Buddy
The Living Force
This post is a result of an idea from stainlesssteve, who said:
Seems like a good idea, so to prevent hijacking of the referenced thread, here we go...
As I see it, the Work concept of lying is very, very similar to the pattern collection called "classical" mindset. In fact, the "classical" mindset of ordinary life naturally carries over into physics and is now recognized as that distinction: "classical physics". Physics is isolated here simply because physics is an area where distinctions between "classical" and "quantum" have already been made and thus may be generally familiar. The potential application is seemingly very broad, however, OSIT.
As I see it, the point to be made here is two-fold: that few people seem immune to, or even fully aware of, the limitations of these "man-centered" thinking patterns, including me (Just saying "I"... is a confession of limitation, though it seems hardly avoidable), and that this condition may be vastly improved with awareness in a way that may generally assist a goal of unifying man.
At this point in my personal Work, my understanding includes the idea that the classical mindset IS the predator's or "flyer's" mind as seen from the widest perspective, though in conversation on the topic, people in general seem to notice and focus only on the "unpleasant manifestations" aspect and rarely notice anything that is implicit, yet equally present. The reason, I think, is simple enough:
Consider these two simple "classical" statements:
1) The classical mindset IS the predator's mind.
2) There IS war on Earth.
Since "classical" generally presumes to deal with what is considered to be, or can be determined to be, "objective", our default tendency is to define "things", to cognize only "objects", "real" and metaphorical (including those in the linguistic structure) and to not-notice the implicit that is present in statements.
Aside from the basic assumptions that language is built on, what is the implicit in the above statements - statements fabricated in the common language of "absolute" terminology?
For statement one to be true absolutely, the matching implicit statement "The classical mindset IS NOT the predator's mind" must be false absolutely. Hmmm, this one is not going to be easy. Let's go to the next one.
For statement two to be true absolutely, the matching implicit statement "There IS NO war on Earth" must be false absolutely. If we can find places on Earth where there is no war, AND If we can find places on Earth where there is war, then we have succeeded in making the implicit explicit in both statements and demonstrating that both statements are lies as seen from a wider perspective. That is, both statements are partially true AND partially false. This condition seems insufficient to the goal of obtaining objective consciousness, so we look for a way to improve our condition, right?
Admittedly, this is a very simple example and one might simply say that a sufficient solution is to make a habit of making our statements relative. Of course that helps, but I think that relativity is not the final solution. Lowering our hubris does not seem to make us more objective as a necessary consequence.
Understanding the mind-created notion of "state" may help. Classical mathematics, physics and everyday life carry an implicit assumption and need for a concept called "state". Can "state" exist in a system which is in ubiquitous, absolute flux, i.e., a "real" system? Formal mechanics depend upon "state". They will not work without "state". The false personality depends upon the illusion that "I" am a "state" named "Bud". The C's have even described how answers to questions can only be valid at the exact point of question, since a lot of "measurements" must be done at the "time" in a system of dynamic flux - an unstable "state" as viewed from the classical perspective.
My tentative summary says that the entire "classical" mindset IS the predator's mind in a duality of "negativity and a dual seemingly "positivity" (that part that can make valuable scientific contributions to mankind nontheless) and that the figurative Don Juan described it "quantumly" when he stated both the explicit and implicit associated with it: It is simultaneously a horrible thing to do to Man, yet brilliant from the point of view of "strategy".
Having said all this, I realize my own classical mindset is trying to explain the classical mindset, so naturally everyone is invited to comment in any way - especially if you have a knack for spotting distortion or a feel for what is missing.
So, what do you think? Bonkers or what? :D
stainlesssteve said:...there seems to be another topic opening up on the subject of illusions. I think this is a fabulous topic to open up...
Seems like a good idea, so to prevent hijacking of the referenced thread, here we go...
As I see it, the Work concept of lying is very, very similar to the pattern collection called "classical" mindset. In fact, the "classical" mindset of ordinary life naturally carries over into physics and is now recognized as that distinction: "classical physics". Physics is isolated here simply because physics is an area where distinctions between "classical" and "quantum" have already been made and thus may be generally familiar. The potential application is seemingly very broad, however, OSIT.
As I see it, the point to be made here is two-fold: that few people seem immune to, or even fully aware of, the limitations of these "man-centered" thinking patterns, including me (Just saying "I"... is a confession of limitation, though it seems hardly avoidable), and that this condition may be vastly improved with awareness in a way that may generally assist a goal of unifying man.
At this point in my personal Work, my understanding includes the idea that the classical mindset IS the predator's or "flyer's" mind as seen from the widest perspective, though in conversation on the topic, people in general seem to notice and focus only on the "unpleasant manifestations" aspect and rarely notice anything that is implicit, yet equally present. The reason, I think, is simple enough:
Consider these two simple "classical" statements:
1) The classical mindset IS the predator's mind.
2) There IS war on Earth.
Since "classical" generally presumes to deal with what is considered to be, or can be determined to be, "objective", our default tendency is to define "things", to cognize only "objects", "real" and metaphorical (including those in the linguistic structure) and to not-notice the implicit that is present in statements.
Aside from the basic assumptions that language is built on, what is the implicit in the above statements - statements fabricated in the common language of "absolute" terminology?
For statement one to be true absolutely, the matching implicit statement "The classical mindset IS NOT the predator's mind" must be false absolutely. Hmmm, this one is not going to be easy. Let's go to the next one.
For statement two to be true absolutely, the matching implicit statement "There IS NO war on Earth" must be false absolutely. If we can find places on Earth where there is no war, AND If we can find places on Earth where there is war, then we have succeeded in making the implicit explicit in both statements and demonstrating that both statements are lies as seen from a wider perspective. That is, both statements are partially true AND partially false. This condition seems insufficient to the goal of obtaining objective consciousness, so we look for a way to improve our condition, right?
Admittedly, this is a very simple example and one might simply say that a sufficient solution is to make a habit of making our statements relative. Of course that helps, but I think that relativity is not the final solution. Lowering our hubris does not seem to make us more objective as a necessary consequence.
Understanding the mind-created notion of "state" may help. Classical mathematics, physics and everyday life carry an implicit assumption and need for a concept called "state". Can "state" exist in a system which is in ubiquitous, absolute flux, i.e., a "real" system? Formal mechanics depend upon "state". They will not work without "state". The false personality depends upon the illusion that "I" am a "state" named "Bud". The C's have even described how answers to questions can only be valid at the exact point of question, since a lot of "measurements" must be done at the "time" in a system of dynamic flux - an unstable "state" as viewed from the classical perspective.
My tentative summary says that the entire "classical" mindset IS the predator's mind in a duality of "negativity and a dual seemingly "positivity" (that part that can make valuable scientific contributions to mankind nontheless) and that the figurative Don Juan described it "quantumly" when he stated both the explicit and implicit associated with it: It is simultaneously a horrible thing to do to Man, yet brilliant from the point of view of "strategy".
Having said all this, I realize my own classical mindset is trying to explain the classical mindset, so naturally everyone is invited to comment in any way - especially if you have a knack for spotting distortion or a feel for what is missing.
So, what do you think? Bonkers or what? :D