: Switching the mouse to the non-dominant hand.

[sraj]

The Toronto chiropractor then explained to viewers the benefit of switching the mouse to the non-dominant hand. This change, he said, helps to balance the workload between both sides of the body as well as both hemispheres of the brain. "By exercising the non-dominant part of the brain more regularly, workers can actually become smarter," says Dr. Dower.

http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2013/05/05/544395/10031213/en/Toronto-Chiropractor-Shares-Posture-Tips-With-CP24-s-TV-Audience.html

------------------

Typed this, shifting the mouse to my left. Interesting! I am all thumbs at the moment.

Selvaraj

[noel]

List, Selveraj
If there is a defining characteristic of the Alexandrian
(or if he has a fixed stare -Alexandroid) Selveraj it's
that he is continually on the lookout for habit patterns.
At one stage for example I lived with a household of women
so it became mandatory for me to PUT THE TOILET SEAT DOWN!
However I noticed that a habit pattern had developed so
began to vary the procedure.

Ditto for having a shave. I make a conscious decision on
each occasion as to which side of the face to start. Sure
enough the subconscious will try to ensure I start on the
'correct' side, i.e. the opposite from the time before.
"Are you sure you started on that side?"
With infinite patience and aah equanimity I explain
'Listen you ####, ##### it DOESN'T matter which side you
start'. However inhibiting this way lets me check my
breathing -the right shoulder is riding up. Even the
prosaic like -yr almost out of toothpaste.
As physicists are discovering; nothingness can be a
seething mass of somethingness.

BTW It's interesting that you give an instance from
technology. Anyone who has followed my posts will know
that I have a particular interest in this regard (OK,
preoccupation). Especially on how it comports with Good
Use. The switcheroo has probably brought you closer to
the concept of Inhibition than anything you've indicated
to date. However the main link is right in front of you -
the k/board. Now I know Keith (and of course others) will say that
typing is just a skill like any other. I would argue that
since it was necessary for them they have a vested
interest. You cannot impose a 19th C concept upon a
ubiquitous and futuristic technology without causing a distortion.
NoelH

[Lutz Golbs]

Hello list,

as I have worked for a long time in the IT industry, I had a good opportunity to observe habits developing with the use of this modern technology. Frankly said, it still takes me lots of nolition (or inhibition, or equanimity) to maintain my use. Having two laptops with different keyboard layout and touchpad functionality, allows me to see how often end-gaining wins against all the good intention to apply AT as skill for life, in any situation.

When I wanted to fix some computer problem on an Eyebody workshop some years ago, my teacher observed a shocking reversion to bad pattern of use - half a life sitting in front of screens and cultivating bad habits leave a deep imprint that easily pop up again.

However, becoming more ambidextrous, by switching the hand that uses the mouse, learning to write with the other hand, learning to juggle (and to do tricks starting with either hand) certainly helps to become aware where habits numb our proprioception. Yet especially working with computers casts a light on the 'thinking' pattern connected to end-gaining - after all, this beautiful technology promises to make life easier, do tasks quicker, etc. Yet when things don't work out as well as desired, when our ends dominate the means, we can encounter the 'ideology' of the ego, and its eagerness to 'get the job done' at all costs.

As long as we don't fall into the trap of believing that 'we got it', the process of discovery continues and yields better use and surprising insights. Don't forget to have fun on the journey - it's better to travel hopefully than to arrive.

Greets,

Lutz

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AlexTech Mail List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to alextech+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to alex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/alextech?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

http://smart-at.net/

http://smart-at.blogspot.com/

http://alextech.wikia.com/
http://twitter.com/evolvingmeme

[noel]

List, Selveraj
You seem to have your hands full Selveraj (pun
unintended). What with analysing your running as well.
Why limit yourself however to transfering a few mechanical
motions with the mouse. Logitech's touchpad mouse employs
swipes and gestures. Get those opposing hemispheres really
thinking (pun intended).

