Thom is in the process of writing a new book, “Cracking the Code: The Art and Science of Political Persuasion.” to be published by Berrett-Koehler, who also published “Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class – and what we can do about it”.

Thom will be discussing the book in the third hour of the Friday show each week, sometimes with his editor Johanna Vondeling, so listeners will be able to find out all about it as it develops. The book is due out in the fall of 2007. I’ll be posting transcripts in here, probably one segment at a time. The first discussion was today.

Week 01: 08 December '06

Week 02: 15 December '06

Week 03: 22 December '06

Week 04: 29 December '06

Week 05: 05 January '07

Week 06: 19 January '07

Week 07: 02 February '07

Week 08: 09 February '07



There was no Cracking the Code on 12 January as Thom had a plane to catch; the last hour of the show was recycled. On 26 January Thom was broadcasting live from a radio row in Washington D.C. and so had guests on instead.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sue N,

Sounds fascinating, something we could really use. Unfortunately, in the last couple years, I've noticed that a huge majority of liberals, probably well over 90%, running on automatic, pushing their pet ideas, and not being willing to think strategically, or empathise with someone who is conservative out of fear, moral conviction, or whatever. Possibly it's the extreme militarism of much of the right after 9/11, plus the fear created by hate radio, made the right so militant, the left doesn't listen. Perhaps most of the left has forgotten that we want to create a climate of healing for all.

It's the ones who thing strategically and keep working towards their goals who win the day. Let's hope these tools are useful to them.

Yes, but as we win more ( only 20% of America approves of Bush's Iraq policy), we should increase the ratio of

Nuturance/Permaculture

to

Media/NLP mix.


In my own life, I'm dealing with activists who won't priorise their battles, so they have less energy for the important ones.

 I like Thom's idea. Just food for thought, esp with Thom's experiences with Native Americans. I've had an idea for a story for awhile 
about a Senator, or maybe an ambassador who has a Native 
American background who is able to get through to some of 
the warring peoples of the world, perhaps Palestinians and 
Israelis..I think mostly because of the non-judgemental ways 
in which I've observed many Native Americans listen to 
another person.
I'll be looking forward to the Friday's hour number three. Feels like the next step.

The world contains 6 billion people, the human brain, according to studies of mamilian brain size and tribe/herd size, as well as anthropological studies is equiped for 150 people. Therein lies the potential for conflict. As there are members of the right who are intent to polarise, and members of the left who have grown fed up with the right, there is plenty of room for conflict. There are also those who will take advantage of a desire to compromise, using incrementalism to take, until you catch on, then you'll just have a worse starting point. It gets to be very confusing.

Thom, as a first time listener you could have told us you had to join to read the thing. I did the 30 day free to read the first part but I'm gonna wait for it in the stores from now on.

Hi Johnny,

Week 02: 15 December '06 has been up for a while, and I've just put up the start of Week 03: 22 December '06. I hope to finish that one before the weekend is out then get straight on with week 4.

I find that figuring out what you have in common with someone of a different political persuasion first and then having a civil debate over the other issues is best..
And usually you will shatter any stereotype that that person had of you.

If you make an enemy then you did nothing productive.

quote:

Originally posted by Agent11:
I find that figuring out what you have in common with someone of a different political persuasion first and then having a civil debate over the other issues is best..
And usually you will shatter any stereotype that that person had of you.

If you make an enemy then you did nothing productive.

I agree, if they are willing.

Sometimes it's hard to think of where to post some things, but here's a bit that I just found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliki.


Jots:
Collaborative writing with an eye to publishing? I know there's the old herding cats/commitees prob, but I tend to think how easy it is to miss important things without critical inputs. Perhaps part of the difficulty is realizing the limitations of frames. I am interested in taking these web functions and finding the creative possibilities in them and building architectures with the bits. This is not to say I am any good at this, creativity is largely a matter of the jux of ideas/things and seeing what happens and the more creative person is often one who spends more time on what is really daydreaming but perhaps with a purpose ( re: pure v applied research ); narrow purpose narrows range and call for digging depths, broader purpose opens the field and is less stressful if the field is not exhausted. I'm close to exhausted, I still have finger to point with, perhaps in future I'll have more mind processing power I can devote to this research, but for now I have some legal, some health, some repair and moving etc stuff that keeps me humbled. I have a feeling a good secretary might have some great expert knowledge and a librarian on call would be excellant.
I recently read (and am re reading slowly) a very excellant Little book on the Byzantine empire. I've read others which ended giving little sense of continuity...chunking?. The author has writen several books on his subject, this book has a rather different 'feel' about it and I am surmising he used his computer creatively to do it. Even before hypertext was invented it was implicit that computers would become communications devices extraordinaire and texts could be built on levels that gave a cursurary/synoptic/ect way of treating text, this Byz book is something else, I guess I'll have to study/deconstruct it abit.
There are problems with formats, they need some investigation.
Now that the community is somewhat closed I suppose we can get a handle on brats and talk more closely. It will be interesting to see how things evolve. I reackon I'll put a parallel blog up, or a bliki.

here's a shiny bit to be squirelled away:

The neural correlates of a cognitive map (at least in rodents') brains has been speculated to be the Place cell system in the Hippocampus or the recently found Grid cells in the enthorinal cortex.;

I've lately been contemplating the mind's mapping ability w/ref to recall. any comments?

