The phenomenon of fragmentation

[Jack River]

If there is anything I have learned through going into this fragmentation is our actions show when we are ourselves fragmented. Once we see understand it in ourselves its easy to see when others are caught in that pattern. Its so clear. understandkng the pattern ends the pattern. 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Jack River

[now is forever]

6 minutes ago, Jack River said:

Ok, so go through the problem on the thread with others who don’t. Work together on makign the thread something that can be understandood.

a few of us understand but what good does that do?

puhh now you are asking a loooooooot.

[Jack River]

2 minutes ago, now is forever said:

puhh now you are asking a loooooooot.

I get it. So why get involved with the thread? 

[Faceless]

1 hour ago, now is forever said:

and because he‘s talking about two of my favorite topics: fragmentation and codependency.

Fragmentation and codependency being actually one and the same movement of time-division. 

[Faceless]

Glad to see this thread has caught some interest. Seems to be a little resistance with the communication though. Tends to happen with inattention-fragmentation in movement. But that can be a learning device as well. 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Faceless

[now is forever]

1 minute ago, Jack River said:

I get it. So why get involved with the thread? 

just got involved with a thought of a person.

why am i in any position to explain myself, by the way?

[Jack River]

@now is forever

[now is forever]

7 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Fragmentation and codependency being actually one and the same movement of time-division. 

fragmentation and codependency are actually one and the same movement of space-division.

[Faceless]

8 hours ago, now is forever said:

hehe.

i said good morning, because i just woke up. 

refered to the initial post, not the later conversation, which took a different direction.

figured out that the essence of faceless post was about the reflection of social life and the problem to bring reality together with idealized reality. and the problem between state and subject.

what is mainly a problem of wrong practical models and wrong application  of theory even though the theory might be good and helpful in a technical sense.

( wrong=disfunctional )

 

regarding the self: the model of building a self in my understanding is an adaption of new knowledge to already present knowledge. but before knowledge comes experience, and experience is perceived as fragments - because it is channeled. and these fragments are put together in the self as forfiltered fragments, so the self keeps only what it is able to keep or process. every unneeded data is just deleted, defragmentated. that’s what makes the self think of itself as one and what makes it so difficult to change preconceptions.

i find it quiet irritating as to speak of fragments per se because they are one at first, then we split them up into fragments to introspect and work on them until we set them together again. 

i might not talk about the same fragment but never mind, if you don‘t like it just skip it.

society again: his last question might have been rethorik - but i handled it as a question. the answer is we need more organical political models to apply to organical societies. 

 

i see how confusing my post was. maybe still is.

Maybe continue here just to get others on board if confusion has arisen. 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Faceless

[now is forever]

sorry dudes it’s refragmentation time - maybe tomorrow  

[Faceless]

33 minutes ago, Faceless said:

figured out that the essence of faceless post was about the reflection of social life and the problem to bring reality together with idealized reality. and the problem between state and subject.

what is mainly a problem of wrong practical models and wrong application  of theory even though the theory might be good and helpful in a technical sense.

( wrong=disfunctional )

I appreciate your interest in this thread and find your post as a contributor into some clarity on this thread??...

We may want to remember that we are trying to make this thread of value to the reader as much as possible. There are parts of your post in which i understand and others which is an unclear as to the intention. 

As far as this part of the post I think we shouldn’t jump to conclusions. Before we go into how the “individual” and “the society” are abstractions and the result of fragmentation, I think we may want to first be concerned with with fragmentation as the “individual”. After all we can’t go beyond what we have not begun. This seems reasonable yes?. 

33 minutes ago, Faceless said:

regarding the self: the model of building a self in my understanding is an adaption of new knowledge to already present knowledge. 

The old, psychological knowledge; (the accumulation of limited-partial experience), encounters the that which is new, (experiencing’s that are again partial-limited).

So static content of the past, (thought-self), which is also accumulated knowledge, meets new information. But that psychological knowledge doesn’t actually meet new information. It distorts the new to protect what is old. Psychological knowledge or (the past knowledge of the me) is selective, bias, mechanical. Psychological knowledge (the self), seeks security in its own movement/content. It continues to do this because it is caught in that pattern and doesn’t see it. It’s a conditioned pattern, and because of that it is not seen that this is caused by the notion that the experiencer is separated from the experience, thinker separate form the thought, and so on. As long as this is not observed as a fact or truth, we continually fragment. We fragment-divide because we are confused being caught in this incoherent pattern, and because that pattern is unaware of itself there is this mechanical tendency, (compulsion to secure psychological needs). 

 

Are we all meeting on this part? 

 

33 minutes ago, Faceless said:

but before knowledge comes experience, and experience is perceived as fragments - because it is channeled. and these fragments are put together in the self as forfiltered fragments, so the self keeps only what it is able to keep or process

Psychological registration, psychological recollection, psychological response-projection ...The birth of the self. Experiencing is perceived in fragments due to the limitation of experiencing as there can only be a small percentage of what one can be consciously aware of at once...We know that. And yes it is a channeled conscious attention or what I call concentrated attention. Or otherwise known as spotlight attention. And indeed the self is selective, it picks and chooses between fragments. That being another example of psychological knowledge choosing between the opposites, or divided action.

