PDA

View Full Version : Possibility, Permission and Consequences: Fudged Issues



Seikou-Kishi
17th September 2013, 00:11
Some people here will know in some small way that I come from an unconventional family. In many ways, we are the paragon of an English family. Very British, very English. In many other ways, though, we're not. Many of our traits and positions seem very socially conservative, while others have been very radical in former times and only seem less so these days because societal assumptions and expectations have come to meet us.

We didn't hunt for sport even when such hunting was the hallmark of "civilised" life. Even when we hunted game for food, we didn't hunt for sport. To refer to my "personalising hypothesis", we considered and consider that we are not people who will kill for fun even when we will kill for food. It has never seemed like a small and pedantic distinction. We do not even need respect or compassion for animals to avoid wanting to be somebody who kills for enjoyment, but those three together are three very good reasons.

A century and more ago it was felt necessary that, when somebody unaccustomed to our ways married into the family, that person, male or female, should be rigorously instructed that nothing less than complete marital equality would be accepted; a wife was not her husband's chattel, and neither was he her keeper. Our women would not accept junior positions and neither would our men tolerate their wives to be subservient. It is very difficult today to believe just how backwards the view of the sexes was in former times but diaries from those times reveal much. I am lucky in having many such diaries written by family members of those times, and from their perspective the absurdities of society were all the more obvious and so they were not obfuscated by sheer assumption of universality.

And it's that assumption of universality about which I wish to talk.

One of the ways in which my family is socially conservative, though, is in language (which I think partly fuelled my interest). That is not to say that the common image of the linguistically conservative is true and that we dislike those who speak differently than we do, only that in our own speech at least we prefer to retain distinctions which are at risk of being lost, such as the subjunctive: I admit I cringe a little when I hear people say "if I was you" — if only for the loss of complexity in our language.

One of the features which is slipping out of modern English in some places is the distinction between two modal auxiliaries: "can" and "may". How often do we hear phrases such as "can I smoke in here?" — of course you can if you have a lighter, a cigarette and an ability to co-ordinate a very basic task; whether you may is an entirely different question. And what is may but a question of who minds?

I made mention in the previous incarnation of TOT that my grandmother says that it is the job of elders to teach their charges "to conquer impossibility". Having grown up with that attitude and in that environment, perhaps it is only natural that I find myself objecting to this confusion. Often, I think it is purposefully inculcated along the lines of Orwellian Newspeak. In any case, there are two problems as I see it. The first is the common confusion between "may" and "can" aforesaid and the other is the deletion of agency.

If you were out one day and you got a text message from somebody saying "your house has been left in a complete mess", you probably wouldn't respond with "oh, what an interesting and personally relevant little datum. Thank you for informing me" but rather something like "who left it so?" You see, the first sentence is what's called a passive conjugation ("has been left"). It promotes the object of an ordinary, active sentence into the subject and often deletes the former subject (the "agent", the person or thing responsible). This information can of course be included ("has been done by X", which offers the probably more likely response "by whom?")

Now in addition to pure grammatical agency, there are other, broader kinds of agency. This is the agency which is deleted and which deletion really irritates me. When somebody says that you "cannot" do something, they are not just saying that you may not, they are implying a kind of universality or objectivity to their order. But even when they say that you "may not", they are implying an authority which is never stated.

This same kind of agent-less construction can also be found with "can". How often do we here people say "it cannot be done" or, perhaps more annoying, "it just/simply cannot be done" as though the entire universe conspires to prevent something ever happening and how silly everybody is who even considers the possibility. They do not say "you cannot do it", because then you would be tempted to ask why not you specifically. And they do not say "nobody can do it" because that would sound absurd and oddly exhaustive, but it is the natural active form of the phrase "it cannot be done (by anybody)".

In a similar way, when people say "you may not do this", they are implying an authority which is never stated because any sentiment which declares what somebody may or may not do implies a superior authority which either permits or prohibits. The child's answer to this, often forgotten by adults, is "who says so?"

This is important, because an authority whose existence is not acknowledged cannot be made to justify or explain itself. When a parent tells a child "you may not do this" and the child responds with "who says so?", when the parent responds with "I say so" the child might then insist that their compliance with such a prohibition is dependent upon a good explanation. Certainly when I was a child such expectations of explanation, and particularly of explanations which were logically satisfying, were always to be found wherever authority was exercised.

Often people say that you cannot do something when what they mean is that you may not, and often what they mean in saying that you may not is that they do not wish you to. For all the people in the world happy to tell you what you can or cannot do, they are often telling you what they do or do not want you do and then leaping from that position to an assumption that because they do not want you to do it, you shouldn't do it or it's not possible.

This connects with the middle section of my post here (http://jandeane81.com/threads/62-50-Shades-Of-Greys-A-tribute-to-Seikhu-Kishi?p=726&viewfull=1#post726) about the assumption of values from facts. I do not believe people will be free while they continue to let the distinctions persist between what can be done, what may be done and in the case of the latter who permits and prohibits those actions and states. At the same time, I do not think people will be consciously respecting the free-will of others while they unconsciously make those assumptions on their own parts.

For me, part of personal or spiritual sovereignty is the freedom to do and be whatever I wish to do and be. It does not follow that freedom to do something includes freedom from the consequences of doing it. We do not have to involve a concept of authority in such a worldview. We do not need to make the assumption that one person has the right to govern the life of another. With such a concept, authority and permission become pretty much irrelevant ideas, and all that matters is who has the capacity to enforce consequences that do not automatically follow. That is not authority but power, and even if authority should be respected (I utterly deny it), power does not even have the veneer of credibility and respectability that authority has.

In my view, nobody has the ability to declare what I can and cannot do. When I was younger, somebody told me that nobody could live forever and I said "just because nobody has, do not assume nobody will". Of course, the idea of eternal life is about the most repugnant thing I can imagine; I firmly believe that death is the last, best consolation of life. I don't think that sounds morbid (though I am not blind to the possibility lol) :D

Also, in my view, nobody can tell me what I may or may not do. What I may and may not do is dependent upon authority, and I recognise no authority over my life and so the idea that I may not do something is irrelevant.

For me, humans should focus on neither, but rather look at the pragmatic issue of consequences. What consequences are there for my actions and, if those consequences do not follow by the force of natural law as we know it, like getting wet in water, but are imposed by somebody or something else, is that power to impose consequences fair? It is a much more pragmatic way of dealing with things than appealing (or yielding) to authority. What is authority but a fiction? Make sure that power is applied fairly and justly, and then who would care for authority?