My use of the touchpad goes back to the original Belkin
product which allowed you to actually customise gestures
-made redundant unfortunately by a couple of versions of
Windows. As I mentioned it's a charcteristic of 'us' that
we are sensitive to habit patterns. My interest in the
touchpad concept was that I could see it had language
overtones. Gestures are afterall simply a form of body
language.

I quickly saw however the 'transfer' potential it offered.
Especially when exploring the media centre concept it made
sense to balance the engagement of the hands. BTW; I'm not
sure how you're going to assess how 'smart' you've become
-a Mensa test before and after?
Flippancy aside I think your little experiment is perhaps
not as off the wall as you might think. Increasingly the
TV as the idiot box is being replaced by the idea of it as
being a portal to the digital universe. That is likely to
mean the 'poor use' which has tended to accompany computer
use will be more emphasised. The exchange might indeed be
a smart move. Especially in light of that telling example
Lutz gives of how even a 'pro' can be subverted.

BTW2 Training in AT also encourages uncovering the
inadvertent. For example I cast around for an on -screen
keyboard which would allow me to enter text remotely. What
I found was one with predictive text -effective enough I
could write an article. The key was not in the mechanical
processes but in the vocabulary which I could customise to
be a relection of my individuality and being.
NoelH

[sraj]

Hi Noel, List,

I am not sure about swipes and gestures, how complex they are, it is possible that gripping a mouse could be more complex. It will take some more time before I am fully comfortable handling the mouse with my left hand - that would not make me ambidextrous however.

From Posture point of view I would say, it is good to be ambidextrous. Can we train children to be ambidextrous? Has it been tried?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120206151321AAv41HW

http://io9.com/why-training-yourself-to-be-ambidextrous-is-a-bad-idea-458673693

(I must say with improved posture I am more ambidextrous now than I used to be earlier!)

Regards,

Selvaraj

NoelH

[Keith Bacon]

Hi Selveraj,

On 17 May 2013 20:13, sraj <sra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From Posture point of view I would say, it is good to be ambidextrous.

I trained myself to use the mouse left handed when I started getting
Repeititive Strain Injury.

After about 6 years of mousing with either hand I'm quite good at it
but am not so fast or accurate with my left hand.

We have some inbuilt assymetry but a lot of it develops as we stress
up. I'm not sure there is much value in training to be ambidexterous
- it doesn't de-stress you. I think it's better to get rid of the
effects of stress which removes a lot of the unbalanced forces that
asymmetricly over-tense muscles cause.

cheers,
Keith

[noel]

List, Keith
Agreed Keith that AT is not about subverting the
subconscious. Trying to achieve some sort of spurious
dominance. You only have to think of the exquisite
physiological processes that are going on even as we
sleep. A while back I gave an example of how purely
through instinct I was saved injury in a fall on rock.
What intrigued most was that there was no compromise of
the relationship of the head, neck and back. The
subconscious was acknowledging the wisdom of the conscious
and vice versa.

Awareness of habit however is on a different level. Giving
ourselves the option to become left (or right) handed
can't go astray as long as we recognise that we have a
natural tendency. Attempting to obfuscate that would be
decidedly unproductive I'd suggest.
NoelH

[Keith Bacon]

Hi Noel,

On 25 May 2013 11:01, noel <humphri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ..... AT is not about subverting the subconscious.

I never quite grasped something Alexander wrote about the
subconscious. I can't remember which book maybe CCCI. But I think it
was something about AT removing the boundary between conscious and
subconscious.

I subscribe to the yoga theory that losing muscle tension empties the
garbage of neurosis from the subconscious.

I suspect that's another way of saying the same thing about a crucial
aspect of psycho-physical unity..

>.... You only have to think of the exquisite

> physiological processes that are going on even as we
> sleep.

Indeed. I went through a period of great stress which AT helped me
with. When I woke in the morning I sensed I was pulled in and tense
with fear - fear which had been subconscious was being sensed.
I realised during the day my AT was reducing my stress but at night
when inhibiting and directing (and me being a naughty AT student,
calming my nervous system directly) stopped as consciousness switched
off the process went back the other way.