It is seeming to me that underlying much of our thought processes is a system made for spatial mapping, derived from hand/foot use in primate local and broader territorial movement.

From the link in the above post I found something called topicscape ( clunky on my machine ) which is a "mind mapper", worth a look though perhaps not quite ready for primetime (?)
. And another called pimki which I haven't yet got going, it uses Ruby code. The first of these I found was Freemind, but topicscape looks vastly more developed.

The publisher has an interesting decription of the book up, along with a new picture of Thom on the cover:

quote:

• Shows progressives how to master the science and technology of persuasive communication and counter the right-wing message machine

• Offers exercises and examples throughout to help readers put the concepts they’re learning into practice

Millions of working Americans talk, act, and vote as if their economic interests match those of the megawealthy, the multinational corporations, and the politicians who do their bidding. How did this happen? According to Air America radio host Thom Hartmann, the apologists of the Right have become masters of the subtle and largely subconscious aspects of political communication. It’s not an escalation in Iraq, it’s a surge; it’s not the inheritance tax, it’s the death tax; it’s not drilling for oil, it’s exploring for energy.

Conservatives didn’t intuit the path to persuasive messaging—they learned these techniques. There is no reason why progressives can’t learn them too. In Cracking the Code, Hartmann shows you how. Drawing on his background as a psychotherapist and advertising executive as well as a national radio host, he breaks down the science and technology of effective communication so you can apply it to your own efforts to counter right-wing disinformation. It’s both an art and a science—as Hartmann explains, political persuasion is as much about biology as ideology, about knowing how the brain processes information and how that influences the way people perceive messages, make decisions, and form a worldview.

Throughout the book, Hartmann shows you precisely how to master this technology, providing examples dating back to the time of the Founding Fathers. As you read deeply in this book, you’ll see things you hadn’t realized were there—in everything from advertising to political rants—and discover abilities you didn’t know you had. Whether you’re a politician, an activist, a volunteer, or a concerned citizen, you’ll develop a strong sense for how to reach into that part of the collective human psyche where we truly do have the power to create a new world.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sue N,

Conservatives didn’t intuit the path to persuasive messaging—they learned these techniques. There is no reason why progressives can’t learn them too. In Cracking the Code, Hartmann shows you how.

you can apply it to your own efforts to counter right-wing disinformation. It’s both an art and a science—as Hartmann explains, political persuasion is as much about biology as ideology, about knowing how the brain processes information and how that influences the way people perceive messages, make decisions, and form a worldview.

I'm just a bit worried here--that the publisher seems to be suggesting that Thom is using Repbulican strategies instead of time-honored rhetorical strategies (go to figarospeech.com for great examples) I mean, Hell, I wouldn't want anyone to think for an instant that Thom is suggesting we go forth and do as THEY did. But hey, I'm a worrywart from way back...

Hi, rosebuddy55-

There are no heroes.

Marketing ideas/products, and living integrated lives, are two different things.

Awareness of which thing you're doing usually helps when you read self-help books or find yourself reading a marketer's message.

Kate

Hi Rosebuddy,

quote:

I'm just a bit worried here--that the publisher seems to be suggesting that Thom is using Repbulican strategies instead of time-honored rhetorical strategies (go to figarospeech.com for great examples) I mean, Hell, I wouldn't want anyone to think for an instant that Thom is suggesting we go forth and do as THEY did. But hey, I'm a worrywart from way back...

Well, the strategies aren't owned by the Republicans. They are tools that can be used for good or evil, like many others. To get a better idea, take a look at the transcripts. There are links in the first message of this discussion.

quote:

Well, the strategies aren't owned by the Republicans. They are tools that can be used for good or evil, like many others.

Sue, I think that is a very insightful statement. Often, people will avoid using certain tools, because they are said to 'belong' to the other side's play book. But a tool is just a tool.

(Of course, when we truly realize that in a very real sense, we are one, that on a quantum level, I AM you, these rhetorics will lose their meaning.)

Randal yes, it is easy to feel that tools are tainted, even if not possessed, when they have been used by others for purposes we disapprove of.

Somehow, I just can't imagine "we are one".

quote:

Somehow, I just can't imagine "we are one".

You don't need to, as far as I'm concerned. But if you're interested, might I suggest that 'imagening' oneness isn't going to result in clarity. These things do not take place in 'thinking'.

A first step would be to accept that.

A second might be to read what Krishnamurti has to say about meditation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti#Meditation

quote:

Meditation is one of the greatest arts in life-perhaps the greatest, and one cannot possibly learn it from anybody, that is the beauty of it. It has no technique and therefore no authority. When you learn about yourself, watch yourself, watch the way you walk, how you eat, what you say, the gossip, the hate, the jealousy-if you are aware of all that in yourself, without any choice, that is part of meditation.

Thanks, but that sort of thing makes no sense to me.

Why not?