I cannot remember the last time I asked somebody if I could do something. Can I share a PDF? That is not a request for permission, but the question of one who does not know how to upload an attachment. May I? I make a point of avoiding it. I do not seek permission. The closest I get is asking "do you mind if... ?" That is a courtesy, not a request for permission. It is saying "would your response be favourable if I did X? Please be informed that your answer will only inform and not dictate my decision to do or not to do X."

In many ways, power is the lesser problem; without the spectre of authority in the way, the problems human society has with power would be sorted in moments.

GCS1103
17th September 2013, 01:13
My simple little mind is having a hard time processing this. I was born and raised in The Bronx, where everyone says "Yo".;)

dianna
17th September 2013, 01:17
My simple little mind is having a hard time processing this. I was born and raised in The Bronx, where everyone says "Yo".;)

LOL, I was born into the spiritual and intellectual poverty of JERSEY where saying "Yo" was actually being polite!

Sooz
17th September 2013, 02:40
I used to have a yo yo! Does that count?

Ria
17th September 2013, 05:18
S-K
In a similar way, when people say "you may not do this", they are implying an authority which is never stated because any sentiment which declares what somebody may or may not do implies a superior authority which either permits or prohibits. The child's answer to this, often forgotten by adults, is "who says so?"

This is important, because an authority whose existence is not acknowledged cannot be made to justify or explain itself. When a parent tells a child "you may not do this" and the child responds with "who says so?", when the parent responds with "I say so" the child might then insist that their compliance with such a prohibition is dependent upon a good explanation. Certainly when I was a child such expectations of explanation, and particularly of explanations which were logically satisfying, were always to be found wherever authority was exercised.

Often people say that you cannot do something when what they mean is that you may not, and often what they mean in saying that you may not is that they do not wish you to. For all the people in the world happy to tell you what you can or cannot do, they are often telling you what they do or do not want you do and then leaping from that position to an assumption that because they do not want you to do it, you shouldn't do it or it's not possible.

This connects with the middle section of my post here about the assumption of values from facts. I do not believe people will be free while they continue to let the distinctions persist between what can be done, what may be done and in the case of the latter who permits and prohibits those actions and states. At the same time, I do not think people will be consciously respecting the free-will of others while they unconsciously make those assumptions on their own parts.

For me, part of personal or spiritual sovereignty is the freedom to do and be whatever I wish to do and be. It does not follow that freedom to do something includes freedom from the consequences of doing it. We do not have to involve a concept of authority in such a worldview. We do not need to make the assumption that one person has the right to govern the life of another. With such a concept, authority and permission become pretty much irrelevant ideas, and all that matters is who has the capacity to enforce consequences that do not automatically follow. That is not authority but power, and even if authority should be respected (I utterly deny it), power does not even have the veneer of credibility and respectability that authority has.

In my view, nobody has the ability to declare what I can and cannot do. When I was younger, somebody told me that nobody could live forever and I said "just because nobody has, do not assume nobody will". Of course, the idea of eternal life is about the most repugnant thing I can imagine; I firmly believe that death is the last, best consolation of life. I don't think that sounds morbid (though I am not blind to the possibility lol)

Also, in my view, nobody can tell me what I may or may not do. What I may or may not do are dependent upon authority, and I recognise no authority over my life and so the idea that I may not do something is irrelevant.

For me, humans should focus on neither, but rather look at the pragmatic issue of consequences. What consequences are there for my actions and, if those consequences do not follow by the force of natural law as we know it, like getting wet in water, but are imposed by somebody or something else, is that power to impose consequences fair? It is a much more pragmatic way of dealing with things than appealing (or yielding) to authority. What is authority but a fiction? Make sure that power is applied fairly and justly, and then who would care for authority?

I cannot remember the last time I asked somebody if I could do something. Can I share a PDF? That is not a request for permission, but the question of one who does not know how to upload an attachment. May I? I make a point of avoiding it. I do not seek permission. The closest I get is asking "do you mind if... ?" That is a courtesy, not a request for permission. It is saying "would your response be favourable if I did X? Please be informed that your answer will only inform and not dictate my decision to do or not to do X."

In many ways, power is the lesser problem; without the spectre of authority in the way, the problems human society has with power would be sorted in moments.

I think this to be an important thread based on the points made and should be extrapolated further.

At the risk of being very annoying, I would like to ask you to simplify this, I know this is a challenge and carries some ignominy with it to do such a thing.

Permit me to say I think the information most critical and little understood and needs to be.

My suggestion is to develop this further for the hop polloi to understand. I believe you are better placed than most to do so.

As I understand your point is to elucidate for all, "personal or spiritual sovereignty" If I have understood you correctly I would concur this to be an imperative.

Sooz
17th September 2013, 07:31
I hope we haven't pissed off SK.:( We are all in a bit of a silly mood.:D

Come back SK, just joshing....and taking the mickey.:p

That's what family does ('or do' - now you've got me flummoxed).:o

Last thing we want to do on here is watch our p's and q's.

Sooz

PS: Just for the record I flunked school pretty much. Everything I learnt or 'learned' (shit, I'm paranoid now), is what I learnt when I LEFT school, not when I was IN it.

Edit: Malc hasn't turned the swearing filter on yet....get yer 'shit, piss, fucks' in while yer can, LOL!! Sorry Malc - tugging forelock, you know how us Ozzies are?.....bastards at the best of times.

Ria
17th September 2013, 07:39
You can repeat it all on my behalf.

Sooz
Edit: Malc hasn't turned the swearing filter on yet....get yer 'shit, piss, fucks' in while yer can, LOL!! Sorry Malc - tugging forelock, you know how us Ozzies are.....bastards at the best of times.




I'm to much of a lady, pa ha ha...............lol

Sooz
17th September 2013, 07:41
I think this to be an important thread based on the points made and should be extrapolated further.

At the risk of being very annoying, I would like to ask you to simplify this, I know this is a challenge and carries some ignominy with it to do such a thing.

Permit me to say I think the information most critical and little understood and needs to be.

My suggestion is to develop this further for the hop polloi to understand. I believe you are better placed than most to do so.

