2026-01-07
- Transhumanist
- Ethno-Pagan
- Universal Sacred
so is this missing polycentrism?
2025-12-30
personality (where you grew up) (might look like individuality) (leader/ follower) (order to receive or give) (monocentric) individuality (soul) (if you need leader you are not an indivitual) freedom choice (very lonely, you loose everything) subjectivity (non-dual, no more self but you still function because personality and individuality are not gone)
a phase shift
true liberals are true individuals
problem: indivduals have to regress to personality to cooperate
in dialog there si no "non sequitur fallacy"
2025-11-25
polycentrism is about collapses of false-dilemma
baryon katie: don't fight reality
Notes on dialog meetings with person.seth-dellinger person.bob-yu
2025-08-29
with instead of within (paradime) experience of absense is not the same as the experienceof the absense of an experience made with instead of made of
lifeworks from person.ari-nielson
I regret to inform you that personal growth rarely comes from acquiring new knowledge and always from periods of intense humility (i.e. your ego finally relenting)
tension + conflict or only tension
2025-08-08
the map is instructable the map reveals what can be ignored every map as a gödel-point
gödel-point is where intrinsic motivation lingers
it's rational to think that is limits to rationality
koans are about challenging rational thinking
there is something in the body that is "hard" when going into gödel-points so it comes from the body (bonni)
dialog is not codifyable
infinity
shared understanding vs shared language its inaudable
justification-systems
the power if god, what now? but have we? meaning gets lost!
the beatufily world our hearts know is possible
tension-fields are not needed to me managed or at least it does not feel like they need to be managed
there is an experience to dialog "i know what you mean"
the-third-doorthe-third-doorthe-third-doorthe-third-door]]
2025-07-03
dialogical mind taps into evolutionary process, rather staying in justification-systems. if the dialogical mind pursuits it's itw own transformation into a new mind. it never relies on past conceptions and so if always with felt-sense creating new landscapes.
leadership ichak adizes corporate lifecycle
competing loyalities
deep-okaynessdeep-okaynessness]] its ok for me to say stupid things
only 3 difficult conversations
- what really happened (sachebene)
- what kind of a person are you (relationship)
- whos feelings are more important (appell)
otherawareness / don't project objectivity is subjects realizing their subjectivity obvious? like: bodies come from bodies
2025-06-13
drugs and enforced-compulsory-social-protocols plant medicine to replace the word drugs
best trip report: Time Perception:1,000 years in 15 Minutes
dialogdialogdialogdialogdialogdialogdialogdialogdialogdialogalog]] we already assume wholeness taking the effect before the cause taking the thoughts of the other as if they where mine "in know what you mean" the tool for semantic-mapping insight cascades recognizing cognitive-widgets interation without relating increases agency(physically, emotionaly, cognitively) in social interactions dialogical ecology
what is the effect of dialog
the experience of safety
the experience of dialog informs it opens up new dispositional states in social encounters
you may try dialog where you shoulnd
in dialog there cannot be an expert
dialog has permissionlessness buildin because of reflexivity not because you won't explain or justify
new encounters with dialogical minds creates new experiences
is dialog forfronting dialog as a feature and also as a reencountering thing in dialog
honest-sharinghonest-sharinghonest-sharing[honest-sharing]] feels like a practice
world preace needs what where are doing here – person.seth-dellinger
the practice of reencountering and try anew to understand dialog dialog as a quality of self-referential it includes itself
entrepreneurship is just about attracting through your own lifework living the-good-life
What was personally interesting to me is that I‘ve never as consciously considered the systematic difference inbetween group sizes and how to tactically apply that knowledge. Definitely appreciated this input.
how is dialog evaluated within systematic difference inbetween group sizes.
dialog is a meta-practice
its martial arts with ideas
dialog just provides "information"
it's encountering the whole spectrum of pragmatic-imagination
there is magic in encountering a positive projection, meaning the other validats its because there is contact happening new information flows in that does something for a human body its a intellectual disagreement but a somatic agreement its just a pivot no somatic harm
a dialogical mind don't experience assurence in carry forward aroual energy negative experience and treating it as information the body can be armored
the practice changed by everyday discernment
feel safe when i can be different from the group and not be dispelled
honest-sharinghonest-sharinghonest-sharinghonest-sharinghonest-sharing tries to garantie somatic safety
downside(reality of the discomfort of being disarmered): triggers lack of somatic safety
say: "(i/do you) want somatic safety" :D
2025-05-30
the-elusive-obviousthe-elusive-obvioushe-elusive-obvious]] Faulty Sensory Appreciation: The misinterpretation of sensory information leading to incorrect conclusions about the way things are. For example, feeling as if you standing upright, when you're actually leaning forwards.
2025-04-18
the-meaning-is-not-in-the-words
cross motivation from [feldenkrais] like original-spin
discernmentdiscernmentdiscernmentdiscernmentt]]
- the-natural-state from ego or identity
- the-natural-state from allocentric
what you makes you happy makes me happy devotional relationship
https://hannahtaylor.substack.com/p/nonreal-targets
2025-04-18
Realizing the Telos of Culture & seeing what's on the Other Side / Jordan Hall & Guy Sengstock
Sa., 9. Nov. 2024, 02:39
Hello to all,
So many great exploratory points were raised and unfortunately the flow of the conversation did not let me go into each of them more deeply. However, one point is still in my mind that I can expand upon.
