The 3 R's and the Third Eye Blues in "time"

S

seekingObjectivity

Guest
Read? Researched? Registered? Is the Third Eye turning blue? Then share the "wealth" for all to "see", to lift the veil and set us free!

What is "time" and can it's "rate" be mapped?

Objective vs subjective "time"?:[Edit: Strange idea but it popped in my head so I thought I'd add it anyway]


I decided to do an experiment related to this feeling of pressure between the eyes as it seems to correlate with basically reading anything on this site. I logged off and went to some other sites to seek non-sense and I found that the feeling began to fade away. I then thought about a bunch of non-sense for a while until I couldn't perceive the feeling at all. After not having been able to perceive the feeling I logged on to read other's posts associated with the third eye and the feeling came slowly came back. I then started to think about the "time" interval between registering to the forum, time spent reading material on the site and onset of this feeling on/within the forehead and I began to wonder if there might exist a correlation. Since there is only one way to find out, I'd like to ask for those who are willing who have had such an experience if they might share their:

1. Geographical location
2. Date/time registered
3. ~ Average time spent reading/networking related to the Work/forum etc... (up to onset of feeling)
4. ~ Date/Time of onset
5. ~ Average time reading/networking (post-onset)
6. And of course, anything else you'd like to add...

Just thought it might be interesting to see if there were any correlations! Is it objective or subjective?
 

j0da

Jedi Council Member
What's up with this?
seekingObjectivity said:
Right now as I sit here typing this, I should be studying for I have finals next week. In fact, if you count the time spent studying versus the time spent on the forum one may realize how badly I need to study.
What happened to this?
seekingObjectivity said:
Realizing the absurdity of running around and going nowhere and that time is tight for most of us, I'll take a break from barking my garbled non-sense and finish reading In Search of the Miraculous and those other books suggested for me to read.
Is this OK?
seekingObjectivity said:
Jedi General, Yeah you are right about all my seemingly random posts! I also only seem to make many new posts and not make many comments for anyone else.
 
S

seekingObjectivity

Guest
jOda, you have presented to me an interesting set of questions because there are so many different ways to answer them.

Do I answer the question referencing the whole thread of posts that the first this goes to? Or one particular post that I made? Or two particular posts or three etc..? Or consider only specific responses as "this"? Or consider all responses as "this"? Or consider all comments and responses as this? Or all those previous sets of combinations as it relates to the passage following it? Or how it relates to the passage following the question? Or answer the question as though it refers to the passage following it? Do I consider the passage following the question as the answer from which I should seek the question of "this" ? Or do I consider the passage as the question from which I should provide a response after not having searched anywhere?
 

anart

The Living Force
seekingObjectivity said:
jOda, you have presented to me an interesting set of questions because there are so many different ways to answer them.

Do I answer the question referencing the whole thread of posts that the first this goes to? Or one particular post that I made? Or two particular posts or three etc..? Or consider only specific responses as "this"? Or consider all responses as "this"? Or consider all comments and responses as this? Or all those previous sets of combinations as it relates to the passage following it? Or how it relates to the passage following the question? Or answer the question as though it refers to the passage following it? Do I consider the passage following the question as the answer from which I should seek the question of "this" ? Or do I consider the passage as the question from which I should provide a response after not having searched anywhere?
This is getting a bit ridiculous. Joda is asking - what are you doing? Why are you saying one thing and doing another and then doing nineteen more things, without ever - even once - stopping to consider - what ARE you doing? Have you taken the time to do any research on external consideration?

Perhaps, right now, you would be better served to divert this excess 'energy' into your studies.
 
S

seekingObjectivity

Guest
If I answer in the way that you have proposed, then I must assume that I knew that, indeed, that was jOda's intention. However, seeing how it had been proposed in a peculiar way as to introduce a number of alternate possibilities I could not, without assuming, provide an "adequate" answer to such a curiously structured question. That is why I made such a response. My initial thought was exactly as you proposed but I did not want to assume, so I could not answer.

[Edit: In addition, each statement that jOda had chosen had been taken out of the "necessary" context from which it sprang, as such, the statement is lacking its entire flavor as it was one of many ingredients that composed the "original meaning." Since these three chosen "flavors" represent ingredients from three differently flavored "drinks" they appear to be contradictory in nature when, in fact, they may be not.]
 

anart

The Living Force
Actually, Joda's intention - or his question - was simply not that that 'mysterious'. I think you may know that, but did not want to deal with the ramifications of such a question.

Of course, I could be mistaken, and you simply did not 'get it'. So, now that you do 'get it' - have you researched 'external consideration' and have you examined your apparent need to post whatever comes into your head with no regard as to whether it is something others here might want to spend their time and effort reading and considering?
 