As I understand your point is to elucidate for all, "personal or spiritual sovereignty" If I have understood you correctly I would concur this to be an imperative.

Brevity is everything.

3 short bullet points should do it.

Because 3 is everything in a nutshell.

Seikou-Kishi
17th September 2013, 08:18
I think this to be an important thread based on the points made and should be extrapolated further.

At the risk of being very annoying, I would like to ask you to simplify this, I know this is a challenge and carries some ignominy with it to do such a thing.

Permit me to say I think the information most critical and little understood and needs to be.

My suggestion is to develop this further for the hop polloi to understand. I believe you are better placed than most to do so.

As I understand your point is to elucidate for all, "personal or spiritual sovereignty" If I have understood you correctly I would concur this to be an imperative.

Of course there is no ignominy. Who is really ignorant, the one who asks for clarification or the one who shies away for fear of looking ignorant? It's silence that makes people stupid, not questions.

There are three different but related concepts when it comes to exercising freedom. The first is the idea of possibility. Some things might seem impossible given the state of human knowledge, but then things like breaking the sound once seemed impossible. If people had decided that because it was "impossible" to break the sound barrier there was no point in trying, we'd still not have broken it.

Even when people say that we can or cannot do something from a purely practical point of view, as with the sound barrier, I think people should be less willing to accept such restrictions and more willing to admit that even if current worldview or physics calls something impossible, that is an assertion and not an absolute fact. There is a second, much more common category of possibility in which people say that one cannot do something which one clearly can do, and what they mean is that they do not want you to do something. Double yellow lines on the side of a road might say that you "can't" park there, but if you pointed your car in the right direction and followed all the normal procedures, you'd find yourself as capable of parking on double yellows lines as on any other stretch of road.

What somebody means in such a position is that you may not park in such a place. As soon as we realise that there is a (perhaps deliberate) confusion between what people can do and what people may do, we begin to realise that most impositions of impossibility, like parking on double yellow lines, requires an authority — somebody who has declared that something is not permissible in a way that demands obedience.

The point is that when somebody says that we cannot do something, the temptation depended upon by those making the injunction is that if we believe we cannot do something, we're less likely to question the validity of the injunction than if we are told that we may not do something. If somebody says "you can't go out looking like that" a lot of people are overcome with self doubt and wonder how their personal style will be judged by others, but if somebody ever said "you may not go out looking like that", most people would get annoyed very quickly and wonder who the hell they thought they were to say such a thing.

But even to say "you may not" hides issues which should be addressed. When somebody says there is something somebody may not do, they are implying a kind of authority which has not been established but only hinted at. If people replaced the phrase "you may not do X" with "we do not wish you to do X" or "we order you not to do X", people would know who decided that people cannot do that and the logical response of "and why the hell not?" would be all the more obvious. In that position, we would finally have the people responsible for such impositions being obvious and justification demanded of them at every touch and turn.

OK, so maybe the reason the government says not to park on double yellow lines is because roads with them are narrower than most roads and thus during busy times of the day it would be impossible for traffic to move aside to let an ambulance through. That would be a fitting, worthwhile and logical explanation for any prohibition against parking on double yellow lines. The difference between saying you can't or may not park on double yellow lines and saying "the government does not wish it because it makes ambulance access difficult" is great. One respects the free will, independence and intelligence of the listener who is asked to follow the rule because the rule makes good sense, the other insults all three.

If we were less willing to hear such words as can and may, and instead asked who imposed requirements on our behaviour and why, not only would we realise how few of the things we are told that we "cannot" do are rooted in anything of subtance but also we would develop a habit of demanding justification. Any order which cannot be justified does not deserve compliance. Take the example of the person who tells another that they shouldn't go out dressed in a certain way. When we take it through the stages:

1. You can't go out like that. Since there is no physical limit on it, this is not true. Unless we were trying to go out in an elaborate costume that was too big to fit through the door but how often is that the case?
2. You may not go out like that. That's more accurate, but what is permission? Anybody in that situation would probably realise that there were now two people in the equation: the person wishing to go out dressed in a certain way and the person who considers it their right to monitor your attire. It is an arrogant assumption, though, because what they mean is option number 3 and they phrase it this way out of an assumption of authority.
3. I do not want you to go out like that. That's the most accurate, and in that position most people would say that they do not care what somebody wants. It states the person's position without implying that there is anything objective about their opinion. They state their dislike openly and without any arrogant assumption that their desire is universal (though the assumption that what they want is automatically important is still on the arrogant side).
4. Are you sure it's a good idea to dress like that? In response to your query, I make you aware of a reason why you maybe wouldn't wear that that you might not have considered before. This option respects the autonomy of the individual and demonstrates the principle that a good, reasonable idea is not afraid to explain itself. If there is a good reason for not dressing a certain way (dressing lightly in the middle of winter, for example) that is one thing and worth listening to. If there is no good reason, the idea, the request or imposition has no reason at all to be respected in the slightest, regardless of who expresses it.

...
...

to be continued

Seikou-Kishi
17th September 2013, 08:18
...
...

And that's where it comes down to a matter of personal sovereignty. The first two options completely ignore personal autonomy, while the third is more upfront but still not a great respecter of the other person's autonomy because any idea for how people should live their lives, even in small ways, insults their intelligence as well as their autonomy when it does not give them a reason which makes good sense to them. If a man said to you that you had to be well covered up, even in the middle of summer, because you couldn't dress certain ways and what he really meant was that he was a Muslim (while you weren't) and in Islam women are required to dress a certain way, for all it would be a reason it wouldn't be a sound reason to you because you do not accept a premise of the argument (the truth of the Quran and Islam).

It might be binding upon you if you were Muslim too and held the same beliefs that he held (which is by no means automatic), but it would be binding upon you only because you accepted as true all the arguments he made. In that case, he would not be so much an imposing authority as a reminder that you were on the verge of dressing in a way which contravened your own beliefs and values. Only in the last example, in which a person who ordinarily would say "can't" or "may not" or "I don't want you to" offers an idea and gives his reasoning for it — only in this example are you respected as an autonomous individual.

And in the same way that we should not accept the first three on the principle that it disrespects our autonomy and intelligence, at the same time, I do not believe we should commit them, either (for the reasons I've given, which is the important part). I think it is time people looked deeper at commonplace ideas like the way people talk and see the unspoken implications and assumptions in them. I think we need to realise that when we use those lines in talking with others, we're doing the same disservice to them that we should not accept being done to us. I think it is inculcated in us by society, and by government particularly, not to question these things and what it reveals and so for that reason alone I think it is a good idea for us to start questioning them.