I mean, leave it if you're not interested, that's no problem, really. But if you want to know, what's holding you back, exactly? Can you put your finger on it?

I'm asking, because there's something in your tone that strikes me as more than uninterested, or in disbelief; to me, and correct me if I'm wrong about this, you sound defensive. And that makes me wonder about what it is that you might feel threatened by.

I mean no disrespect, please believe that, I'm merely inquiring. We can leave it alone if you prefer.

Thom has some mystical things to say in Prophet's Way. When he speaks at Salem this fall, he might use some of them in his presentation.

Given his life path, I find it interesting to wonder at the mind shifts that are required for him, when he revisits some of his old interests for contemporary speaking engagements.

Randal, talk about meditation and other spiritual stuff somehow does not work for me. It's like somebody saying, "raise your third hand". I know what the individual words mean, but when somebody strings them together in a sentence, it makes no sense.

Sue,

What happens if all plants on earth simultaneously stop producing oxygen?

What happens when all breathing animals simultaneously stop producing CO2?

What doe plants and animals do for each other, besides breathing?


I you have managed to answer the above, you will have attained a rudimentary concept of what it means to say 'in a very real sense, we are one'.

I get it that we are interdependent. But that is not exactly the same as being one and the same.

No, it isn't, but the realization we're interdependent is a start.

I would like to ask you a question (in some ways it's somewhat of a trick question, but in many ways it's not): In your mind, what is it you think that seperates you from the world? What makes you an individual?

I have no idea. It's just a fact of life.

Yes, in a way it is, but that's not the end of it. It's actually possible to get closer to the heart of the matter. I'll try to say more about this, but only if you're interested, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you are that much.

It's not that I am not interested, it's just that the subject baffles me.

Me too

What do you know of cognitive sciences, in relation to the process of categorization / conceptualization?

Not a lot. I did a university psychology course back in 1980, but I don't remember much if any of it.

Ok, this is cog 101, so shouldn't be impossible to follow. I would like to add, that this is also pretty much the extent of my knowledge of the subject

Sit down on a chair, at a table. Put a cup in front of you. Look at it. Move the cup to the left. Look at it. Move it back. Look at it.

If you did actually do this, what happed? Did you sit down on a chair? At a table? With a cup in front of you?
No, you didn't, not in the sense that the above is an accurate description of reality; bare with me.

Humans make sense of the world around them by a process called categorization. When we look at a cup, we see 'cup', but we don't actually really see a cup, because in reality, no such thing exists. We are looking at an object with a number of characteristics that makes it possible for our mind to more or less successfully (depending on the level of typicality) categorize it as a cup. We are, in fact, not looking at a cup, but we are experiencing a mental construct, based on a life long process of categorization. Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
The next step is that we put this category in relation to other categories. I sit down on a chair, which belongs to the table, on which I have put a cup. This process is known as conceptualization, although some cognitive research points to the theory that concept and category are in fact synonymous.

Breaking it down: when we look at a cup, we are not actually looking at it (incidentally, the brain does not connect directly to the outside world; our experience of reality, therefore, is indirect) as much as we are 'looking' at a specimen of the cognitive category 'cup', with a numer of characteristics that attach a typicality factor to this particular specimen.

This is difficult shit, and I'm not sure if I explained it clear enough, but there it is. I have to say, that this type of theory is so remote from my every day life experience, that I'm having one heck of a difficult time wrapping my mind around it. Nobody should feel bad about not grasping this right away.

First read this, then I'll present the next step.

Ok, next step.

If we look at a 'cup', we look at a mental construct. If that's true, then we have to assume that the borders we see that seperate 'cup' from 'rest of world', MUST be mental constructs as well. The separation is arbitraty to Fundamental Reality. It is only meaningful to US, and that's because evolution has presented us with this mechanism to keep us from trying to walk on water, or straight through a wall, or to breathe in Arnold Schwarzenegger, or create World Peace, to name a few.

Digest that first. Try to understand what I just said as fully as you can muster.

Next, sit down on a chair, at a table. Put a cup in front of you. Look at it. Move the cup to the left. Look at it. Move it back. Look at it.


Then look at yourself.

What you see in the above, is that I don't need Zen, spirituality, or Guru Uhuburoo to demonstrate at least a glimpse of what the phrase 'all is one' means. No more then a glimpse, granted, but there it is.

What spirituality does, is to invite you to experience all of this. Not intellectually understand, but to actually SEE it.

Everything else is bullshit. The robes, the incense, the lingo, the rituals, the gurus, the Reverence of Saints, Pope Benito Tortellini and his Merry Grasshoppers-puffin'-on-da-hay-and-feelin'-A-okay, it's all nonsense. Worse then nonsense, actually, it's damaging to, and distractive from, what real, true blue, humble and noble truth searching is actually about.

OK, I did the above using, among other things, objects of categories cup, chair and table (OK, I cheated and used a desk - but I did find a cup even though I normally use mugs, mais je n'ai trouve aucune pipe), and my eyes, which I am told are part of my brain. And yes, I had to do some categorization to do it.

This reminds me of object orientation in computing - never did quite see the point of that, but I went along with it.

