OK, I understand what you mean and I appreciate your answer Max, tanks.

Anna

To me, this is sort of a dichotomy that we are stuck with. There are several of these that are interlinked. People have asked if MBT was not something that should have been kept secret, since we are supposed to treat PMR as a physical reality, to interact with it as if it were fully so and the only reality. Then there is the question of confusing the map with the territory as you mentioned. Then there is the questions that get raised regarding 'becoming love' being a prominent characteristic and goal of the LCS or is it just New Age thinking? I see all of these questions as aspects of the same general situation and more could be added.

In PMR one must use words to communicate while hopefully realizing that they are only metaphors: The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon itself. This is why I started the forum on Communication within Consciousness Space, but no one ever took me up on it to any depth. Communication in NPMR has been described as more of a multi-media gestalt rather than a linear string of words in a sequence as we are limited to in PMR. Tom has made statements similar to this. So the models we create here in PMR attempting to describe the LCS/Consciousness Space/AUM are limited in the degree to which they can convey real information about what they attempt to describe. As Tom says in his recent posts regarding an outline of fundamental terminology that he uses, information is what is available within an entity while data is what can be passed to another, where it is again and subjectively internalized as information. Leaving the question of just how closely the originating information within one entity matches the received and interpreted information within the other. Ultimately, this is the question of entropy as expressed in terms of producing a better and more useful response or output for any given incoming data as a goal which we are attempting to fulfill here in our PMR incarnations. Whether as part of the Union which is AUM or an FWAU in a VR, that is the only thing that we as IUOCs do: receive an incoming data stream, representing what we are functioning as, and output a response as another data stream. If we do a better job of this, then AUM itself does a better job in total.

The other questions which I mention as being essentially the same have been discussed elsewhere on the board, either by Tom or I or both of us. Whatever the quality of the information that you have available to yourself represents your own internal model of Reality. That model quality is then put into data to transmit to someone else here on the board or elsewhere. A very high quality internal model will still leave you with the difficulty of converting it into output data to pass on to others. There will be inherent limitations to that data here in PMR because of the limitations of PMR as described above in terms of a linear string of words/metaphors. So thus do not confuse the map as data with the information from which it was originated as what one can do here in PMR. It is the quality of that internal information representing your own understanding or model of Reality which you attempt to improve by assembling together/comparing/analyzing data coming from other sources of information as maps of Reality. That is something which only you can assemble, no matter what care we put into assembling the data stream intended to represent our own models or maps of Reality.

Ted

Not sure if this is quite what you were after, Dave (Ted probably answered your question), but I can think of at least 3 things that are ‘real’ rather than metaphorical:
1. Consciousness
2. the digital nature of consciousness
3. the ruleset of a VR (i.e its algorithms, which science discovers).

vzam:

Then,

- If consciousness is real
- If the digital nature of consciousness is real
- If the rule set of virtual reality is real

What is "not real" ?
- the virtual simulation is not real but the rule set is ?
The digital nature of consciousness is real but the digital creation of consciousness is not real?

I would use the word "fundamental" instead of real. Meaning it is the same for everyone.

Dinah, Tom says that only consciousness is fundamental (and he puts "real" in brackets next to fundamental), but I overstated the case by saying that the ruleset is the same- in MBT terms it is derivative, i.e. data within consciousness, as indeed are memory databases.

Evolution is a fundamental constant as well as consciousness. It urges us (as consciousness) to seek profitable experience. Experience is real to us, but again it is organised data in consciousness rather than anything fundamental.

I was thinking that when I crumble a clod of Earth between my fingers that the "experience" of it was real -so interacting with the output of the ruleset (TBC) must be real. But I take Linda's point there is a distinction between what is real to us and what is fundamental. Experience is not fundamental. Semantics!

Thanks Ted, and vzam, for your replies.

Ted, I especially liked the part in the third paragraph where you talk about our personal internal models, and assembling the information.
That was very helpful.

My feeling now if somebody were to ask me, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" would be to say, "There is not something, and there is not nothing."

And then there is that which in the words of Joseph Campbell, "is beyond all categories of thought."

Dave

_________________
The secret of dreams is that subject and object are the same, but you had to give names to everything, and make logos for bad ideas, and because of that you will have to learn to touch what you make.

I would say that that which "is beyond all categories of thought.", is a very big amount beyond
our imagination.

Dave,

I could have said more about personal internal models but that was not what I was concentrating on. Our individual internal model of reality is something which we have been working on since birth. That is what the baby is building when it sucks on its fingers and toes and in general attempts to figure out what is itself versus what is 'other'. This is basically what we continue on through the rest of our lives, but on a more sophisticated level. When those inclined to left wing politics versus right wing politics generalize our perceptions and understandings as to where the divide is between 'us' and 'them', that is building a model of reality. We create that model of reality as a combination of data, our ego function to the degree that ego in the sense that Tom means controls us and testing the model against developing experience. This is more an 'intellectual' model but Tom's function of Intent as a being level function is also in a very real sense a model at its most personal level within our IUOC. It sets our understanding of what is 'us' versus what is 'other' and the relation between the two at the being level and not just an intellectual level. It is what is the basis for our being level molded interactions based upon what is us and what is other and our true understanding of the relationship between these things as us and other.