My usual response these days to being told that I cannot do something is "I have the capability". If somebody says that I may not do something, I ask on whose authority and for what reasons. The lack of a satisfying answer precludes any chance that I will comply except by coincidence. If somebody says that they do not want me to do something, I tend to think the suitable response is "why?" (or the less equivocal "why should I care?"). If somebody tells me that they do not think something is a good idea and proceed to tell me why, if I accept as reasonable the justification that they give, and believe it is completely relevant, then I might decide to follow their advice, but when I do it will be of my own informed consent and nothing else. I am not complying with an order, merely agreeing that an idea I hadn't thought of is a relevant and good idea and therefore changing my intention of my own free will.

And at the same time that we cannot hear those patterns of thought without having our own intelligence and independence infringed upon, we cannot really speak in that way without doing the same to others. We cannot say "you can't do that" in the place of "that might not be such a good idea, because..." without assuming that what we have to say imposes impossibility on others in exactly the same way that society does it to us. While these assumptions continue, I do not think humankind will be able to resolve its problems with authority and power because most expressions of them will pass unquestioned and uncriticised and therefore we will not realise them for the artificial impositions that they are by nature.


Brevity is everything.

3 short bullet points should do it.

Because 3 is everything in a nutshell.

Oops, sorry :D... although there are four bullet points in the first post. Can that count? Lol


I hope we haven't ****ed off SK.:( We are all in a bit of a silly mood.:D

That's what family does ('or do' - now you've got me flummoxed).:o

Not in the slightest, and I absolutely agree.

Ria
17th September 2013, 08:52
I will have to come back to this later as I have yo go out.

Sooz
Oops, sorry ... although there are four bullet points in the first post. Can that count? Lol
three is her favourite number puff to 4

Sooz
17th September 2013, 09:13
Regards the swearing filter, it wasn't me. It was 'Who Made Cods' fault, I swear.

He made me do it.

He's a bad influence that fella.....on young girlies like me....don't be tricked by his new avatar...;)

Love Sooz
xxx

Eelco
17th September 2013, 09:56
Another pearl of profound insight. It makes me wonder though how you come to these thorough writings.
Do they take time? writing, reading, rewriting until they feel grounded. Or do they just flow... reason I ask is that in my own posts even though they contain an imprint of me I always wonder afterwards and upon rereading what I wrote most of the time they lack grounding. Almost as if it was wishfull thinking put to words...
Am I making sense?

with love
eelco

Sooz
17th September 2013, 10:32
Very funny....

TLDR, ..

Sooz

Sooz
17th September 2013, 10:33
OMG, I didn't even press a reply quote.

How come that stuff came up?

Edit: Naughty SK! Lol! Malc won't be pleased.

777
17th September 2013, 11:25
Edit: Malc hasn't turned the swearing filter on yet....get yer '****, ****, ****s' in while yer can, LOL!! Sorry Malc - tugging forelock, you know how us Ozzies are?.....*******s at the best of times.

Edit: I have. Naughty Sooz. :tussle:


SK, I shall return to this thread when I have a spare WEEK to read it lol. Only messing, it looks on first glance to be as relevant and eloquent as ever.

Seikou-Kishi
17th September 2013, 16:29
There is a very strange atmosphere on TOT at the moment.

Catsquotl,

I can't say that I've ever thought your posts lacked grounding, and you don't seem caught up in flights of fancy. Your sober insistence on assessing the truth and necessity of chakras shows how deliberative your thought processes are. I don't know about me, though, I think it's just the way I think. Usually when I am writing something I become very enthused and perhaps that spills over into the writing itself. I remember doing an IQ test when I was much younger. It was strange because where most people will line up thoughts and assess them all in turn, I looked at the questions and rather than looking at one part, then the next part, and so on, I almost stared "through" it to defocus my eyes and my mind so that I could take the whole question in at once and as soon as I did that, the answer came immediately. There wasn't arduous problem-solving, there was no working the answer out, I just looked at the question and knew the answer and it never failed me. I wonder if on some level I'm consciously able to access subconscious processing power. It certainly seems like a spiritual faculty because in the "Western Mystery Tradition", as it's known, the deliberate bypassing of the conscious mind is something people employ all sorts of tricks to try to achieve but it's always come easily to me. The best way I can describe it is it seems many people think in linear terms. I can see their minds working and it'll go something like "if this, then that, and if that, then also that other thing" and so on, as though they're working in a slow, plodding progression or sequence, but in my mind I can see patterns and relationships between ideas that often people don't consider connected. (That's not necessarily a metaphor, because I can usually see thoughts in my own mind (much larger than my head lol)... they're often clear pink, bright but soft lol).

It gave me a little trouble as a child because I would often give the end of my thought first if it was a subject that didn't interest me, leaving everybody else to guess what I was going on about because they couldn't see how I'd got there. Unlike others, I didn't have to wait to get to the end because the end of my thought came at the same time as the beginning of the thought. I can't really explain it, but you know how in telepathy the message and the response go together? "On the same wave" somebody once wrote. It is like that.

So when I try to write a post, I'm trying to get something that travels off in many directions into the linear procession that is the written word. One sentence follows another and a third follows that. We don't have an initial sentence branching off into three or four new sentences like a prose fractal. I have to find a starting point in a circle, find the pathway through the thought nodes and bring in the periphery according to relevance (i.e., number of interconnections in the resolution threshold)... that may make no sense. I notice the way a lot of people write is that as they progress through their post (or article or essay and so on), they refer back to principles, ideas and analogies already established in earlier parts, but very often I refer forwards to ideas and principles that I haven't established or even mentioned yet, so that as I read it back it all seems to hold together in a way which almost always surprises me lol. I could "draw" my thoughts, but I don't think three dimensions would be enough so two would be useless.

I remember when I was younger I was told by my chemistry teacher to tone down the complexity of my sentences because nobody would believe that a kid had written what I had written. My parents were furious. They were polymaths and they both had unique thought structures. The networks between ideas was very strong in my father, and he could weave together seemingly unrelated subjects and bring new insight that was lacking before. His was a very holistic kind of mind. I don't really know how to describe it, it's not necessarily the same as pure processing power, though he had that in abundance.