Isn't 'a' shorthand for 'specimen of the cognitive category' anyway?

quote:

my eyes, which I am told are part of my brain.

The nervus opticus is, the eyes are not. Unless the medical community has changed its mind on this issue

quote:

And yes, I had to do some categorization to do it.

Some?

quote:

Isn't 'a' shorthand for 'specimen of the cognitive category' anyway?

I'm afraid you lost me there

Sorry for the delay. No sooner had I posted my reply to the first step than I lost my connection. So instead of going to India to consult a guru, I've been on the phone consulting with an Indian working on the help desk.

I can see that we have a mental map of reality, which is not reality itself but simplified and categorized information we find useful about reality, but that does not stop things like cups and chairs existing, does it?

Picture me scratching my head.

quote:

but that does not stop things like cups and chairs existing, does it?

That pretty much depends on how you define 'exist'. Quantum theory predicts a rather remarkable reality, that very much depends on the observer watching.
At any rate, cups and chairs 'exist' in that their reality is part of Everything, but they do not exist as separate from All Else exept in our minds. Which was my point, kinda.

quote:

There was a young man who said, "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."

REPLY:

quote:

Dear Sir:
Your astonishment's odd:
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,
GOD.

Ronald Knox, I think, about Bishop Berkeley's philosophy.

quote:

I get it that we are interdependent. But that is not exactly the same as being one and the same.

"I get it" perhaps at the intellectual (conceptual) level.
To be or not to be one, that is not the question.
The -notions- of being or nonbeing are obstacles that you have to remove in order for ultimate reality to manifest. Not good and not bad, right or wrong Sue, just MHO.

quote:

and my eyes, which I am told are part of my brain. And yes, I had to do some categorization to do it.

I think lots of people hold the concept that body and mind are two. Perhaps holding this concept blocks the -experience-
of interconnectedness and limits 'being one' to the realm of conceptualization and contributes to preventing one from experiencing the moment.

Hold up your hand. Study it with your eyes. notice the color, shape, veins, fingers size of the knuckles. Turn it over and look at your palm. The lines the scars etc. This is mindfulness but not the same as felt experience.

Now close your eyes and hold up your hand. With your attention "feel" your thumb and forefinger. Your palm and wrist and back of your hand. This is a very different experience. A felt sense in the body, nonconceptual.

We are embodied consciousness.(In developing insight) our direct experience of felt sense is what is important not what we "think" about the feeling. I think this is awarness of the body in the body. Not having this awareness limits the development of wisdom.
I don't know how it works but this experience contributes to my feelings of interconnectness and 'oneness'.

We are one and the same but not the same.(a paradox huh?) We each contribute to the future.

quote:

When we look at a candle, we say that the candle is radiating light, heat, and fragrance. The light is one of a kind of energy it emits, the heat is another, and the fragrance is a third kind of energy it can offer us in the here and now. If we are truly alive, we can see that we aren't very different from the candle. We are offering our insight, our breath, our views right now. Every moment you have a view, whether about yourself, the world, or how to be happy, and you emit that view. You produce thought and that thought carries your views. You are continued by your views and your thinking. Those are the children you give birth to every moment. And that is your true continuation.......

When you are attached to these views, to the idea of right and wrong, then you may get caught. When your thinking is caught in these views, then you create misunderstanding, anger, violence. That is what you are becoming in this very moment......

You are not static. You are the life that you are becoming. Because "to be" means to be something: happy or unhappy, light or heavy, sky or earth. We have to learn to see being as becoming. The quality of your being depends on the object of your being.....

Thay, (known to many as)Thich Nhat Hanh

How do you "feel" with your attention? Do you mean visualise? Or feel with the other hand?

How do you emit a view?

quote:

Originally posted by Sue N:
How do you "feel" with your attention? Do you mean visualise? Or feel with the other hand?

How do you emit a view?

Interesting question Sue. The clearest way I can state it would be to become aware of the sensations in your body when the mind moves to the thumb. Or your attention moves to your wrist or the little finger. With eyes closed and all attention focused on the wrist can you not feel a sensation within your body from the rotation of your hand? Or just moving the mind to the middle finger, can you feel the sense of it in your body?

For me it is a way to use my body as a teacher. When I sit to meditate I may experience a pain in my knee. I acknowledge it with relaxed attention. I become aware that my mind reacts habitually and wants me to move, resist overcome or adjust to avoid the pain. If I do adjust or move, moments later when another area of pain arises I will have to move again. Through years of practice I have become aware that it is only body pain and it arises and ceases. The practice is to soften the awareness whether pain or pleasure and become aware of a clinging mind that collapses into reactivity.

"How do you emit a view?"
As the board moderator I'm quite sure you have noticed some of the comments or remarks I have made directed towards some participants that I perceive as trolls. This could be motivated by either a lack of insight on my part in seeing the others true interest in learning and expanding their and others perspective or an incorrect perception on my part in viewing their comments as an intentional disruption of the forum. Either way it emits a view of anger or misunderstanding.