Seth said something about how he feels like he is outside of his body or head and observing himself being angry or happy with another person. It is as if his self exists in two locations simultaneously or there are two Seths existing at the same time, one that is in a particular emotional state and one that is observing.
This is a great example of what I mean by applying (incorrectly) egoic knowledge to the soul experience.
Egoic knowledge is based upon the assumption of a body-mind entity located in spacetime coordinates. I am here and you are three feet away from me and we are talking to each other. I am listening to you three feet away. This kind of description is the description made from the egoic knowledge or egoic point of view.
But from the soul point of view, there is no location. Soul is aware of ego (which is the body-mind-complex) being angry, and the soul itself cannot be located in spacetime coordinates. If the soul had to be located in spacetime coordinates, it is always located in here (space) and now (time).
Therefore Seth was having a simultaneous experience or recognition of being ego and being soul. But the soul is not an entity that can be located or pointed at, but the mind cannot help but try to point at it as if the soul was another object that can be pointed or grasped at, either physically or mentally.
Soul is fundamentally more like the space itself or the time itself.
Bob
So., 27. Okt. 2024, 04:47
Hello to all,
One wish that I had was to have a retreat based upon dialogue or dialogical principle. That's why I had suggested meeting in person.
Most retreats are one-way conversations in that the facilitator, lecturer, teacher or expert guides the audience/students/course participants through lectures, exercises and so forth. There is a pedagogical or developmental goal.
For example, Aaron's physical sessions at the retreats are amazing, but it is a one-way class in that he tells us what to do and we do them. He does not ask us questions and we don't ask him questions. Maybe when the session is over, we can ask him clarifying questions, but then it is too late - the class is over.
If I really want a two-way class, then I would have to hire Aaron and pay for a private class where Aaron can adjust and customize his curriculum to make it much more relevant for my learning needs and desires. Aaron is no longer a group facilitator but he is a consultant in that I can pick his expertise to solve my own issues or challenges.
Lectures are good for getting information, but to find solutions, I need consultants where there are questions asked by the consultant and the client in order to narrow down the problem at hand and tailor the solution.
Thus in a one-way conversation, the listener can receive and maybe be allowed to ask questions after the lecture, but in a two-way conversation, the listener has more say in what they want to hear and the lecturer has to ask questions.
Historically the most famous person to ask provoking questions is Socrates who did not lecture but asked a series of questions to reveal the contradictions in the beliefs and answers of the interviewee.
One-way conversation is a monologue. In theater settings, a monologue is when the actor is speaking aloud to himself. Therefore a lecture is technically a monologue because if you removed the audience, the lecture would remain the same. The internet is a fantastic medium for receiving and delivering monologues.
Two-way conversation can be broken down into now familiar categories: debate, discussion and dialogue.
Debate is a way of establishing expert authority so that the conversation can downshift from a two-way conversation to a one-way one where only the expert is allowed to talk. There are no questions, just answers thrown at each other show that one answer is superior to the other answer.
Discussion is letting each other be the expert at a time and share their answers.
So you can see in dialogue something else is happening. There is no question, no goal and no answers initially.
What exactly is happening in a dialogue?
Dialogue includes the monologues, debates and discussions, but it is not limited to them. Dialogue is an inquiry in that each thought or statement is simultaneously an answer and a question. Dialogue includes but transcends the question and answer format.
Socrates' reputation is renowned through history because he truly elevated questions above answers. Most people are focused on the answers; questions are merely a starting point to be left behind to reach the destination of answers, which are prized, shared and sold.
But in reality, new answers can only be discovered through new questions; therefore, dialogue is about generating new questions that are also answers.
Hence, the dialogue includes but transcends the usual expert (who is valued for his answers) and audience format, without degenerating into the idiotic notion of equal rights because people are not equally competent in the same topic.
In this sense, there is something alchemically creative in a retreat that is based upon dialogical principle. There cannot be any authority/expert in diving into the unknown for the expert is only an expert in a particular known. There cannot be any goals for how an unknown can be made into a known goal? How can there be methods?
Only the starting point of the dialogue is the unknown, the guiding foundation of the dialogue is the unknown.
Personality is based upon the known. I have a Korean personality which is based upon stereotypes associated with Korean people. What then is character? Character is based upon the unknown because it is not something emulated or copied - it can only be created/generated from within.
Ego is based upon the known; therefore most conventional retreats are dealing with the known (i.e. clarify the problems, suggest solutions). Retreat based upon dialogical principles begins with the unknown and ends in the unknown. Knowns are generated, but that's not the goal or destination. Knowns are incidental and beneficial by-products.
That which is interested in the unknown is the soul; hence the dialogical retreat that I am interested in experiencing is tailored for the soul.