S

seekingObjectivity

Guest
This is taken from ScioAgapeOmnis' comment regarding a way to "speak in code": (Thanks BTW!) I think it may convey what I am attempting to express.

ScioAgapeOmnis said:
Employee Evaluation Joke

1 Bob Smith, my assistant programmer, can always be found
2 hard at work in his cubicle. Bob works independently, without
3 wasting company time talking to colleagues. Bob never
4 thinks twice about assisting fellow employees, and he always
5 finishes given assignments on time. Often he takes extended
6 measures to complete his work, sometimes skipping coffee
7 breaks. Bob is a dedicated individual who has absolutely no
8 vanity in spite of his high accomplishments and profound
9 knowledge in his field. I firmly believe that Bob can be
10 classed as a high-caliber employee, the type which cannot be
11 dispensed with. Consequently, I duly recommend that Bob be
12 promoted to executive management, and a proposal will be
13 executed as soon as possible.

Addendum:
That idiot was standing over my shoulder
while I wrote the report sent to you
earlier today. Kindly re-read only the
odd numbered lines.

Advert found in lonely hearts column

Man seeks woman-

A tall well-built woman with good
reputation, who can cook frogs
legs, who appreciates a good fuc-
schia, classical music and tal-
king without getting too serious

But pleases only read lines 1,3 and 5!
 

anart

The Living Force
It was a joke. Are you trying to express that you've been joking this whole time?

Also - you have yet to answer a direct question I have now posed twice about external consideration. Please understand that this forum works very hard to minimize noise. There are thousands of forums out there that appreciate noise and find it entertaining - this is not one of them - perhaps your stream of consciousness posts would be more appreciated on some other forum.
 
S

seekingObjectivity

Guest
I am finding it hard to anwser a question directly without assuming I know exactly as to what the question is referring. In addition, I understand that it may seem that my previous post could be taken to imply that the posts previous to it were a joke but that is not the case. I was merely trying to convey that jOda, having taken specific lines out of context had the unfortunate effect of diverging from the original meaning that was contained within the comments that I had made. Such distortion created a new meaning stemming from his internal assumptions in which are contained its true context. Therefore, failing to perceive the true context from which this meaning had been sprung, I can not, without assumption, provide a "direct" answer to his question(s).

[Edit: As to your questions regarding 'external consideration' I feel that by attempting to perceive true context i.e. internal assumptions, I am trying to 'externally consider'. If I fail to see the entire connection then I must still be inside functioning as a part of it and, therefore, distorting the true external meaning via an internal assumption. If I can see the entire connection then I may perceive the whole and must therefore be outside looking in. If that is not external consideration then I am failing to understand its true meaning.]
 

anart

The Living Force
seekingObjectivity said:
I am finding it hard to anwser a question directly without assuming I know exactly as to what the question is referring.
Your posting behavior and contradictions in intent are 'to what the question is referring'. It is not an assumption on your part to See this - it simply takes a modicum of perspective.

so said:
In addition, I understand that it may seem that my previous post could be taken to imply that the posts previous to it were a joke but that is not the case. I was merely trying to convey that jOda, having taken specific lines out of context had the unfortunate effect of diverging from the original meaning that was contained within the comments that I had made.
Joda was pointing out that in a little over one day, you have posted an astonishing number of long self-refrencing, internally considering posts and then said you would stop such nonsensical behavior only to start again. I think you know this - but perhaps I am giving you more credit than I should.

so said:
Such distortion created a new meaning stemming from his internal assumptions in which are contained its true context.
There is no distortion.

so said:
Therefore, failing to perceive the true context from which this meaning had been sprung, I can not, without assumption, provide a "direct" answer to his question(s).
You are engaging in legalistic nitpicking and draining of energy. This is not the forum for that - there are many forums out there who revel in such behavior - please find one of them.

so said:
[Edit: As to your questions regarding 'external consideration' I feel that by attempting to perceive true context i.e. internal assumptions, I am trying to 'externally consider'. If I fail to see the entire connection then I must still be inside functioning as a part of it and, therefore, distorting the true external meaning via an internal assumption. If I can see the entire connection then I may perceive the whole and must therefore be outside looking in. If that is not external consideration then I am failing to understand its true meaning.]
IF you are sincere - it is time - now - to stop posting and do some reading - read all you can find on this forum and its associated websites about external consideration and putting other's needs before your own - IF you are sincere. If you are not sincere, then that will become very clear and it will be time for you to move on to a forum that welcomes the behavior you have evidenced thus far.
 