I haven't really answered any questions here, have I? Lol. It's something I tend not to dissect, I just leave it as it is. I think it's possible for people to access something like intelligence which isn't conscious intelligence, almost a kind of knowing without cogitation. Perhaps the left-brain thinking is focused and detailed while the left-brain thinking is holistic and overarching, and the combination of both working together is more effective than either in isolation. The conscious mind has a strong grip on some people (and a grip not strong enough on others lol) but it's possible to disengage it entirely and move it backwards to a place beyond left-or-right vs left-and-right brain thinking, and then a purer form of unthinking knowingness comes in. It is like seeing without looking. As I defocused my eyes so that I could take in the whole at once... it feels like the same thing with the mind. There is definitely a form of pure knowingness above and beyond what is considered thought or thinking. Breeze knows it very well; don't let her tell you she isn't intelligent (well, let her, just don't believe her lol).

Ria
17th September 2013, 19:05
I have gone through your posts 9 and10. While I am in agreement with the identification of the symptoms. The course is not addressed and that is the entraining program we are subjected to, you could almost say pre-birth which brings us back round to lack of respect for individual sovereignty.


S-K
There are three different but related concepts when it comes to exercising freedom. The first is the idea of possibility. Some things might seem impossible given the state of human knowledge, but then things like breaking the sound once seemed impossible. If people had decided that because it was "impossible" to break the sound barrier there was no point in trying, we'd still not have broken it.


Even when people say that we can or cannot do something from a purely practical point of view, as with the sound barrier, I think people should be less willing to accept such restrictions and more willing to admit that even if current worldview or physics calls something impossible, that is an assertion and not an absolute fact. There is a second, much more common category of possibility in which people say that one cannot do something which one clearly can do, and what they mean is that they do not want you to do something.


n my view, nobody has the ability to declare what I can and cannot do. When I was younger, somebody told me that nobody could live forever and I said "just because nobody has, do not assume nobody will".


And at the same time that we cannot hear those patterns of thought without having our own intelligence and independence infringed upon, we cannot really speak in that way without doing the same to others. We cannot say "you can't do that" in the place of "that might not be such a good idea, because..." without assuming that what we have to say imposes impossibility on others in exactly the same way that society does it to us. While these assumptions continue, I do not think humankind will be able to resolve its problems with authority and power because most expressions of them will pass unquestioned and uncriticised and therefore we will not realise them for the artificial impositions that they are by nature.

my grandmother says that it is the job of elders to teach their charges "to conquer impossibility".
What I have high lighted in green I completely understand how you can think that way and it is expressing a bit of a no hope situation.

What I have high lighted in blue tells me otherwise that you can effect a positive out come and in particular your grandmothers motto is part of your foundation.

Could I have your permission to send the info in this thread, to some of my daughters contemporaries to see what they think, I hope they find the time to read it.

modwiz
17th September 2013, 19:19
Edit: I have. Naughty Sooz. :tussle:


SK, I shall return to this thread when I have a spare WEEK to read it lol. Only messing, it looks on first glance to be as relevant and eloquent as ever.

As an adult. I like it without the filter. However, as an adult, I am used to being lonely.:yoda:

Seikou-Kishi
17th September 2013, 19:38
I have gone through your posts 9 and10. While I am in agreement with the identification of the symptoms. The course is not addressed and that is the entraining program we are subjected to, you could almost say pre-birth which brings us back round to lack of respect for individual sovereignty.






What I have high lighted in green I completely understand how you can think that way and it is expressing a bit of a no hope situation.

What I have high lighted in blue tells me otherwise and in particular your grandmothers motto.

Could I have your permission to send the info in this thread, to some of my daughters contemporaries to see what they think, I hope they find the time to read it.

By all means, share as much as you like :-)

It might seem a little hopeless. It's certainly very widespread. It's actually a lot simpler than it looks, though. All we have to do to neutralise this rather quite insidious phenomenon is to be aware of it. We really only have to keep it in mind so that the next time we encounter it we can think "what I can do is none of your business, and what I may do is not your place to say". Most people do these things unconsciously though so I try not to sound hostile while at the same time sounding resolute. The thing about personal sovereignty is we don't actually need other people to acknowledge it. Imagine how frail sovereignty would be if we had to ensure the whole world respected it :-)

Eelco
17th September 2013, 20:26
I haven't really answered any questions here, have I? Lol.

There is definitely a form of pure knowingness above and beyond what is considered thought or thinking.

Yes you have.. :congratulations:
You have as I understand it written how you take a ROTE
R.O.T.E.
A term created by Robert Monroe that means "Thought Balls". R.O.T.E. stands for Related Organized Thought Energy which is transferred from one soul to another.
And are gifted with the gift of the gab to put that rote into words.

With Love
Eelco

Melidae
17th September 2013, 21:00
"Civilization" has many varied subtleties ingrained within the concept that are intended to lead one to loss of personal sovereignty via unconscious language/behaviors entrained by 'society' from birth. Once one becomes aware of its' machinations, one becomes free.

Understanding the difference between 'can' and 'may', as well as understanding the implications of their use as a method of subjugating ones self to anothers authority and control, is extremely important. In other words, it may seem a minor thing, but the implications are huge if you are on a journey toward personal sovereignty and/or desire to respect anothers personal sovereignty.

Ria
17th September 2013, 21:09
"Civilization" has many varied subtleties ingrained within the concept that are intended to lead one to loss of personal sovereignty via unconscious language/behaviors entrained by 'society' from birth. Once one becomes aware of its' machinations, one becomes free.

Understanding the difference between 'can' and 'may', as well as understanding the implications of their use as a method of subjugating ones self to anothers authority and control, is extremely important. In other words, it may seem a minor thing, but the implications are huge if you are on a journey toward personal sovereignty and/or respect anothers personal sovereignty.
You put that very well. :) thank you

Seikou-Kishi
17th September 2013, 21:53
OMG, I didn't even press a reply quote.

How come that stuff came up?

Edit: Naughty SK! Lol! Malc won't be pleased.

OK, I give up. To what do you refer?

modwiz
17th September 2013, 21:59
There is a very strange atmosphere on TOT at the moment.

