M: The concern here, is that such a simple comment about a simple fact, “set you off,” in your words.
R: I was thinking along the line of the chemical processes of the body and what it is that we actually “know” about them. I guess my question to you is, when are you telling me things from your science-knowledge base and when are you telling me from your second/third attention knowledge base.
M: There is a very important point that seems to be missed: the information starts in the 2nd/3rd attention and receives various levels of explanation in the “1st attention” of science.
R: Yes, I’ve missed this. And, remember, there is no experiential meaning in that statement for me. When you say that information started in the 2nd/3rd attention (again, remember, I have no experience with that).
M: Experience, then, has been replaced with assumptions as preconceptions, and those, in term, form some basis within you.
R: (well… very little) receives various levels of explanation in the 1st attention of science, I’m wondering, What are the “various levels of explanation”? Isn’t it those levels that I’m questioning the validity of? I really have only concept of what the 3rd attention is. And the second attention, from my experience, looks like the first only done in; what I’ve come to call, dreaming, with the exception that other things are possible to do there as well; flying, etc.
M: The questioning of the validity is a theme for your life, by observation. It’s wondered if the questioning itself forms a primary boundary to experience.
M: Somehow, in these dialogues you received the idea that they either based in science initially, and then extended to the other attentions, or perhaps somewhere in conflict.
R: No, remember, these are mostly concepts for me… the 2nd and 3rd attention. But the first part of that, “based in science initially” … yes, that is the only way I know. Said another way, “based in science and experience, and that’s as far as it goes. Remember, an extention of that into the 2nd/3rd attention has no experiencal meaning to me.
M: Nothing can be said that will cause preconceptions and assumptions that form validity in place of experience, to in fact cause validity. The boundaries, the questioning, though appropriate can never be satisfied absent experience.
M: The concepts, and many of the details, were and are based in information turned into experience, that came from the 2nd attention and the 3rd attention. About in the period circa 1980, myself and a colleague published a series of papers providing research on how a specific dynamic of electrostatic fields and boundary collapses function. We took measurements, and simply couldn’t explain the results in any normal technical model. One morning, in meditation, there was a flash of light that surrounded me, and the answer was there instantly. I wrote the technical paper: the information was so “off the edge” of common wisdom that it required other researchers about 5 to 7 years before there was acceptance. The information came from the 2nd attention, perhaps the 3rd, as a instantaneous vision. The result was “credit” for about “five” discoveries, but it took the others those years to agree.
M: How have I failed to communicate to you that there is no difference in these matters for me?
R: What you explain above is wonderful, but it is more tales of power for me. I wouldn’t say that you have failed to communicate, more likely you have failed to empathize with someone who has not been having these experiences from age 5, as you have, and “knows” nothing of them. You share them from your reality but I have no such reality base and therefore they are only encouragement for me to follow the way of knowledge that I may too, someday find these possibilities within myself.
M: It’s wondered if this is truly a goal, to gather these possibilities and have experience yielded from them. If the experience forms a “reality” for you, it can always be negated by questioning, which then takes the form of self-denial or perhaps sufficient self-doubt that eventually relegates the experience, no matter how perceived as valid at the time, to be worn away into negation.
R: It seems to me that you are very quick to accept “science” as absolutely above ANOTHER’s perception. And I don’t care about defending Rush in the below above, over “science” but it looks to me that you accept the science journal report as, well, gospel. I’m just wondering why. What is there about physical science that you find absolute?
M: Your conclusion is so inaccurate that no comment other than this can possibly be offered. Even if my concepts were limited to being only one involved in technology, I find myself stunned sufficiently not to have a response. Clearly there is are both a failure to communicate with you and this is paralleled by a lack of understanding within you even about how “science” works. It’s amazing, fascinating, and sad.
R: Take out “physical science,” then, and put in behavioral science. “amazing, fascinating, and sad,” This is a bit extreme, isn’t it? Also sounds condescending. (I know you would not want me to hold back being honest with you).
M: No. Not hold back. My dialogue with you simply cannot overcome your predispositions and preconceptions that, by observation, hold you. From these, it is probably, the boundary and impedance is derived to limit progress. There is little evidence to this point that there is “valid” effectiveness for you within our dialogue, because the above responses have echoed before. The condescending conclusion is, of course, the reality that you form for and within yourself. An alternate conclusion could easily be “disengagement” on some level because there is evidence of ineffectivity, which equates to inefficiency of energy, which is a concern of impeccability.
R: I’m thinking of my introduction in the CC compilation where I’m imagining someone on earth 18 million years from now. I just can’t “get” that in 18 million years, people will be looking back at, say, all of the specific “science” you point to below, and be saying, “damn, they were really smart back then, they had all that stuff figured out.” Really, I find that absurd as a premise and so when “science” starts to explain behavior to me, I lose interest really fast as I perceive behavior as totally out of their (the scientist) league. Again, not to defend Rush, but his rant could be right on and I would say without even reading the “science” that I’ll bet you they didn’t “prove” anything, they only “concluded.” So I’m asking you, do you think those conclusions will be the same in 18 million years?
M: I surrender. Give up. No comment.
R: More condescension? … the mole is gone … with no knife!
M: Your reality and conclusions are as they must be for you. There are alternate explanations that could be discerned, but to this point the reflex assertions have taken hold, by observation.
R: And lastly (from your above) “The concern here, is that such a simple comment about a simple fact, “set you off,” in your words.” Given what I just said and your use of the word “fact” I’m wondering if this isn’t something which sets YOU off. I’m suggesting that your use of the word “fact” is indicating that you are operating out of a human form dependency in that area. Could it be?
M: -blank- Nothing can be said that could be worth while. This cannot become a struggle.
R: More condescension? “Nothing can be said that could be worth while.” Excuse me for saying so, but this sounds like a spoiled child talking. I’m right here for you Michael.
M: Alternatively, rather than condescension, it could be considered “decoupling” in the concern for effectiveness. The long held boundaries of a person are usually not swayed by words, or the energy/effort required to form the words of the dialogue. If the boundaries are set in place in ways where reasonable effectiveness and efficiency of the discussion are not viable, then the conclusions that you report are not necessarily valid. They would also mean that you don’t accept your prior interactions and conclusions that you have reported have evolved for you by basis of this interaction, and that you are doing a reverse-course, retreat, into an earlier phase of the dialogue.
R: That reminds me. I was thinking about the attributes level you have described and it occurred to me that perhaps it was the case that within those levels are, say, a multitude of mini attributes, and that the set of mini attributes could be distributed randomly throughout the five levels so that a person who had attained level 3 (thinking of what I recall as your stated perception of yourself) and someone who maybe was at .02 of level one (thinking of my guessed own level) … well, it occurred to me that the few I do have at my level .02 of level one, may contain some that a person at level 4 did not yet have. I don’t know how else to explain what is happening here. And it really looks like condescension to me up there which would seem to be giving evidence to my suspicion of how these levels may work.