetry is word art and it could help massage your mind out of old patterns. But its not poetry per se that I'm talking about at all.

I gotta say, "subjective component" has to go. Subjectivity is, if anything, an angle, a viewpoint, a self-relational state, not a component. There is no point where "subjectivity" ends and "objectivity" starts.

Will

If all you have is a hammer, the whole world becomes a nail.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Will,

You've done it again. Hard as it may be to believe- I agree with everything you've just said. I "think" about this often... My only problem is that I typically don't have "the words" to try and express what you are attempting to express. I think your presence on these boards is very much needed because you're right- there is a 'standardized awareness' taking shape here. In essence, that's not "bad" but it is limiting in the long run. This has been mentioned by various posters a few times lately- but I agree: that Tom intended for people to take MBT and attempt to use it as a model for the purpose of guiding them in their OWN explorations in order to develope their OWN model. (That of course brings into question the whole idea of a "model" as a psychological map of sorts. Eventually, an explorer no longer needs a map, and eventually the map serves to restrict the adventure rather than expand it.) Anyway, I agree with you- and I want you to know that I (and probably annonymous others) respect what you're trying to do here and encourage you to keep it up. It can only help break people out of more self-limiting conceptual habits.

-Cole

_________________
Never live so certainly as to confuse your own convictions with what is true.

Will:

These are not conclusions. You altered the words I wrote. You are doing what I was mentioning. You are creating this, I didn't write that, that way. Also, words are descriptions of thoughts. You cannot get the exact thoughts from the words.

Will: In fact maybe both could work, depending on the approach, eh? But I seriously see and feel a habituation scenario going on with word meaning that can be worked with. Too many pat, tacit meanings. Not a problem if you're not prone to that, and Claudio you're probably reasonably free thinking. But still, THERE IT IS. What we need is a much better balance of the current "states of meaning" and a readily evolving, provisional approach. Just the awareness itself that word thought is provisional and in process is all that's really needed.

Will: New thought forms on its own if given adequate freedom. It's not necessarily consciously invented. Poetry is word art and it could help massage your mind out of old patterns. But its not poetry per se that I'm talking about at all.

Claudio: Actually I liked what you wrote: "New thought forms on its own if given adequate freedom". This is a key in NPMR exploration and I use this a lot. It is curious that I consider myself very analytical. I actually like being analytical, but at the same time while in NPMR I am very free and super creative. I can create super beautiful art. I didn't know how artistically good I was able to be when practicing that in NPMR.





It can also be a component if you analyze the structure of Consciousness. Subjectivity can be analyzed (potentially) with great detail (complying with my toe being MBT). If everything is information, subjective information is a subset of an IUOC that is interpreted information. That subset can be studied in great detail. In MBT model you can separate where "subjectivity" starts and ends and "objectivity" starts and ends.

Again, like some people like to say: "Don't confuse the map with the territory". We may not be capable right now of determining a separation, but it is potentially possible. At our present evolution it is hard for us to do it but I can notice some improvement that can be achieved by practicing NPMR accessing. I think it is also a characteristic of more advanced beings to be able to better distinguish "objective components" from "subjective components". I think Tom is way more capable of doing this than me, but eventually we may get there. If a kid sees the world in a certain way it is the kid's version of the world. Aren't we in a kindergarten school? The fact that our capabilities are limited does not mean that some things are not possible.

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

The meanings of words need to be taken out and shaken out because many words are moldy with meaning from times irrelevant with reality as it is known today. Science is NOT going to like this because the moldy meanings is what they have always used, how they have always done it, and that is a deeply held belief system to crack. Peer reviewed articles use these moldy words like "nature" and "act of God" like they meant something scientific due to this moldy wor(l)d. It's time to shake it out, I suppose it's time to reinvent the wheel. Check this out, Scientific Method Man, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/rugg.html.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Bette:

What you wrote reminded me of the MBT terminology. I approved Tom's choice of creating a new language for it. If he was using old words, they would have also carried old interpretations and beliefs.

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

Claudio,
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. 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? 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?
The left brain type thinking sees a perfect ARRANGEMENT as its goal. 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. The trouble is, that's fine to a point, but quantum physics has already identified the observer effect, and the same inclusion of the knower into the known in all sorts of ways has changed every field, and so we need a different way than ordinary analysis. It works fine for participatory type reality, pragmatic functioning. But separation based thinking is slated for demolition as awareness goes on. 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
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. Nobody knows or can know how to break it up into components because it IS the totality in some fundamental sense. What Tom has going is cool and pragmatic and useful, but he acknowledges that its only a tool, a description for exploring it.

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.

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.

Oh and thanks Cole - Sumari High Five man!