Also, when I first arrived here at Thoms Place I enjoyed some great exchanges with people of like minds that shared an interest in contributing harmony peace and moving the human condition towards a place of abundance for all. That was a different time when Thom was focused more on the environment, ADHD and spiritual development. Now he is in the attack mode and as a result he is being attacked more... and they show up here. Everything changes. The only thing that doesn't change is change

Baboo,

quote:

Now he is in the attack mode and as a result he is being attacked more... and they show up here. Everything changes. The only thing that doesn't change is change

I can fell the places where there is pain or pressure, etc, but not the rest.

So emitting a view is the actions that you carry out because of your view?

How can harmony and peace survive and thrive in a world of discord?

quote:

I can fell[feel] the places where there is pain or pressure, etc, but not the rest.

Good Sue. Stop there. That's all there is. Don't add anything, don't expect anything. But when you open your eyes note the difference between that awareness/experience and conceptual knowledge of adding pleasure or pain, avoidance or attraction.

quote:

How can harmony and peace survive and thrive in a world of discord?

There will always be 'discord' in the world. It is not about creating a perfect world or getting to heaven or arriving in nirvana. We are there, it is in us. We like looking at art because it draws us into the vortex that the artist has created and captured. Art reminds us and allows us to touch and experience what is in us. It is about what one adds to this world here and now. Ask H.H.Dali Lama about that or Thay. Or anyone who has lived through destruction, abuse, war and has survived to get to the otherside. It's as I've stated before.. religion is for those afraid of hell, spiritual practice is for those that have been there.

quote:

Originally posted by Sue N:
Sorry for the delay. No sooner had I posted my reply to the first step than I lost my connection. So instead of going to India to consult a guru, I've been on the phone consulting with an Indian working on the help desk.

I can see that we have a mental map of reality, which is not reality itself but simplified and categorized information we find useful about reality, but that does not stop things like cups and chairs existing, does it?

Picture me scratching my head.

And what is your "view" of the chair? A chair is just a chair. Your view of it is what? Functional? Ugly? Beautiful? Old? New? Wrong or right color? The chair is just a chair. It's your views that give it a reality other than that.

If you don't like your views about the chair, either get a different chair, or give up your views about it. Create a view that works and is satisfying until you get a new chair. Chances are, with a satisfying view, you'll keep the one you have unless it gives you splinters.

Our current social structure gives me splinters.

There is the physicality of things. Things are just as they actually are. It's our views about it that create "reality". We perceive through our internal realities...views...rather than perceiving just what is actually so. This is the root of all suffering.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

I think your right on again polycarp. Just to add my two cents worth if I may.

A rose is a rose.
A rose is not a rose,
therefore a rose is a rose.

All three statements are true.
The first represents a conceptual view.

When we look deeply into the rose we see it is the sunshine and it's energy. The earth, and all the time and organisms that contributed to the earth and soil and nutrients. The seed and eons of evolution that produced the species. The gardener, the water and air. We cannot find the beginning of the rose. It's not like the soil and sun have turned into the rose, it's the manifestation of conditions comming togather to produce this phenomena at this moment. There is a rose but there is not a rose. It's a continuous never ending process.

Now that we recognise the above- we can safely say it is a rose without being trapped by the "concept". Then when the rose "dies" we suffer less because we see the "never ending story"

quote:

Art reminds us and allows us to touch and experience what is in us.

Hmmm, I don't understand art, either.

quote:

A rose is a rose.
A rose is not a rose,

Make up your mind!

quote:

therefore a rose is a rose.

That doesn't fit in with what I learnt in logic.

quote:

That doesn't fit in with what I learnt in logic.

In the words of Yoda: "That is, why you fail."

Fail I do.

quote:

Make up your mind!

As soon as I find my mind, I will make it up!

quote:

Originally posted by bamboo:
As soon as I find my mind, I will make it up!

Hi, fellow programmers! I think that the sub-program of this strain, is that the human mind is internally 'mapped'. I don't exactly get this particular MRI science. But I'm sure our messages get successfully from point to point in the head...however is the face the key to the map?
By extension, we are all computer programs somehow with lots of data. But so what? The only problem about existence, as I see it, would be that fact , on Jupiter, or beyond a big 'quantum leap', far away!" Trust me, things is cool here!

quote:

By extension, we are all computer programs somehow with lots of data.

I diasagree. To say that we 'have' this comupter hardwired into our system does not mean we ARE a computer. We are not our thoughts. We are not our hopes. We aren't even our emotions.

quote:

We are not our thoughts. We are not our hopes. We aren't even our emotions.

Then what the heck are we? Lumps of meat?

Thanks, Graves. I was crazy. It seems that SueN wants there to be an American Program so baaaaad, that she'll say anything, nicely. Perhaps the answer to the stuff of life, is that we are defined in terms of what we are not?? Animals?? Gods?? Angels?? Neighbors???
The short answer is shut-up, and follow the rules.(in my hood!)

quote:

Originally posted by Sue N:

quote:

We are not our thoughts. We are not our hopes. We aren't even our emotions.

Then what the heck are we? Lumps of meat?

