August 3, 2012: Post 570 (2012 Day 216)
August 3, 2012
Daily Comment
I'm looking at the news imperatives: What, when, where, who, why?
When we report an observation of any kind, these are the questions we try and answer. The value of the answer is often determined by how well the five 'W's are answered.
Basically, our shared reality rests on our agreement, minute-to-minute, that a shared experience can be described this way.
But all these answers are based on sensual input. And, our senses are limited, constrained, subjectively filtered, and ultimately unreliable, not really up to the task. They are also dependent on maintaining the illusion of duality.
But then, our perceived reality is also dependent on the illusion of duality. So is our communication. And so is our common experience of life.
That's where we separate (as if we could) ourselves from experiencing the kind of truth that makes answering the five 'W's moot.
When we are experiencing a connection with the infinite, unlike Moses and the burning bush, we do not have questions at the level of news reporting. We also do not have the fear that accompanies pondering the infinite from the vantage point of our subjective physical experience.
Each of these questions is rendered unnecessary when we look past the illusions and constructs of our perceptions - the 'answers' are all their when we use a bandwidth wider than the small amount of our physical sensual input.
However, I know I, and I think most of us, don't spend much time at that level, and there are times when the answers to one or more of these questions seem critical. Then, it is important to try and stick to the 'facts' or make any editorializing quite clear, lest you mistake subjective opinion for objective data.
This is where lying comes in. I'm not talking about deliberately giving false information to someone, I'm talking about the lies we tell ourselves that we convince ourselves are truths; this is the source of our beliefs, also of all our interpersonal differences. It is the source of all our pain.
Which brings us back to the value of reportage. Whenever we go beyond the first-person narrative (which describes only our subjective impressions), we run the risk of unwittingly conveying misinformation.
When we report an observation of any kind, these are the questions we try and answer. The value of the answer is often determined by how well the five 'W's are answered.
Basically, our shared reality rests on our agreement, minute-to-minute, that a shared experience can be described this way.
But all these answers are based on sensual input. And, our senses are limited, constrained, subjectively filtered, and ultimately unreliable, not really up to the task. They are also dependent on maintaining the illusion of duality.
But then, our perceived reality is also dependent on the illusion of duality. So is our communication. And so is our common experience of life.
That's where we separate (as if we could) ourselves from experiencing the kind of truth that makes answering the five 'W's moot.
When we are experiencing a connection with the infinite, unlike Moses and the burning bush, we do not have questions at the level of news reporting. We also do not have the fear that accompanies pondering the infinite from the vantage point of our subjective physical experience.
Each of these questions is rendered unnecessary when we look past the illusions and constructs of our perceptions - the 'answers' are all their when we use a bandwidth wider than the small amount of our physical sensual input.
However, I know I, and I think most of us, don't spend much time at that level, and there are times when the answers to one or more of these questions seem critical. Then, it is important to try and stick to the 'facts' or make any editorializing quite clear, lest you mistake subjective opinion for objective data.
This is where lying comes in. I'm not talking about deliberately giving false information to someone, I'm talking about the lies we tell ourselves that we convince ourselves are truths; this is the source of our beliefs, also of all our interpersonal differences. It is the source of all our pain.
Which brings us back to the value of reportage. Whenever we go beyond the first-person narrative (which describes only our subjective impressions), we run the risk of unwittingly conveying misinformation.
Please leave a comment if you visit my blog. Thank you!
Food and Diet Section
Today's Weight: 202.4 lbs
Yesterday's Weight: 203.4 lbs
Day Net Loss/Gain: - 1.0 lbs
 |
| Year 2012 daily weight from December 31, 2011. |
Two trigger foods done with: Cheese and pepperoni. Glad yesterday's get-it-out-of-the-house cheese binge after dinner is over with, without a weight penalty.
Breakfast
Chia gel.
Chia gel.
Lunch
A cocoa-kale protein shake (almond milk, whey protein (24g protein), kale, cocoa, vanilla, cinnamon, stevia-inulin blend).
Dinner
Carrots and home-made mayonnaise. Cole slaw. Organic, grass-fed Roast Beef.
Liquid Intake
Coffee: 30 oz, Water: 88+ oz
Please leave a comment if you visit my blog. Thank you!
posted by Reverend Ken at
8:01 PM
5 Comments:
I don't think I could have said it better than you except I probably would have used psychological words rather than those you used. We never can have a consensual experience (except, as you say, some universal one- I will take that on faith) because we each take in information differently and each interpret information in an idiosyncratic manner. We usually can get some general concensus- blue is blue, etc. and there is research that shows that we are pretty good at this- we can document just perceivable difference between things in a way that others can agree on. These are small things with little meaning. When we look at big things- I doubt that we see the world in the same ways. Maybe similar- but not the same.
Joanie and Kenny
Who?, What?, When?, Where?, Why?, How? ( 6 words, not the 5 W’s of journalism ). This is what I intended to discuss when I started typing this submission, but there is something on my mind and I will discuss these thoughts instead: The purpose of these discussions ( at least my hope ) is to share our individual viewpoints on any number of matters concerning being and living Human, and through the sharing of our relative truths, arrive at a common truth to live by. The truth (reality) I seek can’t be captured in words. Theory, metaphor, and allegory can only describe or allude to the truth, and then, only when they have passed the verification test of observation in Real Life (here, now). Thus I engage theses discussions through the following process:
A) --- Focus -Observe - Contemplate - Relate (test the resulting theory by real-life observation) - Report
B )--- Focus - Read - Contemplate - Relate (test the theory by real-life observation) - Respond (if necessary)
What do you think?
P.S. - I try to focus by using stillness meditation or moving meditation, whichever seems most appropriate. All my love
OK - how? is, when you come right down to it, unanswerable. How (ha-ha) do you know how far back to go. It's like the gag in 'Airplane':
"How did this happen?"
"Well, first there was a Big Bang, and then came dinosaurs..."
You spend a lot more quiet time than I do, and have a lot more energy during that time, it seems, than I do.
I spend more time on the surface of things, as well, although I am satisfied with the times I 'go deep', so to speak.
Mostly I think there's a contrast in extroversion and introversion in our personalities, I am less focused on both internals and the big picture than you. So, I place a very high value on the sharing we do. I value your perspective and understanding.
You, too, Joan.
Love you both.
You spend a lot more quiet time than I do, and have a lot more energy during that time, it seems, than I do - what is the significance of this statement?
I spend more time on the surface of things, as well, although I am satisfied with the times I 'go deep', so to speak.- "spent time" is irrelevant. you don't "go" anywhere. The only place you can be is here,now.
Mostly I think there's a contrast in extroversion and introversion in our personalities,- please don't cop out on me. I relate to Ken Kellerman, the human being . I see right through your personality.
I am less focused on both internals and the big picture than you - I have to disagree with this as well.When you've been writing your thoughts and opinions weren't you trying to ascertain some sort of understanding and sense of your/our existence and life? or was it just mindless chatter to show off how interesting you could be? - said with love - andy
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home