LastThursday

Note to self: walking on water...

I'd like to improve the way I offer advice or guidance or insight. I think and want to genuinely improve people's lives even in a small way. I see a lot of stuff in self help or other places that basically say: "you need to do this in that situation" or "love yourself more" or "let go" and so on. That's a prescriptive solution. I hardly ever see a descriptive solution: "you can love yourself more by pampering yourself", "you can let go by working on anxiety", "you can work on anxiety by meditating" and so on. What are some better ways to offer advice or help? How do I improve?

Self-referencing questions are delayed maybe until the next post. Instead I'll talk about thought. Ha! A self referencing topic: thought about thought. I just can't help myself. Can thought explain itself? Maybe, although I've spoiled the punchline. But I can at least give it a go. What can thoughts be? The most commonly accepted would be sub-vocalisation, or talking to yourself. This isn't so much muttering as more hallucinating. You hallucinate a disembodied voice which may match your spoken voice to some degree (or maybe not). This voice then gives a sort of running commentary either on what's happening "out there", or more of a ruminating sense of creating a story around a subject. Being linguistically based, sub-vocalisation is very structured. That is its primary strength and why its used for logical thought. Logic shares the same highly structured appearance, but adds consistency for good measure. Language is not necessarily consistent and hence not necessarily logical. So sub-vocalisation can be co-opted for logic: and that is what some people refer to as thought. What else can thoughts be? For those non-sub-vocalisers (me included sometimes), it's those sensations and experiences that don't emanate from the material world. This is a very vague definition and problematic. After all, how do we learn to distinguish the material world from the not-material world? Anyway, I'll carry on. It's totally possible to think visually, for example when mentally trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle. It's possible to think kinaesthetically, for example when threading a needle or making a cup of tea. Or auditorily when you have an earworm. You could even imagine tasting a lemon: that is thought. You could argue because all those non-sub-vocalising types of thought are not logical that they aren't thought at all. I would strongly disagree. In fact all of those other modes of thought can be logical and self-consistent. For example imagine thinking about arranging three differently sized blocks so that they support each other. There's an inherent logic about that puzzle, and it uses both visual and possibly kinaesthetic thought. But thought does not have to be logical at all. What else is thought? Memories. That is those sensations which you mark as having happened and you are somehow replaying now. The close acquaintance of thought memory is fantasy or thinking about the future. That is just thought you mark as not having happened. It's worth noting as an aside that it is precisely this "marking" system that goes awry in some mental health problems or is the source of episodes of Deja Vu. How far can thought be stretched? Anything which happens...now, is due for instant shelving into the near past. Once an experience has passed, it instantly goes into the realm of memory and therefore thought. In a strong sense the present moment is just thought: it is constantly slipping away. The whole world is a thought. And that, is why thought can explain thought, in exactly the same way a banana explains itself just by being itself.

@Godishere just to bring things down to earth a bit: https://logological.org/girlfriend, Although the pool is still quite large, time is against you.

The past occurred and it exists, you can even relive it and make stories up about it. But don't get confused. The past is indistiguishable from now. Even if you could build a time machine and fully relive a past experience, it would still be just the present moment. The past and the present are not separated by a wall, they are the same thing.