**Hello Sue - I think I'll make another attempt at an explanation.

Everytime I think about attempting to make an explanation regarding this particular issue of 'who we are or aren't', it always brings up a funny experience I had in a small dialogue several years ago. A good friend of mine made a statement similar to some of the comments made in this thread. The lady who had asked a question prior to my friends response 'seemed' to have a puzzled look on her face. So I decided to try and offer a slightly different explanation to 'help out'.

After I finished she said: "When he explained it it seemed clear, but now I'm all confused."

I thought it was pretty funny, and still get a laugh out of it everytime it comes up.

Anyway, I think poly explained this issue well above. So I'll use a couple of poly's comments in my attempted explanation:

"There is the physicality of things. Things are just as they actually are."

In other words: Something is 'actually' manifesting...as best as our human senses can determine, and it's just as it actually is. One problem the human organism has is that our senses can only give us 'limited snapshots' of this 'actuality'. It's like standing on one side of the street and observing a car accident. Our perspective is basically limited to the view from where we are standing. Plus we don't know what's happening internally in any of the drivers minds or bodies. There's essnetially an endless amount of pieces of the picture that our senses don't pickup. So what we end up with 'in our heads' is much like a 'photograph', or perhaps a 'scented photograph', since we have smell & other senses besides the visual snapshot. But just like a photograph of our family isn't 'our actual family', the images in our head of the accident, aren't the 'actual accident'. The images in our heads are just 'very limited SNAPSHOTS of PAST events'. Even the images we see 'right now', are of the 'past' moment.

These snapshots become our "reality", as poly notes here: "It's our views about it (*the manifest actuality) that create 'reality'."

But this is an 'internal' 'conceptual' "reality," as poly notes in the next sentence: "We perceive through our internal realities...views...rather than perceiving just what is actually so."

And this habit we humans develop of 'thinking' the 'internal conceptual view' is one and the same as "the manifest actuality", leads to what poly then notes: "This is the root of all suffering."

And it's for this latter reason that it's important to human well-being & survival to clear up this confusion in human thought.

Now to your question: What the heck are we?

The short answer is: "What actually is." Or you might say that as 'human organisms' we are 'one aspect of a diverse Whole'.

The 'real point' of suggesting that "we aren't our thoughts," is to 'point out' that thoughts are just 'concepts', not the 'actual manifestation' that these thoughts usually 'point to'.

But one of the common problems I see occuring quite frequently in the thinking of a lot of people who read or get involved in Eastern Religion is that they make another 'false division' between 'the ground of being' and 'what is manifesting'. They 'imagine' (think/believe) that everything that is 'manifest' is 'not real'. But it's about as real as real gets from a human perspective, and the manifest is also 'the Whole' (THAT/The ONE)On the one hand they have the belief that "It's all One", and then they 'separate' the manifest from the Whole - conceptually. But the manifest is 'what the Whole is actually doing'.

The real point of all this 'talk and words' is to 'point out' that words, beliefs, opinions, self-images, worldviews, etc., are all 'thought' (abstract images/concepts). There's the image in the head OF an apple. And then there's the actual manifestation that we've assigned the name "apple" to. The image is just a concept, and the apple we can actually eat and it will provide nutrition for the human organism.

What commonly happens is that humans confuse the 'cultural conditioning' they receive growing up, ("I'm Catholic - you're not", I'm Muslim - you're not", etc., etc.) for "the actuality". But a more 'accurate' view of what is 'actually going on' is that all of us humans are part of one human family. And that human family is also part of a larger Whole. The idea of being Catholic or American or any other imposed label, is 'thought', an idea. Often becoming a 'divisive' idea.

After generations of 'thinking' in this manner, the resulting traditions begin to 'give the appearance' of being the truth, or more than just an idea. But the names are concocted by thought. And once we confuse these ideas/beliefs for the 'One Truth', then we fight and kill one another over these 'beliefs' because we confuse these 'internal realities' for 'the actuality'. But the actuality is just whatever it is. Sometimes it comes in the form of a lump of meat, and sometimes in the form of a human organism, cat, dog, etc. The ideas that humans apply to this actuality are all just 'interpretations'. It's good, it's bad, I like it, I don't like it, it's a Mexican, it's Jewish, it's French, etc. And then we fight and kill over 'the labels'. We don't fight and kill over the actuality. We fight and kill over the 'ideas' we have that we confuse for the actuality.

The point is that 'the word is not the thing', 'what we say something is - isn't what it is'. 'the map is not the territory', and "The Tao that can be told (ideas, concepts) is not the eternal Tao (the Whole)."

Sometimes people dismiss the manifest reality as an illusion, but what is manifesting is also 'The Whole'. It's an 'incoherence in thought' to say the manifest is an illusion. The 'illusion' is confusing the 'internal views' for the actuality.

The point is to stop confusing 'beliefs' for something they aren't. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say it like this: The point is to see that our beliefs are just limited abstractions, and that the actuality can't be captured in a human conceptual abstraction. And clearing up this confusion also includes 'seeing' that the 'self-image' is a nothing more than basically a collection of abstract images of past experiences along with a bunch of cultural conditioning.

The image is not an 'entity', it's 'thought'. Yet we fight and kill and do all sorts of foolish things because we think this image is who we are. But it's like the image of an apple. It's not the actual apple.