What Tom provides within MBT is a very basic understanding of and a model of Reality. Thus you have a very superior model available which, while probably intellectual at first, can become something akin to our Intent as a being level model. Our Intent is not so readily modified, since it is at being level, but we can create an understanding that is much beyond the simple intellectual level as it is normally made use of. I have talked about this before, but suspect that it was not understood by very many. That is, in talking about a gestalt level understanding from which one can basically examine the MBT model like something existing out in Consciousness Space which can be rotated and examined in great depth to realize more things about it beyond what Tom finds reason to spell out in his presentations, which are of necessity limited in the scope that he can attempt to cover. I can talk about this without harm, because those who think I am just babbling will ignore it as just that, babbling. And there are probably many who do so dismiss a lot of what I say as just babbling. This kind of concept is difficult to convey because of the limitations regarding linearity and words/metaphors to convey the full understanding.

Ted

I like what you write Ted.

After understanding a model, the most important is to start "being".

Ted,

I think your remarks about internal models and assembling information struck a chord with me because it speaks so clearly to the process of how we can acknowledge and affirm the authenticity of our experience. Claiming (or re-claiming) the authenticity of our individual experience is a subject that I happen to believe is at the very center of the struggle our culture is experiencing, and which we have discussed on other threads.

Oddly enough, one might say that if we can assign any reality to our experience, it consists precisely in the very subjectivity of our experience... not in the numerical values we assign to nature, or the measurements we make, but in the way we each personally render the information according to our internal models.

Dave

_________________
The secret of dreams is that subject and object are the same, but you had to give names to everything, and make logos for bad ideas, and because of that you will have to learn to touch what you make.

Yep, yep. No one can take away from us the reality of what we have experienced.
As long as it is real for us, it does not matter if it is unreal for others.
It is important that we don't "believe" it is real, but that we "know" it is real.

Yes, I agree with you, Dinah.
Moving towards an awareness of "knowing" your experience is real for you, and only for you, and honoring that truth, is a wonderful thing - very empowering and humbling. It also brings us back quite neatly to the original question of this thread: "Faking it does not make it so, but is better than nothing."

Obviously "Faking it" can cover a vast amount of behavior, but leaving aside the question of cultural mannerisms and social graces, in my experience "faking it", (and I am thinking of those years when I was not even consciously aware that I was faking it) served a vitally important protective purpose, but ultimately became very destructive. I guess I would have to say it was a lot better than nothing if only because "nothing" was not a viable option. "Nothing" would have meant something approaching a sort of psychic annihilation.

The ancients certainly knew what they were on about when they advised people to "Know Thy Self".
Or as Jesus put it: "When you come to know your self, then you will be known".

Dave

_________________
The secret of dreams is that subject and object are the same, but you had to give names to everything, and make logos for bad ideas, and because of that you will have to learn to touch what you make.

Hi Mike,

Totally understand where you are coming from. In my experience, I think that it is just best to be yourself. Not worth it at all to live your life lying to yourself, and be miserable all of the time.

On another note, I used to suppress my angry reactions to things that people would say, but I am coming to the understanding that that was not from a standpoint of caring/loving intent for the other person, but just to protect my ego from losing its sense of identity as a "good" or "respectful" person. However, the feedback was pretty harsh when I started suppressing these reactions, as my emotions are quite strong. Lately, I feel a lot of positive results when I've started to open up a little more and relinquish whatever sense of control that I've harbored up til now. The feedback doesn't lie, I think that you just have to be willing to stare it down until you overcome your limiting fears/beliefs/ego.

You seem like a good guy to me, maybe some people you are around just aren't ready to hear some of the things you say. Honesty is really the best policy, it may cause some heads to roll at first (yes, personal experience ;)), but I think that in the long run, there really isn't a better way to go.

Cheers, and hope you are able to face those nasty fear-doggies down,
Wanderer

Wanderer: Thank you for your reply. I agree, with you totally- honesty is the best policy. ths besiI am, dealing with myself [ego], in the way of- not having to have my opinions, even be heard, and if they are, and someone shuts them out, - no big deal. Because as Eckart Tolle says- when you get a bad feeling from an insulting remark or negative statement from someone , " observe who is having the bad feeling".

That scenario [ observing within yourself ] applies to anything that we are dealing with or experiencing, fear, anxiety, stress, feelings of not knowing what is right or best thing or decision, to make or do, at a given moment & etc.. As an old wise saying says " be still", and know that I am God". "I" as in god of my own decision space, and that "all that is seen is temporal, and all that is unseen, is eternal/or another form in NPMR".

In, my personal experience, I still have to fake some things, via by way of just not outwardly stating anything, and just sucking it up, because as the fundamental process of evolution is a given, all of this will pass. To me, our existence is a fantastic thing. What if I , you , we us never existed? One thing, we wouldn't be discussing anything here or anywhere, feeling no pain or joy.

I love reading these blog & post. I realize that the world is not just me, that there are others here too, going thru some similar thoughts on existence. Thanks, and have a great one. mike p