S

seekingObjectivity

Guest
Of course I am sincere, I have final exams next week in medical school and I feel that the Work is much more important. So much so that I have sacrificed studying medicine in order to learn the Work. It seems as though my thinking process and your thinking process (as well as others) are so much different that they seem to be "mirror" images of one another. When I analyze a passage I do so by taking into consideration all the parts from which they arose in order to ascertain its "true" meaning. You and others seems to take a line-by-line approach to analyze a "true" meaning by summing up its individual analytical parts to see the whole. I am having a hard time understanding how to do this without assumption! It also seems that there may be a failure to "see" of "externally considering" my perspective as you may be assuming that my thinking process is very much similar to yours.

My posts seem random but I am multi-tasking many different things at once and to me they are all connected and not random at all. I feel that this apparent "mirror image" of thought processing really could be beneficial for both of us as we have yet to "see" eye-to-eye. Doesn't the Work involve understanding the "mirror"?

If required, as I really really do not want to be "banned" from this forum, I will take some "time" off and read further so that I may adequately understand. I have read "The Wave", "The Adventure Series", "The Secret History of the World", and I am half-way through "In Search of the Miraculous". But as Gurdjieff once noted:

"I find it necessary on the first page of this book [All and Everything], quite ready for publication, to give the following advice: 'Read each of my written expositions thrice:

Firstly—at least as you have already become mechanized to read all your contemporary books and newspapers.
Secondly—as if you were reading aloud to another person.
And only thirdly—try and fathom the gist of my writings.'

Only then will you be able to count upon forming your own impartial judgment, proper to yourself alone, on my writings. And only then can my hope be actualized that according to your understanding you will obtain the specific benefit for yourself which I anticipate, and which I wish for you with all my being."

And I gather that the same applies to these other books as well.
 

Peto

Jedi
seekingObjectivity said:
Of course I am sincere, I have final exams next week in medical school and I feel that the Work is much more important. So much so that I have sacrificed studying medicine in order to learn the Work.
After reading this thread and your long thread in the Dream section, I find this quote as yet another example of your tendency to get caught up in wandering mental process. I could be wrong but it seems to me that while you have an important exam next week, you have found posting on this forum more interesting so you forgot about the exam. And then you rationalize to yourself that posting here is the Work.

My posts seem random but I am multi-tasking many different things at once and to me they are all connected and not random at all.
But they are not connected to people who read your posts. External considering in this case means making the effort to organize your thoughts and post them in a way that is consistent. In short, put yourself in the readers' shoes and make it easier to follow your thoughts and your posts.
 
S

seekingObjectivity

Guest
I said:
Realizing the absurdity of running around and going nowhere and that time is tight for most of us, I'll take a break from barking my garbled non-sense and finish reading In Search of the Miraculous and those other books suggested for me to read.
You initially said this:

Anart said:
I don't think you need to take a break from the forum, for what it's worth. I was just trying to get you to consider that a part of external consideration is to work quite hard at writing in as clear and concise a way as possible - with your reader in mind.
and then later said this:

Anart said:
Please understand that this forum works very hard to minimize noise. There are thousands of forums out there that appreciate noise and find it entertaining - this is not one of them - perhaps your stream of consciousness posts would be more appreciated on some other forum.
but only after this:

I(part 1) said:
If I answer in the way that you have proposed,
Anart said:
Joda is asking - what are you doing?
I (part 2) said:
then I must assume that I knew that, indeed, that was jOda's intention.
However, seeing how it had been proposed in a peculiar way:
jOda (peculiar way) said:
What's up with this?
jOda implied this said:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=6000&p=2
seekingObjectivity (as referenced by jOda) said:
Right now as I sit here typing this, I should be studying for I have finals next week. In fact, if you count the time spent studying versus the time spent on the forum one may realize how badly I need to study.
I(part 4) said:
as to introduce a number of alternate possibilities
possibilities said:
Do I answer the question referencing the whole thread of posts that the first this goes to? Or one particular post that I made? Or two particular posts or three etc..? Or consider only specific responses as "this"? Or consider all responses as "this"? Or consider all comments and responses as this? Or all those previous sets of combinations as it relates to the passage following it? Or how it relates to the passage following the question? Or answer the question as though it refers to the passage following it? Do I consider the passage following the question as the answer from which I should seek the question of "this" ? Or do I consider the passage as the question from which I should provide a response after not having searched anywhere?
I(part 5) said:
I could not, without assuming, provide an "adequate" answer to such a curiously structured question. That is why I made such a response. My initial thought was exactly as you proposed:

Anart proposed: what ARE you doing?

but I did not want to assume, so I could not answer.

[Edit: In addition, each statement that jOda had chosen had been taken out of the "necessary" context from which it sprang, as such, the statement is lacking its entire flavor as it was one of many ingredients that composed the "original meaning." Since these three chosen "flavors" represent ingredients from three differently flavored "drinks" they appear to be contradictory in nature when, in fact, they may be not.]