There...now I've probably made it a big confusing mess.

But anyway, the point is really to get at the root of all this suffering and destruction we humans are causing. The self-image still exists when we clear up this confusion, but it's put in it's proper place of simply being 'an image'. Then it's clear that fighting and killing over 'an abstract image' is absurd.

It's about 'clarity and understanding', or clearing up some of the major confusion in thought.

Regards - Howard

quote:

Perhaps the answer to the stuff of life, is that we are defined in terms of what we are not?? Animals?? Gods?? Angels?? Neighbors???

No metaphors: I am you. You are me.

When we are responsible for our own views, and know without doubt that they have nothing to do with actualities, we stop blaming others for coming into conflict with them. Instead, we try to look beyond the views and try to see what is actually so.

Views are just views. Beliefs are just beliefs. An internal reality. They have no more substance to them than the most vacant areas of space.

Truely, we kill, argue and fight over NO-THING. You may take that litrally.

Our social structures on based upon views that bring about innumerable suffering. This needn't be. All we have to do is look beyond "views" and see what is actually so about things. Then respond accordlingly rather than in a way that supports the views and maintains the nonsense. We tend to maintain things based upon what "isn't" rather than seeing what is actually so and reacting accordingly.

We invent innumerable theories, reasons, justifications and ideologies to support falsity....views/beliefs. Then react with shock and disdain when what's actually so comes to the fore and things blow up in our face.

Welcome to Iraq, or?, or?, or?.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

Suface (to Enterprise): Captain Randal Graves, permission to beam up, to your Quantum Reality, Sir!?? Over.
Star Ship Enterprise: Come in, please. Your cracking up!! Over. Over.
Surface: Ahh, it's gotta be quick, Captain. We're accelerating too fast! Let's do this, OKay, Captain??(ssssssssssssssss)

Thanks Howard,

I'm in a permanent state of confusion, so you can't claim responsibility for this one!

quote:

I am you. You are me.

Reminds me of a song, Randal.

quote:

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together

But I am not the walrus!

Sue,

It reminds me of a song as well, but a different one.

quote:

And I thought of all the bad luck,
And the struggles we went through
And how I lost me and you lost you
What are these voices outside love's open door
Make us throw off our contentment
And beg for something more?

Don Henley - Heart of the Matter

quote:

We'd gather around
All in a room
Fasten our belts
Engage in dialogue
We'd all slow down
Rest without guilt
Not lie without fear
Disagree sans jugement

We would stay and respond and expand and include and allow and forgive and
Enjoy and evolve and discern and inquire and accept and admit and divulge and
Open and reach out and speak up

This is utopia
This is my utopia
This is my ideal my end in sight
Utopia
This is my utopia
This is my nirvana
My ultimate

We'd open our arms
We'd all jump in
We'd all coast down
Into safety nets

We would share and listen and support and welcome be propelled by passion not
Invest in outcomes we would breathe and be charmed and amused by difference
Be gentle and make room for every emotion

This is utopia
This is my utopia
This is my ideal my end in sight
Utopia
This is my utopia
This is my nirvana
My ultimate

We'd provide forums
We'd all speak out
We'd all be heard
We'd all feel seen

We'd rise post-obstacle more defined more grateful we would heal be humbled
And be unstoppable we'd hold close and let go and know when to do which we'd
Release and disarm and stand up and feel safe

This is utopia
This is my utopia
This is my ideal my end in sight
Utopia
This is my utopia
This is my nirvana
My ultimate

(Alanis)

quote:

Don Henley - Heart of the Matter

Nice song, Randal. I listened to it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSHst7LF6yw . I hadn't heard it before. It reminded me of a very different song - I will survive sung by Gloria Gaynor.

quote:

First I was afraid
I was petrified
Kept thinking I could never live
without you by my side
But I spent so many nights
thinking how you did me wrong
I grew strong
I learned how to carry on
and so you're back
from outer space
I just walked in to find you here
with that sad look upon your face
I should have changed my stupid lock
I should have made you leave your key
If I had known for just one second
you'd be back to bother me

Go on now go walk out the door
just turn around now
'cause you're not welcome anymore
weren't you the one who tried to hurt me with goodbye
you think I'd crumble
you think I'd lay down and die
Oh no, not I
I will survive
as long as i know how to love
I know I will stay alive
I've got all my life to live
I've got all my love to give
and I'll survive
I will survive

quote:

Thanks, Graves. I was crazy. It seems that SueN wants there to be an American Program so baaaaad, that she'll say anything, nicely. Perhaps the answer to the stuff of life, is that we are defined in terms of what we are not?? Animals?? Gods?? Angels?? Neighbors???
The short answer is shut-up, and follow the rules.(in my hood!)

...and do you follow those rules?

