Thread: The book of rumors.A practical rumor.

Dissociatives have given me great appreciation for the very things you are attempting to communicate here.

Send them my regards then.

This does share a stark resemblance to that very disordered processes I've encountered elsewhere.

I hope it can be proved helpfull enough for you then.

In this exercise, it seems to me that vision is being used to help keep one's attention on the object, but the awareness being cultivated does not involve the eyes or the sense of sight. With the eyes, a person is always experiencing an image of the object, whether they recognize that image as being distinct from the object itself or not. Here the goal seems to be to experience the object directly, as if the object itself is a thought in god's mind, and you are god.

"I see the note in my mind, I can touch it, I can taste it, its like there in 3D....and I'm feeling it at the same time and I know, because I'm feeling it, I can project that into the other person's emotions." - Uli Roth

"I feel the exact same way compositionally, but not as a player." - Billy Corgan

Not entirely the same as what you're talking about, but closely related.

In my experience, people who can do this well are sociopaths, with action being for the purpose of cultivating an image that draws a desired result from other people. They cultivate an aura of benevolence, because its part of the image, and they are truly empathetic in the sense that they do feel and understand how other people feel and what they desire. But behind the benevolent mask is misery, a dark sucking emptiness that regards everything as prey. (This is part of my nature also of course, takes one to know one.) The power lust is not all that's behind the mask, but its a big part of it. Why is this, how did they get that way? Are they more powerful than most people because they are more recently fallen, and if so, what does that mean? Or is it just their time, in cycles, and they are expressing what is in everyone? Or did they go especially far in prostituting their compassion in order to obtain the power they now exhibit?

No.
Matter carries information to it's core.
it is simply the way that people see their enviroment before identification of the language came.
There are no negatives on this exercise as long you don't confuse her with something else.

That response speaks to an inferred question, but not to any of the ones I asked. Never mind those questions now though, I was hoping you would relate what I said in the first paragraph to what you are talking about.

As I pointed out, a person's visual experience is already a representation of the external world, a model. Already in seeing there is symbolism, even if it is not recognized as being that, and even before the additional layer of language in sounds is added.

Color is not in light the light that comes in through the eyes, it is assigned by the brain and the mind. Does an object have color? If it does, I doubt it is a physical characteristic, it seems to me to be at least astral.

To see an object directly, not to see an image of it, I am pretty sure that a person is not using the eyes. I've had this experience before, where I can see an object from several directions at once. The eye can only project surfaces onto a two dimensional surface, it can't see three dimensions. My experience of seeing an object from all sides was still an experience of seeing a surface, even if not one that I could do with my eyes. I have read speculation that there is seeing that is not surfaces though, and that seems plausible to me. It seems essential to me if something can be known in its entirety. Your exercise seems to me to be in the direction of seeing an object directly, not through light focused through the eyes.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

That response speaks to an inferred question, but not to any of the ones I asked. Never mind those questions now though, I was hoping you would relate what I said in the first paragraph to what you are talking about.

As I pointed out, a person's visual experience is already a representation of the external world, a model. Already in seeing there is symbolism, even if it is not recognized as being that, and even before the additional layer of language in sounds is added.

Color is not in light the light that comes in through the eyes, it is assigned by the brain and the mind. Does an object have color? If it does, I doubt it is a physical characteristic, it seems to me to be at least astral.

To see an object directly, not to see an image of it, I am pretty sure that a person is not using the eyes. I've had this experience before, where I can see an object from several directions at once. The eye can only project surfaces onto a two dimensional surface, it can't see three dimensions. My experience of seeing an object from all sides was still an experience of seeing a surface, even if not one that I could do with my eyes. I have read speculation that there is seeing that is not surfaces though, and that seems plausible to me. It seems essential to me if something can be known in its entirety. Your exercise seems to me to be in the direction of seeing an object directly, not through light focused through the eyes.

Hmm... Maybe think of it this way - the mind IS the direct feeling of the world, and so every shape carries the suggestion of feel, taste, touch, smell, etc. which is then filtered through the idea of seperated sense organs.

Really there is no light coming in through the eyes, the light is the eyes and mouth and every single sensory object that you are aware of, and all of that is the mind, so the mind is the body and the body is the brain. So the eye is the entire being-construct, and all of the sense organs at once, and color is a feeling as well as a hue. You can taste your keyboard as well as smell it, and see it, without actually performing those physical actions because all of those attributes are just various functions of the mind itself.

Perhaps that helped. Perhaps I failed completely to explain properly. Oh well.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

That response speaks to an inferred question, but not to any of the ones I asked. Never mind those questions now though, I was hoping you would relate what I said in the first paragraph to what you are talking about.

As I pointed out, a person's visual experience is already a representation of the external world, a model. Already in seeing there is symbolism, even if it is not recognized as being that, and even before the additional layer of language in sounds is added.

Color is not in light the light that comes in through the eyes, it is assigned by the brain and the mind. Does an object have color? If it does, I doubt it is a physical characteristic, it seems to me to be at least astral.