Acting Dumb to Teach Something pinged after posting the Offering Advice thread (https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/63985-offering-advice). This thread hooks up with a previous post in this journal where I was pouring my heart out about feeling helpless to help others (https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/50371-journey-to-nothing/?do=findComment&comment=863458). And for some quick background, hooks up with a part of me that really feels and wants to help other people actualize and boost them. I see so many people suffering even if in minor ways, and I often feel unable to help them even though it seems it wouldn't take much to do so. The style of my Offering Advice thread was actually typically and unconsciously @LastThursday. This is where I bring up a topic of conversation knowing (or thinking I know) full well what the answers are. This may seem pointless or even dickish. After all, could I just be doing it to seem cleverer than I really am? To boost my own ego. In other words I play dumb only to pretend to get sudden realisation and then show off my "new" found knowledge? The other aspect of the the thread was another also a very me thing that I do. I love the recursive and self-referencing style of posing questions. I think this basically comes from programming where this sort of thing goes on all the time - things referencing themselves - and is quite powerful if used correctly in that context. With reference to the thread, I was fully conscious that in answering a question about Offering Advice, the responders would actually be offering advice. The responders themselves would be exemplars of what good offering advice should be. In this way everyone would win; I would learn and they would learn by actually doing rather than opinionating. @neovox was clever enough to see through my ruse though, and I felt embarrassed. But having been caught out, and after cogitating for a bit, I realised I actually had no need to be embarrassed. I think the playing dumb technique (if I can call it that) has some value, especially if consciously set up, rather than in the slapdash way I do it. For some history, I think I do this all the time in my interactions, especially when I was a lot younger. It stems from always being two steps ahead of everybody else. People would try and teach me new things, and I would already know more than they did about the subject, cue eye-roll. I found that I would often dumb myself down so that I could relate to people on their level. It became an ingrained habit. Teachers often employ this mode of teaching. They will set up a topic and (transparently) pretend not to know anything about it, so that the pupils were at ease to engage their creativity and come up their own ideas about the topic. The teacher then guides the pupils by throwing out tidbits of new information, so that pupils come eventually to the "right" conclusion. It's a style. And, self-directed learning is a powerful skill to instill. The idea of playing dumb to put people at ease is an important one I think. People can get defensive around a clever dick, it engages their inferiority complex and can sometimes make people angry. In fact the terms "clever dick" and "smart arse" were coined exactly for this use, to bring down a clever person a peg or two. It's important though, if playing dumb is to be consciously done, that it's done with respect - as a style of teaching rather than an underhanded technique to gain some sort of advantage. The main thrust of playing dumb is to learn something new for yourself and for others. You set up the question so that anyone who answers may actually bring some novelty to the answers, it's a way of engaging creativity. Any new knowledge can then be integrated and synergised with the knowledge you already have. You in turn can offer back that newly synergised knowledge in a virtuous circle. In the process all the other responders learn something new and feel as though they have done so at their level. Contrast this with the usual way to expound on a topic: statements of (your) truth are given out to be digested by others. If there are objections or rejections to this truth, these may not even be stated, the responders simply lose interest and go elsewhere - everyone loses. I feel very sure that this playing dumb technique could be more formally polished, but I'll have to give it more thought. In the next episode I'll expand on how to ask recursive and self-referencing questions.

Sometimes I get strange thoughts. I've noticed a trend in so called enlightened gurus or masters that they come in ones. They always seem to be lone wolves. Why is that? If the ego is gone in these people, then what's to stop them inhabiting more than one body? Are there any cases of dual gurus, say one enlightened "entity" spread over two or more people? Why the attachment to a singular body acting like a guru? Or am I being ridiculous?

Some of mine: Feeling comfortable with being away from each other Having independent friends and pursuits Having some common interests and views Experiencing joy or happiness being around each other Finding each other attractive (whatever that means to each person) Working together as a unit, each person is in a symbiotic relationship with the other Not wanting to change or define the other person, but changing and defining yourself Being conscious of each other's needs, and stepping up if the other person is not able to

@neovox caught red handed! Blush. I still genuinely want know how to improve myself though. And if it helps others, then... @Roy I see that relating to someone on their level is important.

You unexpectedly bring up a good point about offering advice. Should it matter how I personally feel about the giving the advice? As long as I know the advice is sound? Is advice enhanced by not being personally attached to the outcome? Should giving help be an egoless activity? For example, say I ask for directions (i.e. need help). The guy says: "I've never been that way myself, but I hear that taking that mountain track is the quickest way up to the monastery.". And I thank him and say, "you're the only person I've found today who knows the way up".

So the enlightened entity already exists in this form, i.e. it is the whole Universe. And, metaphorically all "i" have to do is break free of the pig pen? And as "i" haven't done so yet, then enlightenment will continue to be a figment of "my" imagination. All that is happening is, is that the enlightened entity in its various ways is screaming at me to wake up?

I don't know either way, but does the ego have inner workings? Or to put it another way, is there commonality between the multitude of egos inhabiting bodies? Three things already come to mind I suppose: The need for ownership The need for love The need for identification I don't know if I would add "need" itself to that list, because that would seem to be there even without ego, but I could be wrong.

Note to self: acting dumb to teach.

@Michael569 it's not something that I've given deep thought to, but also not something I would dismiss outright. I guess I asked really for my own development and satisfaction. I've been in many situations were I've tried or wanted to help others, but not really had effective ways of doing so.

@Mason Riggle I think that's why I sneakily asked the question about singular/dual gurus originally. "I" could just as well stop using my voice and let the other "me"s do the talking it would make no difference. Or let "my" cat do the teaching.

@Mason Riggle I actually have no idea. Hang on... Is my ego = my organism? Nope. I've been told my ego can disappear. But. Does "my" organism disappear with it? If there is no ego to disambiguate any sense of locality, then how can there be separate organisms? You and I are indistinguishable in that case. We are a singular system, like question water sloshing around in a bucket of @Mason Riggle / @LastThursday.