For example,

[Edit: Flavor
1 Bob Smith, my assistant programmer, can always be found
3 wasting company time talking to colleagues. Bob never
5 finishes given assignments on time. Often he takes extended
7 breaks. Bob is a dedicated individual who has absolutely no
9 knowledge in his field. I firmly believe that Bob can be
11 dispensed with. Consequently, I duly recommend that Bob be
13 executed as soon as possible.]

Drink
1 Bob Smith, my assistant programmer, can always be found
2 hard at work in his cubicle. Bob works independently, without
3 wasting company time talking to colleagues. Bob never
4 thinks twice about assisting fellow employees, and he always
5 finishes given assignments on time. Often he takes extended
6 measures to complete his work, sometimes skipping coffee
7 breaks. Bob is a dedicated individual who has absolutely no
8 vanity in spite of his high accomplishments and profound
9 knowledge in his field. I firmly believe that Bob can be
10 classed as a high-caliber employee, the type which cannot be
11 dispensed with. Consequently, I duly recommend that Bob be
12 promoted to executive management, and a proposal will be
13 executed as soon as possible.

Two entirely different meanings that contradict one another. Flavor 1 is logical within itself and Drink is logical within itself. But they are not logical with respect to each other i.e. not co-linear but they are cohesively logical when they are together at the same time. There are two ends to the stick, but there is only one stick.




Addendum:
That idiot was standing over my shoulder
while I wrote the report sent to you
earlier today. Kindly re-read only the
odd numbered lines.
after reading this, then, is this:

Anart said:
I don't think you need to take a break from the forum, for what it's worth. I was just trying to get you to consider that a part of external consideration is to work quite hard at writing in as clear and concise a way as possible - with your reader in mind.
and this:

Anart said:
Please understand that this forum works very hard to minimize noise. There are thousands of forums out there that appreciate noise and find it entertaining - this is not one of them - perhaps your stream of consciousness posts would be more appreciated on some other forum.
contradictory?

From my perspective, I am not sure because I seem to still not understand "external consideration" in a MAJOR way.
 

Renaissance

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
seekingObjectivity said:
Of course I am sincere,
Being sincere is one of the most difficult things I've encountered in the Work. It's not enough to want or think 'I'm sincere' to actually be sincere. It takes a lot knowledge about the self. We constantly lie to ourselves, including thinking that we're sincere. A person divided into many i's, driven by one i, then another, then yet another will have a lot of difficulty in being sincere - their are too many false i's pulling the self in all sorts of directions. Your posts are exemplifying this, imo. I think you're rationalizing this by thinking you're 'multi-tasking.' Perhaps it would be good for you to stop multi-tasking and focus on one thing at a time. Anart gave a good suggestion about researching external consideration. I agree, but with the new info you just provided there seems an even more pressing thing you should be paying attention too:

seekingObjectivity said:
I have final exams next week in medical school and I feel that the Work is much more important.
Gurdjieff's first striving in the Work is, "To have in their ordinary being-existence everything satisfying and really necessary for their planetary body."

It seems by ignoring your final exams you are also ignoring the first and basic part of the Work. You can study for finals while doing the Work. I think a good exercise would be to observe yourself while studying and see how often you're wanting to be pulled in different directions but maintain your study. After you're done with that perhaps you can focus on studying external consideration.
 

kenlee

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
seekingObjectivity said:
Realizing the absurdity of running around and going nowhere and that time is tight for most of us, I'll take a break from barking my garbled non-sense and finish reading In Search of the Miraculous and those other books suggested for me to read.
It seems that you like to indulge in your own self reflections with your internal dialogue. I think what we are witnessing in some of your long posts is one part of you is talking to another part and each part is basically talking to itself with no desire to 'seek objectivity' apart from it's own self affirmation. You then post this internal conversation, which you are having in your own head, to the people on the forum who really cannot become part of this conversation apart from you and yourself. External consideration is considering other people and how they understand you.

In short this internal rambling is what boosts the self importance of each of these 'selves' in you and it gives them equal importance and status and each self likes the feeling they get from it. So before you can 'seek objectivity' with anyone outside of you, you must first know how to hold a proper 'subjective' conversation within yourself which, I think, is the first step in properly studying the world outside yourself and being objective about it.

It appears to me that each part of you that is having this internal conversation is simply affirming itself to feel 'self' important. What I would suggest to you is to learn to ‘weigh’ the affirmation and negation of a particular idea within your own mind first and come to your own solution. Then observe you’re thinking processes as you do this. Even though your results will still be subjective after you weigh the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ of any idea that you are trying to understand, you can at least observe this internal thinking mechanism and this 'weighing' process and this will help you to be more objective because you will be a little more knowledgeable as to how your own mind works. This, I think, is the first step into 'seeking objectivity' even though the aforementioned results (that I mentioned above) will still be subjective.
 
Top Bottom