Catsquotl,


So when I try to write a post, I'm trying to get something that travels off in many directions into the linear procession that is the written word. One sentence follows another and a third follows that. We don't have an initial sentence branching off into three or four new sentences like a prose fractal. I have to find a starting point in a circle, find the pathway through the thought nodes and bring in the periphery according to relevance (i.e., number of interconnections in the resolution threshold)... that may make no sense. I notice the way a lot of people write is that as they progress through their post (or article or essay and so on), they refer back to principles, ideas and analogies already established in earlier parts, but very often I refer forwards to ideas and principles that I haven't established or even mentioned yet, so that as I read it back it all seems to hold together in a way which almost always surprises me lol. I could "draw" my thoughts, but I don't think three dimensions would be enough so two would be useless.


Linear formation of ideas is challenging. At least with the written word we get the time to develop the best linear form for an idea. Not having real time verbal interruptions is also helpful for concentration.

Breeze
18th September 2013, 16:37
Dear Seikou-Kishi, Thank you for your excellent thought provoking thread. I have spent the last two days contemplating your written words; you really have an amazing talent defining so beautifully pointing out the ‘obvious unobvious’. I personally found myself nodding in agreement with everything you have written so eloquently, a topic of modus operandi I was aware of and observed often, but had never placed it into definable words.

I also have some catching up to so many posts, as they have greatly grown since I read this thread the other day - how wonderful!

I have always been a free spirited rebel since a young child, something that still runs through my veins today. If there is a pure reasoned principle behind a point or rule that serves everyone, I will respect it, but if not, and especially if it stamps out/suppresses free expression, creativity and inspiration, I take the path least trodden. My nature is just unable to follow a map or cook book without adding an inspiring idea of my own into the pot. The words “can’t”, “should” or “must” are not spoken in our family.

Some of your posts reminded me back to my childhood days as I was deemed one of those irritating children that constantly asked ‘why’ rather than simply accepting ‘such and such’.

“You can't go out like that”, was a common phrase of my mother’s from a wee child when I loved walking around the village bare foot being energetically connected to the Earth; “The neighbours will think we are paupers unable to afford shoes” she would say. So for the sake of family ‘reputation’ I eventually surrendered, only taking my shoes off when no-one was around.

“You can't go out like that”, turned into heavy authoritarian tones and threatening ‘I’ll ground you from going out if you do not change”, when I was in my mid teens following the latest fashion of miniskirts and local disco nights. There was never room to reason with my mother, as it always boiled down to what the neighbours would think. I didn’t care one way or the other what the boring neighbours thought. So I learned (as many teenagers do) how to get around the situation so mother thought I was obeying; I would secretly prepare a carrier bag of clothes and my high heeled stilettos intended for the disco and bury them in a hedge nearby earlier that day; leave the house in mother’s accepted choice of respectable clothing, then change in a rarely used footpath alleyway before attending the disco. And of course change back before returning home. I did this everyday also with my school uniform as all the female students wore pencil style miniskirts, yet my mother insisted on buying me pleated below the knees skirts!

I am pleased to say since becoming a mother myself, I have approached this very differently, as I would prefer my children dressing how they wish to express rather than sneaking clothing out. Your number 4 Seikou-kishi , “Are you sure it's a good idea to dress like that?” Followed by pure reasoning as to ‘why debates’ is how I approached the situation. Many times my daughters insisted they ‘knew best’, so I let them go out dressed in their chosen attire. It soon dawned on them all, when speaking to boys, they were more occupied in looking at boobs than engaging with their eyes and mind – so they stopped wearing the low cut tops, and the ridiculously short skirts that showed their knickers, as they did not want to be ogled at, seen as just a ‘pretty dolly bird’ play toy. Smile.

It is important to let children learn for themselves, patients and pure reason pays off in the end.

I will be shortly post again and expand upon something else you mention in your posts. Smile.

Breeze
18th September 2013, 16:57
...Often people say that you cannot do something when what they mean is that you may not, and often what they mean in saying that you may not is that they do not wish you to. For all the people in the world happy to tell you what you can or cannot do, they are often telling you what they do or do not want you do and then leaping from that position to an assumption that because they do not want you to do it, you shouldn't do it or it's not possible.

...For me, part of personal or spiritual sovereignty is the freedom to do and be whatever I wish to do and be. It does not follow that freedom to do something includes freedom from the consequences of doing it.....

There are so many amazing gems of wisdom in your posts, yet I have chosen this one as I would like to add an insight that I have observed ‘in play’ during my life that is along the same lines with your above quote .

Being human can have so many wonderful loving attributes when allowed to freely breathe and fly; yet unfortunately there are also multitudes of personality traits (attitudes) under the umbrella of ‘survival of the fittest’, a modus operandi consciously or unconsciously aimed to control and have power over others. For example, if someone ‘shines’ too much (deemed by those observing), this can evoke competition, jealousy and envy from family members, friends and others, whereby conversations start containing suggestive control signals or contaminated criticisms (masquerading as constructive caring advice) to control and ‘dull-down’ the person’s natural shine. This can be easily missed if one has given their trust to the one speaking.

On the same note, the same applies too when someone has an ‘out of the box idea’ they are excited to pursue but naysayers say that is impossible, blah, blah, blah pulling out all the logical obstacles to put them off and trim their wings. Then, in some cases, sneakily go behind their back and start a company up with that very idea! I have seen this happen many times.


*****

One of the saddest observations I have seen and realised in human traits is how so few will genuinely celebrate with joy someone else’s successful achievements - OR how few will genuinely support and encourage someone to reach their dreams into successful manifestation. This lack of genuine support and celebration for others also lies under the umbrella of ‘survival of the fittest’. And this subject goes deeper into the human psyche.....

So many people ‘unconsciously’ choose/magnetise towards a collection of friends and believe this is just going with a ‘flow’. Yes it is a flow, but there are many types of ‘flows’ and the personality loves to ‘flow’ where it ‘feels’ good and is compatible to their habits of gravity. For example, the personality craves attention (whether it be chakras 1, 2,or 3), so will find a circle of friends where such attention can be had, rather than sitting at the back of room where the main attention is spotlighted on someone else. Basically many people ‘flow towards’ people that ‘person A’ deems has less ‘shine’ than themselves, so that ‘person A’ can inwardly feel ‘more’ important, wanted, needed, respected, greater intelligence, be the teacher etc, etc compared to the others. - Thus creating a self made artificial pedestal becoming the main focussed attention at any given time they so choose; an unelected leader that their friends flock to, follow, look up to and trust on their every word. It is important to point out that the friends are usually totally unaware that this underlying current of ‘usury’ is occurring, feeding off their energy; and so too is person ‘A’ quite often unaware of their daily ‘attention cravings’ and have mistook their ego actions (a spiritual mask) to be ‘service to others’.