Bob
Mo., 28. Okt. 2024, 14:11
Bob,
Whenever you write about dialogue, it's very clear. I wonder if you've ever thought about developing a longer text on the subject?
Warmly,
Seth
Do., 31. Okt. 2024, 00:03
Seth,
It is clear to you because you are already dialogical to a significant degree!
I might write a text on dialogue in the future, but I don't want to write a speculative text; I want to write a report that's based upon facts and dialogical capacities that have already developed so I am currently gathering as much data as possible.
There has been a lot of data that contradicted earlier assumptions or hypotheses. But before I can list them, I need to write more about ego, soul, known and unknown.
Ego or ego-personality is a body-mind-complex based upon past and current experience and conceptual, linguistic knowledge. Ego is an objective self in that it exists through the identification and description of objects (physical, emotional, mental, including cultural, psychological and so forth). Objects are conceptual distinctions made in ongoing experience.
I am a Korean man - this sentence refers to the sensory perception of the Korean male body and the cultural experience of growing up in a culture and society known as Korea. I like chess; I am impatient - all those concepts point to some experience (playing chess, favorable emotional reaction to playing chess, uncomfortable experience of having to wait for a long time).
Thus ego is a conceptual abstraction based upon my personal, known experience. This conceptual abstraction is useful for communication and making predictions. If I don't like apples, then I will most likely not like apples that I might taste in the future.
But there is a self that is in a way independent of any experience. In the spiritual traditions, we call this self the True Self or Pure Subjectivity or Consciousness. What is aware that I am Korean? That which is aware is Consciousness itself. That Consciousness is what I call soul at the individual, human level.
If my Korean ego-identity is a knowledge based upon experience or known, then my soul-identity is a knowledge based upon no-experience or unknown. This is why there can never be any objective evidence plucked from your experience to prove the existence of Consciousness because Consciousness is not an experience or based upon any experience. It is that which has experience and conceptualizes upon experience. It is that which creates conceptually the objective self or ego.
Ego is the outcome of personal sensory experience plus conceptual distinctions which result in an self-image or knowledge of self.
Soul is independent of any sensory and conceptual experience for it is that which has experience but it is not defined by it.
Mathematically:
Sensory experience + concepts = ego
Soul =/= sensory experience + concepts
Ego is a product or outcome of: space, time, nature, body, culture, language, zeitgeist, technology.
Soul is beyond space, time, nature, body, mind.
Ego is the effect; Souls is the cause. Soul includes ego but it fundamentally transcends ego.
The usual conversations are based upon debating the superiority of some concepts/experience or sharing some concepts/experience. Solving a problem means finding or discovering concepts/experience that can fix the problem. All conversations revolve around some experience/concepts.
Soul conversations, on the other hand, revolve around the unknown; we borrow the concepts that are usually based upon some past sensory experience to describe something that is emerging out of the unknown.
This is why there can never be a method or technique for dialogue because the focal attention can only be directed to a known object; unknown is not an object, not a goal, not a destination.
One can only BE at the unknown and speak from there. Thus in dialogue everyone is on the same page which is the unknown. So you could say that dialogue is a new conversation because dialogue begins with the unknown.
Dialogue is the eternal new beginning for it is not based upon any past knowledge or experience. This is why dialogue feels pristine, fresh and so alive because it is not dead from the past experience. Since the soul is the unknown, when the soul has a conversation, it becomes a dialogue.
I used to assume that if the person was awake as a soul then they know that whatever I say is based upon my particular experience and particular interpretation. Hence they have to understand in the way I understand it. But it was so striking how even awakened people would interpret my message according to their past experience, namely according to their own ego. So I would be puzzled. They know that they are not ego, that they are the soul, but why would they continue to speak, think and understand based upon the past or ego?
So the first hypothesis, which was that awakening meant the person could do dialogue, was proven false. It was corroborated by June's experience. She awakened roughly 6 or 7 years before she could have a dialogue.
Second hypothesis was that dialogue can only be done at a higher stage of consciousness, namely metamodern and cosmodern or integral and wholistic. Yet your successful participation in dialogue proved me wrong for you are both postmodern, developing into metamodern.
Third hypothesis was that people would be interested in the dialogue because they would see that they don't understand each other. But to my shock, people do not know that they don't understand each other. Then I realized that people are constantly engaged in one-way communication. They don't even engage in debate or any form of two-way communication because what mattered is that they spoke and unloaded whatever was on their mind. They couldn't care less if the other person understood. Thus the most typical conversation is a monologue or a small talk. It is like seeing blind people constantly bumping into each other, yet none of them were complaining about it!
Fourth hypothesis was that people who practiced a form of intersubjective dialogue would be good at this dialogue. It turns out that just because they practiced a form of dialogue or experienced an intense version of it did not mean they were interested in this dialogue or they could even do it. I was actually surprised by the debunking of this hypothesis because I really did not think that what I was doing was different.
All my tentative hypotheses are proven to be wrong by real-life experience. So what I am beginning to realize is that dialogue is truly unique and I need to stop looking elsewhere for further elucidation.
Bob