To see an object directly, not to see an image of it, I am pretty sure that a person is not using the eyes. I've had this experience before, where I can see an object from several directions at once. The eye can only project surfaces onto a two dimensional surface, it can't see three dimensions. My experience of seeing an object from all sides was still an experience of seeing a surface, even if not one that I could do with my eyes. I have read speculation that there is seeing that is not surfaces though, and that seems plausible to me. It seems essential to me if something can be known in its entirety. Your exercise seems to me to be in the direction of seeing an object directly, not through light focused through the eyes.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

In this exercise, it seems to me that vision is being used to help keep one's attention on the object, but the awareness being cultivated does not involve the eyes or the sense of sight. With the eyes, a person is always experiencing an image of the object, whether they recognize that image as being distinct from the object itself or not. Here the goal seems to be to experience the object directly, as if the object itself is a thought in god's mind, and you are god.

"I see the note in my mind, I can touch it, I can taste it, its like there in 3D....and I'm feeling it at the same time and I know, because I'm feeling it, I can project that into the other person's emotions." - Uli Roth

"I feel the exact same way compositionally, but not as a player." - Billy Corgan

Not entirely the same as what you're talking about, but closely related.

In my experience, people who can do this well are sociopaths, with action being for the purpose of cultivating an image that draws a desired result from other people. They cultivate an aura of benevolence, because its part of the image, and they are truly empathetic in the sense that they do feel and understand how other people feel and what they desire. But behind the benevolent mask is misery, a dark sucking emptiness that regards everything as prey. (This is part of my nature also of course, takes one to know one.) The power lust is not all that's behind the mask, but its a big part of it. Why is this, how did they get that way? Are they more powerful than most people because they are more recently fallen, and if so, what does that mean? Or is it just their time, in cycles, and they are expressing what is in everyone? Or did they go especially far in prostituting their compassion in order to obtain the power they now exhibit?

Not exactly.
the ability to feel other people emotions is introvert.
Which means that the person is "mirroring the other" through him so is an introvert process.
it responds to the mirror cells of the right hemisphere.
Apart from the fact that most of the people making a mistake through this.

Now this exercise is extrovert.
It is based in objects not immediately to people except if the affinity is strong enough
Is expansion of certain censes to the immidiate enviroment.
This is why i wrote down that a person should not create the object on to his head.

And the problem of the vision follows.
The most degrading sence of all for the qualities of the mind is vision.
.As the speech comes and the person learns to identify,the reactive part of the brain starts to define objects around him
And the quickest tool to the reactive part is vision because as long as the eye is focused into an object
the brain intentifies immediately into that object.
This is why you see people that are watching a lot of tv are getting absorbed by it.
The speed and variety of the images literally leaves the mind dull.
So since vision mailfunctions in the human mind focus of the vision can be a problem for this exercise.

for the part that the eye cannot see in three dimension that is a lie.
Identification in the mind is based on three dimensions.

subject of this exercise is for the person to use sences in another base not to coop better with vision as you have to leave her aside till other sences can support this function.Infact the first sence expanded should be the sence of touch(without toughing the object).

Hope it helps.

Originally Posted by tsiouz

for the part that the eye cannot see in three dimension that is a lie.
Identification in the mind is based on three dimensions.

Hope it helps.

Thanks but no it doesn't help. To understand what I'm saying have to understand my statement about 2D vs 3D, which is why I mentioned it twice.

This isn't something I read in a book or that you have to take my word for, you can see it directly if you follow my thought.

The tactile/spatial mental arena that a person projects visual information into is 3D. But the information itself is 2D, having been reduced to that by the eyes. Here 2D doesn't mean flat, it refers to the degree of information. Any surface or collection of surfaces is 2D. A person also has stereo information from having two eyes, and depth is inferred from shadow and memory. But this is insufficient for a full 3D reconstruction. What is produced is a fake 3D akin to a 3D movie. The movie is also on a surface, the screen, but color and polarization is used in a way that gives an illusion of depth.

If you study the visual field that appears to be in front of you but is actually in your mind, you can see that the sense of depth is mostly inferred and created by your imagination, its not actually in the picture. And so many optical illusions are possible. If you use your imagination to make different assumptions about what objects are and what to do with shadow, you can make the depth seem very different. Small children are not yet as good at these assumptions, and sometimes make dramatic errors with scale and distance, where something small and close seems huge and far away or vice versa. Short story is that you're not actually experiencing the objects, you're experiencing a reconstruction of them. Its one thing to say this, its another thing to recognize it while you're doing it. If you dismiss what I said about 2D as a 'lie' because its not something you're already and immediately conscious of, then you're probably not understanding much else that I'm saying in this context.

The distinction between the object itself and the projection of it is important because otherwise a person will make gross errors of interpretation when having experiences like astral projection, hearing other people's thoughts, etc. I started having those kinds of experiences first, then didn't become aware of the projection/transformation of information until later when I was in math graduate school. I was aware of it before that, but not strongly enough to recognize the implications. Then for a while I made the mistake of assuming that since I'm working with an internal projection, that's all I am working with when having paranormal experiences, when actually there's a 'real' aspect to it also. Now I'm still interested in understanding that 'real' aspect better, which is why I brought this topic up.

Most common people assume that their everyday sensate experience is 'external'. Mystically inclined people tend to recognize the experience is internal, but don't recognize that they're dealing with a representation of another 'external' reality, so they conclude that the external reality is internal. There is a sense in which the external reality is internal, but by missing a step they can't correctly place their own mind in that reality, because they're still working with an image of it without realizing it. Becoming more aware of the true sense in which external reality is internal is my objective now.

I understand what you're try to say but the purpose of this exercise is different.
telethiese made a good example.
A bit sloppy and not complete but good example.
And the visual field maybe is only created in your brain but the object is there.