Here is another example putting it more energetically. How many times have we felt elated joy when someone says, “those words you spoke have changed my perceptions in life”. It is always heart warming and humbling to hear such sincere words spoken, YET, here is my point: are we jazzed the same if it were ourselves speaking internally within our self that “those contemplations I had today have changed my perceptions in life”? Do we have the same joyous elation, energy flowing though our BEingness?

Part of the spiritual journey unfolding who we truly BE within, is looking at our own personal hidden and buried self betrayals, the masks we daily hide behind pretending ‘this is us’ and paying attention to the type of ATTENTION we seek and crave, feeding off people, places, things and events. N.B. A spiritual sovereign BEing does not need to ‘feed’ off others’; they are their own eternal light and self nourishment. The personality hates these type of defining pure reasons or such revealing questions and will kick and scream and use cunning denials and excuses to wallpaper over, disguising the issue into something that kinda resembles ‘service to others’ and is ‘purposeful’ to their life and others. We have to be mindful of these cunning personality traps.

As I write this it reminds me that a long time ago, I asked one of my healer friends, “what would he do next if this planet’s frequency suddenly rose to the Plane where disease and ill health no longer existed?” He was stumped for words as to what he would do with himself. I asked a similar question to a channeller I knew who spent the majority of her waking state channelling: “what will you do when humanity is awakened and in full communication and knowingness to their own Spirit, no longer requiring an intermediary? Again, the thought of what she would do beyond channelling had never entered her mind. The healer and the channeller had both turned their gifts into a kind of holding pattern as BEing their mission's ‘identity’ that represented ‘who’ they were, rather than an eternal being like everyone else having a temporary experience and forgetting there is so much more, greater adventures to explore in the journey of Self. The spiritual journey of Awakening as I understand it is all about ‘balance’ ‘within’ – that then flows outwards’. It is about the horse pulling the cart rather than the horse standing behind the cart.

[How annoying, I have had to split the flow of my post up, as it exceeds 1000 words]

Breeze
18th September 2013, 17:02
Continued.........

I am aware that what I am speaking about here is a deeper aspect of the spiritual journey of Awakening Self that only the few have the courage to continue to walk and explore as this strips away the personality bringing on many ‘dark nights of the soul’. It is not an easy exercise BEing sincerely honest with oneself looking directly at one’s modus operandi right to the core of our personality nature.

For instance how many of us have honestly sat back and closely looking at our inner circle of friends and people we gravitate towards and ask such questions as to why we are attracted to them; what is it about them that we like, compared to others that we just drop like a hat and have no interest in? What was the difference between the two groups of people (souls)? Perhaps we are someone who always sticks up for the underdog, a righteous choice ‘if’ that is all it is – but this too can be a self betrayal attitude that hungers to ‘be needed’ by others, always assisting those who are seen having ‘lesser’ – would we feel the same if we were spending time with someone who was sovereign within themselves, knew their directions in life and how to get there and didn’t need any help from us?

Do we get the same buzz of joyful satisfaction being in the company of someone who is a genius happily listening to their wise words inspiring us, or does the day feel more satisfying and complete with self achievement if we are doing all the talking while someone else hangs on our every words? These are deep meaningful questions I know, yet important to understand, because these hidden traits of modus operandi lie subtly behind the words we speak in communication with others. Words are just the end results of the hidden intents behind the words.

Humans have forgotten they are Eternal BEings simultaneously nourished with aliveness and vitality by their Holy Spirit - when this truth has been forgotten, physical reality is all there is, and receiving ‘Attention’ from outside of our self is what makes us feel alive in our days – and it is a craving that can easily get out of hand into an unbalanced state and soon a daily habit that then becomes unconscious and deemed a natural part of our nature.

I started working on the traits of ‘Attention’ and the masks it hides behind 13 years ago delving deeper into understanding the hidden layers of my personality. It is a question I ask myself regularly to this day, discovering deeper layers of where I am self betraying myself. Ultimately when we really fully realise and embrace we are all Eternal BEings having a temporary experience on the game board Planet Earth, one’s attention goes inward exploring the deeper mysteries of who we really are, existing simultaneously ‘beyond’ this Shakespeare’s stage. If we are unable to be still and quiet within ourselves, bathing in our own inspiration and light for just one or two days without feeling depressed, fidgety, bored, uneventful, lack purpose, unsuccessful, lifeless, energy drained etc – these are signs of how much outside stimulus/attention the personality daily requires and needs from the outside world to feel alive with purpose – rather than our Divine, self sustaining unconditionally loving, inspiration and creativity glowing from within - outwards.

As always, these are simply my own truths that I have learned along my own spiritual journey and self observation and may not be your truths. I am simply joining in the spirit of sharing.

So to conclude I absolutely agree with the OP that S-K so masterly composed; it is really important to BE aware of the powers and controls hidden subtly in commonly spoken sentences that keep us from spreading our wings and flying. I also feel it is just as important to also be aware of how we too enforce this upon others – the two go hand in hand in my understanding.

BEcoming ‘Aware’ is the first step towards ‘Change’.

[Ps. Seikou-Kishi, I know my 2 longer posts may have strayed from your original intended OP as it has progressed since I last visited this thread. IF you would like me to move this particular post to somewhere more appropriate, just let me know, as it is not my intention to derail your thought provoking thread and discussion you are having with others. Smile.]

Eelco
18th September 2013, 19:45
There is definitely a form of pure knowingness above and beyond what is considered thought or thinking. Breeze knows it very well; don't let her tell you she isn't intelligent (well, let her, just don't believe her lol).

Seikou-Kishi you are again correct.
Although now I don't think I can even let her say that with these three posts just above this one..
They are just too full of inteligent contemplation to let her delude herself into thinking it isn't.

:grin:
With Love
Eelco

Breeze
18th September 2013, 21:50
Hey wise friends,

shucks........... what can I say other then we may have different definitions to what the word 'intelligence' stands for.