Everyone's hood poses its own rules. The staff here, I know now, does the best job they can cause we are not 'of the world' but looking out for it; and I, as a man, am after all only a grown up child. The police in my hood sell drugs, as far as I'm concerned, and scare families with constant, overly loud sirens, as loud military jets zoom by every twenty minutes or so. There's aggregeous human rights violations here in my building, and yet the 'managment company' is some corporate entity, with no contact person, registered somewhere out of New York. What are the rules here? I play it by my middle-class upbringing and my faith in God. Who enforces these rules? Well it's those drug sellers racing up and down Broadway-the newest super-highway, who have taken one out of every four black men from their families, and incarcerated them along with Son of Sam crazies. The rules are ours now; and folks are talking about getting themselves out of debt; and what to do about getting AIDS, before you know it. (After signing the petition for the Jena 6 with a hundred thousand others) I have turned my attention as to what to do about a school girl in Brooklyn who was exemplararily expelled for inscribing her name upon her desk! Well, after all it is and will always be the Ten Commandments, and the radio... (so do the best you can, as well!)Tx!!

Hi Goodbusiness-

You sound like an awakened, wise person. It's not easy living in an occupied area. In my experience (not the same) but similar situations, I learned very fast, how to stay invisable.

I also signed the petition for the jena 6. And I emailed to the Govenror that Ca. was aware of what was going on there and our media would continue to follow the story. Her office replied by telling me it was an issue being handled by the Judicial branch not executive branch. (political cop out in my opinion).

In 83 there was a group bringing crack into LA. It was santioned by the CIA to help finance the contra gig in central america. I knew people who knew people that were getting 50k to do drive-bys of gang members that were rivals of the CIA santioned gangs selling the crack. Easy money, big risk and bad bad dudes. Cops/feds selling drugs....doubt if it'll never change.

It's never been easy for me to follow rules, I awaysQUESTION AUTHORITY
I've come to believe that in any action, timming, is just as important as the action. I wish you well brother-

quote:

Originally posted by Sue N:

quote:

Art reminds us and allows us to touch and experience what is in us.

Hmmm, I don't understand art, either.

*Of course* you don't understand art. No one else does either. Art is to be perceived, not understood.

Certainly there are intellectual subtleties to be appreciated in good art, but the value of art lies in perceptual immediacy.

"But what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good - need we ask anyone to tell us this?"

quote:

Originally posted by Sue N:

quote:

A rose is a rose.
A rose is not a rose,

Make up your mind!

quote:

therefore a rose is a rose.

That doesn't fit in with what I learnt in logic.

Presumably your training in logic included an exposition of Godel's Theorem.
For those who are unaware, Godel's Theorem (Godel should have an umlaut over the "o" but I don't know how to make ASCII do that) states in essence that any self-consistent logical system (call it L) must contain at least one statement (call it "S") such that S is not provable by L. The canonical example is: S = "S is not provable by L." This is explained in depth, along with interesting extensions to the concept provided by later art, in Douglas R. Hofstadter's excellent book "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" which BTW is one of my favorite book titles along with "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" by You Know Who.
Anyway, Godel's theorem, also called the "Incompleteness Theorem", proves that any consistent logical system must necessarily be incomplete. Science is a logical system and relies for its usefulness on its consistency: how useful is science when experiments are not repeatable?
If science attempts to be complete, it then must necessarily destroy its own consistency and thus its usefulness as a map of the world. Therefore science need not be complete to be useful.
What I'm getting at is this: Science will never produce a proof or disproof of the existence of "God" or the Creator of the Universe or whatever noun you like to use for the numinous. An attempt to do so using the methods of science must inevitably fail since science depends on rigorous, narrow definitions- any one of which will necessarily fail as a test for "God", which is a concept too large for any conceptual system, let alone a deliberately reductionist one.
It is not necessary nor even desirable for science to produce such a proof. It is possible for any human being to attain a direct experience of the numinous, and to break out of the "logic mode" that many of our minds (and particularly those of intelligent people like Sue) are locked into most of the day, having to deal with our symbol-based society.
A particular trick I like to use is this: I pick a word that I use often, a simple word- there is a cat yowing at me right now so I suggest the word "cat". I *just keep repeating the word.* I do it inside my head so as not to inspire people around me to murder
With the first hundred or so repetitions you will think about cats- cats you have known, pictures of cats, cat food, etc. Eventually your conscious mind will become tired and / or will run out of cross-references. If you do it long enough the work will effectively LOSE ITS MEANING to you. (Well, at least it's always worked for me.) Once this happens (and it's pretty scary the first few times) you have won through to a nonverbal or nonsymbolic way of thinking and can perceive the world around you without the imposition of symbolic categories... for a while.
Another method I enjoy is riding my bicycle REALLY FAST on difficult terrain. At a certain point one's ego simply disappears (probably because you are too busy to maintain it) and you become one with the bicycle, one with the surrounding world. The feeling cannot be described so I won't try.
Or I guess you could drop some acid

Most of the logic I've donw is computer logic - you are way beyond me there.

Numinous is a new word on me - probably because I haven't experienced it.

I'm not sure I want anything to lose its meaning

quote:

riding my bicycle REALLY FAST on difficult terrain. At a certain point one's ego simply disappears (probably because you are too busy to maintain it) and you become one with the bicycle, one with the surrounding world. The feeling cannot be described

Hi, gingerbreadman,

not bad, really, in terms of a description of the indescribable.

Losing yourself, to find yourself, is a fascinating possibility.