@Mason Riggle so the organism still has a circumscribed boundary? I mean, there's no organism level equivalent of enlightenment? Or is it the ego that thinks there's an organism? I feel vertigo coming on.

True, but he also wouldn't care being egoless and all.

@Mason Riggle ha! Maybe gurus are not solitary, it's just my blinkered perspective? I have confused the physical body with the teachings? The singular bodies are conduits for Truth.

To summarise out loud for myself: Socratic method, or "teaching to learn". Metaphorical slap in the face (a.k.a. The Way of Malamat) Get consent or evaluate before advising, don't give someone something they're not ready for Empathy and listening or being still and quiet may be preferable to advising Asking (open) questions rather giving statements of advice Give advice indirectly Thanks guys.

Is it ok to be hypocritical? "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone." This quote from the bible has it right, but only from one perspective. It alludes to the fact that we are prone to judging others before we judge ourselves first. That if we are going to take the moral high ground, we should be more moral ourselves. The sentiment is in the right direction, it's an invitation to clean up our act: admirable. But having got into a conversation in one of the threads on the forum (https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/63872-haha-this-survey-was-interesting-men-vs-women/), I realised there was a chink in the armour of this way of thinking. I can't remember what the woman was being stoned for (too lazy to look up, maybe adultery?), but you can bet your life that most of those wanting to stone her were not guilty of the same offence. So, the bible quote makes out that sin is sin, in whatever guise it comes in. My realisation is that you can't compare apples and oranges. I'd piped up in the thread saying that a man pretending to be blind had no ground to castigate a thief stealing from him. I myself trying to be clever and sort of taking the moral high ground (I was casting the first stone). My gut instinct was that deception was deception in whatever guise and the fake blind man was being a hypocrite - and perhaps malicious, knowing full well that for some the temptation to steal from him was too much. What galled me was that this was labelled as entertainment, however that's an aside, and just my personal preference and me being "moralistic". The other guy on the thread was arguing that theft is worse than impersonation. My riposte was that the two were in no way comparable and hence one was not worse than the other (i.e. not all sin is the same). This undermines the bible quote. The only ones who shouldn't be "casting a stone" are precisely the ones guilty of the same offence - everyone else should have free rein to punish the offender. But! In turn the offender should have free rein to punish the other sinners for their individual sinning. This applies to how we should see hypocrisy. We need to tread carefully. If a guru says that we should meditate for an hour a day, but s/he doesn't actually practise meditation at all we shouldn't be too quick to judge. Whether the guru walks the talk is irrelevant, the advice is sound. If the guru sleeps around with his devotees, but advocates not taking advantage of others, again we are not in a position to judge: the advice is still good. We care about the message not the messenger. One particular example comes to mind, that of Wagner (composer). He was clearly an out and out racist. But he composed some amazing music. Can we actually discard his music because of his views? My answer is no. His music has nothing to do with his racism. To do so is doing ourselves a disservice. In any case the guy is dead, he is no longer a racist. The message was the music, the messenger a racist. We are totally within our rights to tell someone else to clean up their act, even if our act is less than clean. Otherwise, society doesn't function. In turn they can tell use to clean up our act. In the thread example, yes, the fake blind man should castigate the thief, but also the the thief should punish the fake blind man. What the punishment should be, well that's another story. There. I've changed my mind @BornToBoil. I never thought I'd be delivering a sermon on a Bible quote. There's a first time for everything.

Buried somewhere in my memory I knew about this already, thanks for the reminder. I'll have to steep myself on the other things you mentioned, the Keyserling Wheel sounds intriguing and totally new to me. The more I hear about Gurdjieff the more I'm attracted to his ideas. I've just got to sit down and do the work in these areas. @EddieEddie1995 I don't know where I heard it, but it went something like this: don't give someone a gift they're not ready to receive. Which, as you say requires our intuition and self awareness to be sharp. Definitely something to bear in mind when trying to help someone in any way. It's a harder path, but more fruitful in the long run.

