Ana said:
Bud, you may want to try to concentrate purely and simply on external consideration. Try to walk in others shoes, to see as they see, to think as the think and to feel as they do, so you can properly communicate with them.
I will from this point forward.
Ana said:
Nothing challenges our knowledge more than trying to communicate it externally considering, and if you dismiss the need for a cooperative and generous simplicity in order to communicate, you also lose the oportunity to learn more about yourself and your own ideas because, in "translating" we are reordering our minds.
I hadn't looked at it that way before.
Ana said:
Imagine if you will that there is a wall between you and others. You are trapped in your own mind, your own ideas, discoveries, epiphanies, insights without considering the state of mind of those you are trying to communicate with.
You're right.
Ana said:
We need to break that wall with all our strength Bud otherwise we are doomed to live in our little corner of the world alone.
Yes, you're right again.
Ana said:
See again Perceval's post:
Perceval said:
I think the singular point she was making was that Bud's post was a perfect example of how the 'predator's mind' functions. Technically, all of Bud's sentences made sense, but there was little or no useful point being made from the point of view of the average reader. As a result, the reader is left with a strange feeling of having read something without having gleaned any real information, and left somewhat confused, but also without being able to point to any problems of syntax. It was all intellect running on emotional energy, which the 'classical mindset' promotes by promoting the idea that intellectual deliberation will finally solve any problem. Perhaps the missing ingredient for discerning the objective truth about anything is 'emotional intelligence'.
I'm in 100% agreement with him until the last sentence. I need to look into 'emotional intelligence' and how it relates to "discerning the objective truth about anything" as he sees it.
Thanks, Ana.
---------------------------------------
obyvatel said:
Bud said:
Regarding my personal sense of self, it felt sort of like I had seated somewhere. From this apparent vantage point, I saw something of "Bud" as a thought. A closed system thinker, so-to-speak. A bunch of little I's, thought loops - the whole works, sure - but even as a collection, or system, it was still a thought. A thought thinking thoughts. Sounds kind of silly doesn't it?
To me, it sounds like more intellectualization without a practical path for moving forward.
You may be right.
obyvatel said:
Bud, here are a few points for your consideration- take them fwiw
* We cannot see ourselves as others see us. This is where a network can be invaluable. For the network to help us, we do need to put trust in the network. You may want to reflect privately on the question of trust.
There's no need for a private reflection on this. Since you brought it up, I will say that I understand your concern about "trust". Those few I trust without reservation already have my full legal name, address, ph. number (I think), main e-mail addresses, experiences I've had that I cannot make public, and probably anything else they want to know about me. As for the network in general though, I think I do have a trust relationship build in progress or I don't think I could justify public participation.
obyvatel said:
* If possible, you may also want to recapitulate what was going on with you at the time when you decided to change your forum handle from "Buddy" to "Bud".
Done. I didn't see it as particularly meaningful actually. I was pretty much at a point where I just felt a little change in myself as I indicated in that name-change thread and wanted a change of name to reflect it. It's not even very imaginative. Actually, I wanted a complete change to get totally away from "Buddy" since it's been my nickname since birth, but since I didn't feel a particular identification with anything else, I just shortened it. I know your comment is about more than just the name, but that's about all I can think of to add at the moment.
obyvatel said:
As "Bud", the general persona projected is that of a wise philosopher/teacher who tries hard to practice humility.
Geeze, that's kind of embarrassing. I can nip that in the bud. I guess I must simply meet y'all in person so you can get the rest of me as I'm speaking and add more data to your evaluation. Until then, I'll just make more use of my journal. I'm also realizing that I've had a bit of fear that for whatever reason I might not get to meet some of you, so on occasion, I've probably tried way too hard to give you a feel for who I am. I'm also realizing the limitations of the written word to accomplish this, though, not to mention the inappropriateness for this type of forum.
obyvatel said:
As "Buddy" on the other hand, the persona projected was more an intellectually driven but open-minded seeker of knowledge.
Looking back, it seems that any real knowledge I had back then didn't have as much depth then either. That persona would have debated anything so long as it was deeply believed in, regardless of how deeply it was understood. So, yes, there's been some changes with me. Hopefully they haven't all been bad.
obyvatel said:
* You have had some experiences of altered states which you have mentioned in some threads (like here ).
You could probably understand this a bit better if you knew what it's like to be someone somewhere on the Autistic Spectrum, to be ADD or just to be me as a hybrid somewhere on that latter continuum.
The main thing here, I think, is about how my self-monitor seems to work as I and others IRL see and explain it. The description you call "altered states" is about what the transition back and forth between losing my self-monitor and regaining it under certain circumstances feels like to me.
Sometimes I may become "addicted" to a chase like that circular thinking trap of philosophy I was involved with - an area I'm particularly fond of for some reason. At times like that, I can find myself so deeply involved, my self-monitor turns off and I forget what I'm there to do. I'll also forget that I formed the intention to "stay with it until I'm satisfied". That formulation alone (especially if it's made as a wordless intent and simply 'felt'), can be strong enough to power an 'addictive' loop that continues until I eventually break out of it.
How the original post on this thread is related to this I explain by saying: I was aware I was making a presentation to demonstrate the predator's mind. At the time, I was unaware of the possibility that the demonstration itself might be a demonstration of the predator's mind. Normally I would have that awareness of possibility. I was unaware of the possibility because the extra awareness that loops back to act as the over-viewer wasn't on at the time, OSIT. At least, this is how I understand it.
I hope this makes sense in terms other than pure, non-beneficial intellectualizing because if that is how its going to be perceived, I don't know how else to put it right now.
obyvatel said:
The Scale of Law described by Ibn al Arabi may be of relevance - or not...
I had no idea that a network could be equivalent to this idea of "The Scale of Law". I don't know how to thank you for bringing this to my attention.
I really feel the need to apologize for making it necessary for people to expend this much energy on me.