Knowing S-K is a wordsmith and Catsqotl not far behind, and they'll be reading this - after posting I will be grabbing numerous dictionaries on the ready - as I don't think I have ever looked up this word and may have it all wrong in my mind - smile - I am digging myself into bigger holes..... I will immediately stop writing and grab the dictionaries....

If you could see my face right now it would look something like this


http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Slideshows/News/International/Asia/g-081031-hlt-face-230p.nv_nws.jpg


http://www.stepbystep.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/How-to-Avoid-Getting-Embarrassed-400x266.jpg

Agape
18th September 2013, 22:21
From Seikou-Kishi :


1. You can't go out like that. Since there is no physical limit on it, this is not true. Unless we were trying to go out in an elaborate costume that was too big to fit through the door but how often is that the case?
2. You may not go out like that. That's more accurate, but what is permission? Anybody in that situation would probably realise that there were now two people in the equation: the person wishing to go out dressed in a certain way and the person who considers it their right to monitor your attire. It is an arrogant assumption, though, because what they mean is option number 3 and they phrase it this way out of an assumption of authority.
3. I do not want you to go out like that. That's the most accurate, and in that position most people would say that they do not care what somebody wants. It states the person's position without implying that there is anything objective about their opinion. They state their dislike openly and without any arrogant assumption that their desire is universal (though the assumption that what they want is automatically important is still on the arrogant side).
4. Are you sure it's a good idea to dress like that? In response to your query, I make you aware of a reason why you maybe wouldn't wear that that you might not have considered before. This option respects the autonomy of the individual and demonstrates the principle that a good, reasonable idea is not afraid to explain itself. If there is a good reason for not dressing a certain way (dressing lightly in the middle of winter, for example) that is one thing and worth listening to. If there is no good reason, the idea, the request or imposition has no reason at all to be respected in the slightest, regardless of who expresses it.

results in = 5. Don't go anywhere today . It's not the Day to do that , for all those people out there know what to wear and they've got dressed up early in the morning, went to the office, deserved their lunch etc .

then it usually rolls on to Option 6 that says, 'No matter what you wear, being a weirdo , they will find out and you really need the veggies so there are about 2 options left '' .


:D

modwiz
19th September 2013, 00:00
Regards the swearing filter, it wasn't me. It was 'Who Made Cods' fault, I swear.

He made me do it.

He's a bad influence that fella.....on young girlies like me....don't be tricked by his new avatar...;)

Love Sooz
xxx

You have now raised the question of who made codpieces? I wonder who conceived of them? A needledick to be sure.

Cearna
19th September 2013, 03:17
You have now raised the question of who made codpieces? I wonder who conceived of them? A needledick to be sure.

Having taught History of Costume for some time, I can only remember the mention of such, coming up in the time of Henry V111, since they were a part of the outer garment, other than that I think I remember some form being used for the Knights with their armour, but no where else did it come up. And yes made by a specialist in tailoring or dressmaking, but most definitely a piece of clothing made for a definite need.

As for naughty Sooz, I too saw that mistake in the members' list and couldn't quite come up with a relevant word on the subject, you snuk it in real well Sooz.

BabaRa
19th September 2013, 20:58
Words, Words, Words! . . . Holy smokums, I can't say I read thoroughly, just grazed.

My thoughts: It's easy to get lost in semantics, how well our politicians know that.

In the end, for me, it's not whether you choose to use "may" or "can" - it's your intention behind the word or words you choose to use.

I always go back to Thoreau who said: Simplify, Simplify, Simplify

"Me Tarzan, You Jane" while not eloquent, is difficult to misinterpret.

Eelco
20th September 2013, 04:19
Just fill in the thing tarzan or Jane would want to be doing right now. And the need for more words would arise in an instant.

"Me Tarzan, You Jane, Lets ......."
"Me Jane thinks that ..... would be a better idea."
"Me Trazan, maybe after......"
"MJ, well if you are going to be childish about it maybe we should......"
"MT, ok ok....."

etc etc etc.

WIth Love
Eelco

Breeze
20th September 2013, 09:10
The era of so called technological ‘evolution’

Fast pace lifestyles

2 minute attention spans

No time to think or contemplate deeper the greater mysteries

Must have nano bite size news

Skim reading

Text language “btw, r u ok”

Evolution and adaptation says we lose what we 'do not use'

Maybe it’s a blessing that human’s focus so much time and pride over their locks of hair – hopefully their heads won’t shrink.






Ps. This thread discussion (as I understood it) was an opportunity to stretch our minds into progressive consciousness, new ways of aware thinking and conscious output.

Quantum grammar is recognising language as sounds oscillating frequencies, consciously creating alchemical magic bringing it into form – a prayer with intention.

We are walking in our Minds......................

Eelco
20th September 2013, 10:37
Ps. This thread discussion (as I understood it) was an opportunity to stretch our minds into progressive consciousness, new ways of aware thinking and conscious output.

Quantum grammar is recognising language as sounds oscillating frequencies, consciously creating alchemical magic bringing it into form – a prayer with intention.

We are walking in our Minds......................

I Think I understand what you mean. putting it to a quantum output though seems neigh impossible using conventional language constructs.

Taking the Rote as "complete self containing thought form" from question to answer. That is roughly how I would look at a prayer with intention. I know it is there. I can add and substract from it. What to me seems impossible to do is come up with the words to covert the rote into a wordstream which in the end will convey every nuance of it.

In my mind I compare the process to the way I can visualize. It took me ages to see that in my case it isn't a movie like visual stream. only when I realized that the darkness behind my eyelids have nothing to do with the visualization stream, but that for me it was more like remembering the face of an old friend or see of circumstanses that I was able to say I can do this.

that said however I still have many times I doubt my ability in rememering what I saw is actualy as it is occuring. see the confusion?

with love
Eelco

Agape
20th September 2013, 12:09
The NNA or whoever hack had disconnected me from the server last night but I've been able to access here through PM channel .

That was just about when I started undusting my TED talk ..

You've never been alone ..:unity:



:yoda:

Eelco
20th September 2013, 15:54
Thanks Breeze for opening up this thread.
On a related base. Back when I had only 2 daughters that needed verbal guidence there was a big difference in how we would formulate what we wanted. Say if it was raining and we wanted them to put on a coat. confronted with their "no" we would explain to the one that it was raining and that she would get wet. which was enough for her to comply. The other one would have a tantrum until she experienced the wetness for herself. No way an explanation would satisfy her..

with love
Eelco