I thought I'd get the following explanation off my chest about Direct Experience (it should have one of those movie trailer voice overs). I've commented that DE is discontinuous, and that it's like a hall of mirrors or reflections or echoes. I'll try and unpack that a bit here. Imagine rolling a die. You might get the following sequence: 62361444253614526344462533552 That is a grossly simplified picture of reality. Each number represents a different possible conscious experience or quale. Looking at the sequence of numbers it's essentially random, with no pattern at all. At it's heart consciousness is chaotic and completely random. In such a world you would have a fleeting rush of jumbled experiences. You wouldn't be able to discern anything at all, because there's no pattern or structure. In a sense nothing exists. Ok, you improve the consciousness stream (CS) by installing a Pattern Recogniser (PR). This PR only does one thing to start with it recognises "444". Notice how in the sequence above the PR would notice two sets of "444". Imagine 444 represented a table. In the stream of consciousness represented by the sequence, a table would suddenly appear and then disappear twice. See how crucial the job of the PR is? It makes things come into existence. What? Yes. What makes things come into existence is the ability to recognise patterns, nothing more, nothing less. What makes a table exist is the PR, not the CS. The CS only triggers the PR randomly. But you definitely need the CS to experience anything at all. The CS without a PR is nothing at all, a PR without the CS is nothing at all. So ok. You can recognise and directly experience a table. But isn't its appearance completely random? Yes. But reality is not like that you say! Before I continue the above model represents two aspects of DE well, its discontinuous and spontaneous nature, and it's structured appearance. Let's now increase the complexity of the PR. Let "25" represent a cup. And then we go up one level and let the "444" followed by "25" be a cup on a table. Notice how the cup appears twice in the sequence, once on the table and once near the table. Ok let the PR increase in complexity to a very high level. All these randomly rushing qualia (CS) are corralled by the PR to represent the room you're sitting in with a glass on your wooden table. The CS is the fabric of reality (the hardware), the PR is the set of operating instructions (software). If something is not in the PR, then you will not recognise it at all: it won't exist. In a way the "444" sequence echoes or reflects throughout consciousness in time. The table keeps on coming back into direct experience, it exists. But it's appearance each time is a complete coincidence. However, it's bound to happen because the probability of rolling three fours in a row is high. In effect the PR takes a slice through CS as it changes. From the viewpoint of the CS the table comes into and out of existence in a random manner. From the viewpoint of the PR it only ever sees tables. The PR makes the coincidence happen. The PR structures DE. The PR is extremely intelligent and can program itself. It can increase its own complexity over time and learn to recognise more and more patterns in ever more complex configurations. The PR is existence itself. Reprogram the PR and the whole of existence changes: cue psychadelics. The only objection left is that the world seems to hang together and isn't completely random. Imagine rolling a 6 a hundred times. Impossible! But not in an infinite sequence. And that's the answer. We just so happen to be living in a part of the infinite sequence of consciousness where everything hangs together and the PR makes that happen.

The three horseman of the apocalypse. Ok, that's a bit overly dramatic. What am I talking about? Commenting on this forum. There are three reactions I get when offering my thoughts on a topic. They are: Interest: Somebody understands where I'm coming from or finds my advice or viewpoint useful. Misunderstanding: I am saying one thing, but it's completely misunderstood. Either I haven't explained myself well, or it just doesn't click at all for the other person. Tumbleweed: I am completely ignored. Maybe I've jumped in at the wrong point in a conversation. Or what I thought was an amazing insight, actually wasn't. Or what I'm saying is just too "out there" to engage with. Or even, the participants in the thread don't value my input in any way. Or they do value my input but just don't respond. I'm philosophical about all three horsemen. Nothing is lost. Everything I comment on deepens my own understanding. If it helps others do the same then great! It's not a popularity contest. Although I've had over 11,000 views on this journal, I'm flabbergasted. I'm so popular shower me with love love love darlings....

Just to add to what @Emerald said and for parity, it happens the other way too. Although I haven't been in such a potentially dangerous situation. I've been in a situation where a woman was being overtly persistent with me. I didn't find her attractive at all, but she was also a friend and someone I enjoyed meeting up with. I found it basically impossible to outright say: no I'm not interested. The best I could do was to continue to be polite and not to encourage her. I think in the end another female friend told her to "cool it" and she stopped. I've also been in a nightclub situation where everyone was a bit drunk. This was on a trip abroad where everyone was acquainted with each other, but didn't really know each other that well. One particular woman mistook my friendliness for something more and went to kiss me. I was taken aback and pulled away. Before that moment I had no idea and I certainly wasn't interested in her. She was apologetic the day after, but still was confused about my reaction. I had to bullshit her and say that I was just in a grumpy mood that night. I've even been a situation where I've engaged someone physically, mostly kissing. But the day after, I had a rethink and politely told her that I didn't think it was a good idea to carry on. We shared friends in common, and I thought things could end up being awkward. She had the wherewithal not to pursue things further. I've also been in many situations where I've been unconsciously and naturally flirtatious, even with women I didn't find that interesting. And definitely, my behaviour could have been mistaken for sexual interest. Should I behave differently, because other people can't read my intentions well? I think the last point is very important. In my experience a lot of women will want to be friendly and approachable and maybe even a bit flirtatious, it's very easy for a man to read too much into it and get carried away.