33 minutes ago, Faceless said:

every unneeded data is just deleted, defragmentated

Can we see that this is the result of fragmentation? This “unneeded data” is an example of the self clinging to its bias. The self being identified with its content...Identification implies that; identity with what has already been, or attachment to that familiarity. 

Fear, the self, (psychological knowledge), identification, with the content of (experience, knowledge, memory), bias-prejudice and the mechanical attachment to its content, all being a movement of fragmentation, (perpetual, self feeding, divided action).

33 minutes ago, Faceless said:

that’s what makes the self think of itself as one and what makes it so difficult to change preconceptions.

...as is to change pre-conceptions is also a movement of fragmentation. A movement of the chooser or otherwise know as dualistic movement born of contradiction. 

Are we meeting here??

The self is so subtle isn’t it. Sneaky sneaky indeed?

Edited September 3, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

38 minutes ago, Jack River said:

@now is forever

Communication can be difficult when intention is not other than personal. 

It’s great that you see the significance of this, my friend??

Edited September 3, 2018 by Faceless

[Jack River]

16 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Communication can be difficult when intention is not other than personal. 

I feel ya there brah 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Jack River

[now is forever]

whohooo guys - you‘re getting so in a dynamic where it starts to be pointless for me to even loose my time here. the combination of you both is quiet toxic. i guess that’s because of the personal level. guess too much arrogance here...? 

maybe a problem of defragmented fragments?

[Faceless]

@now is forever

44 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Communication can be difficult when intention is not other than personal. 

This post above has to do very much with the thread..

THE PHENOMENON OF FRAGMENTATION. 

Its not an attack on an “individual”...it’s a fact that is produced by that phenomenon. 

There is value in your participation here. We are not actually opposed perspectives...That is an illusion of division-fragmentation. We are together in this, if you want to be, friend. 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Faceless

[now is forever]

11 minutes ago, Faceless said:

@now is forever

This post above has to do very much with the thread..

THE PHENOMENON OF FRAGMENTATION. 

Its not an attack on an “individual”...it’s a fact that is produced by that phenomenon. 

There is value in your participation here. We are not one opposed sides. That is an illusion of division-fragmentation. We are together I t this, if you want to be, friend. 

you are basically saying it’s difficult because the division of women thinking and men thinking. and that you are not used to talk to girls not on a personal level???

that‘s the division fragmentation you where pointing at?

Edited September 3, 2018 by now is forever

[Faceless]

4 minutes ago, now is forever said:

you are basically saying it’s difficult because the division of women thinking and men thinking. and that you are not used to talk to girls not on a personal level???

Has nothing to do with gender. We are speaking about division in general. Playing the opposition game has had its day. Just another game of fragmentation. 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Faceless

[now is forever]

49 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Has nothing to do with gender. We are speaking about division in general. Playing the opposition game has had its day. Just another game of fragmentation. 

ok. that’s partially right. but stop playing that game is also impossible, especially in men groups.

i guess the division between men and women is the biggest, to roll up the fragmentation from that side. 

in that sense codependency between men and women is also the biggest. and that’s something that not only happens in a forum but mostly in the division of separate/different workspace, separate/different matters of interest, different ways of thinking and separate ways of expressing oneself. (i leave the problematic part out intentionally, if not we would talk about that for hours) but still men and women could maybe work together and live healthy together.

so how would a society look like if it was leveled?

next one is your choice @Faceless

it‘s not exactly about the fragmentation of the self, but it is, isn’t it?

Edited September 3, 2018 by now is forever

[Jack River]

What the!! What is happening here ??  

[Jack River]

2 hours ago, now is forever said:

ok. that’s partially right. but stop playing that game is also impossible, especially in men groups.

i guess the division between men and women is the biggest, to roll up the fragmentation from that side. 

in that sense codependency between men and women is also the biggest. and that’s something that not only happens in a forum but mostly in the division of separate/different workspace, separate/different matters of interest, different ways of thinking and separate ways of expressing oneself. (i leave the problematic part out intentionally, if not we would talk about that for hours) but still men and women could maybe work together and live healthy together.

so how would a society look like if it was leveled?

next one is your choice @Faceless

it‘s not exactly about the fragmentation of the self, but it is, isn’t it?

Men and women? We are talking about the  division that divided thought causes. All of this gender talk is just another example of clinging to psychological knowledge as faceless had posted about. For some reason gender was brought up. Very strange to all of a sudden bring up gender. Boy-girl who cares

i don’t identify psychologically as a male. Then I wouldn’t be able to commune with my surfer girl friends. Little “me’s” are all all the same, a movement of thought that seeks security in itself. 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Jack River