A good lesson for me - one of the many things my stress time taught
me. These days I think I wake more in the same state I went to sleep.
Not sure if that's because I have reached another level or the
stressors in my life have reduced so much.

> A while back I gave an example of how purely
> through instinct I was saved injury in a fall on rock.
> What intrigued most was that there was no compromise of
> the relationship of the head, neck and back.

You could sense that while falling? I had a similar lesson falling out
of a tree. I realised I was fairly loose when I hit the ground, hadn't
tensed up like I used to. Hard to judge for sure though - not really a
repeatable experiment! I had no awareness of my HNB relationship as
the ground came at me!

> The
> subconscious was acknowledging the wisdom of the conscious
> and vice versa.

Is the 'subconsious' intelligent? Can it acknowledge things? I think
of it more being dumb reflexive, reactive processes. A consciously
learned skill passes to the subconscious when it becomes a habituated
pattern and runs on auto pilot.

I was taught recently that some 15 to 25% of our life will be
dominated by habit even if I am an advanced yogi. So we must make sure
as much of that habit as possible is beneficial. So advanced training
involves the identification of 'demoting' habits so they can be
overridden by 'promoting'' ones. This includes habits of diet and
communication and all sorts of stuff beyond me at the moment! I never
heard that idea in AT not sure how valld it is but sounds like sense.

> ... Giving

> ourselves the option to become left (or right) handed
> can't go astray as long as we recognise that we have a
> natural tendency. Attempting to obfuscate that would be
> decidedly unproductive I'd suggest.

I agree. Its all about simplifying our system - letting go some
interfering junk so we can exist more in harmony with our basic
functioning.

happy sailing,
Keith

[Lutz Golbs]

Hello Keith and list,

Keith wrote: 
> But I think it was something about AT removing the boundary between conscious and
> subconscious.

Alexander wrote his books before Freudian ideas became widespread and popular. From a modern perspective, we know that our nervous system receives about 5 million bit of information per second, out of which an average 50 bits attract our 'conscious' attention.

Most of the data doesn't really need to be consciously processed, as it automatically triggers our habitual movements and reactions. Our self-perception has Tardis-like qualities - If we see ourself in the mirror, we might mistake our surface as 'self'. With increased proprioception we zoom into the data that habitually and automatically gets processed, we might direct our attention to all the things that happen during a breathing cycle - the movement of air inside our nostrils and along our upper lips, the expansion and contraction of a dozen ribs, the slight up and down movement of our spine, the stretch of the skin in the lower abdomen, the tiny expansion and contraction of the pelvic crest, the minute rotation within the hip joint, etc. We're bigger on the inside than we appear on the outside.

> Is the 'subconsious' intelligent? Can it acknowledge things?

Our subconscious is - to a certain degree - comparable to computer operating system. An iPhone hides its OS as good as it can from its 'user', a command-line driven linux system requires specific knowledge to make things happen. With increased body awareness, we can convert from lazy user to an expert hacker.

While it's interesting to shift the boundary between conscious and subconscious processes, we access 'subconscious' information mainly on a want/need to know basis. It would be very cumbersome if our body forgets how to grasp something. It is intelligent, because it stores and potentially adapts all our learned movement patterns. Especially speaking is a highly complex process that requires a well timed coordination of tongue and jaw (not to mention head-neck-back). When we speak, it is not surprising that our brain displays a lot of activity, dozens if not hundreds of muscles need to be coordinated to say a specific word.

While I can't provide any scientific backup, I would claim from personal experience that our 'subconscious' can very precisely acknowledge things. Muscle testing (kinesiology) provides a method to access this information, and tell us exactly what the 'body' part of our whole self thinks about ideas the 'mind' part believes. 

While there aren't many activities that truly require ambidexterity, experimenting with it simply allows us to investigate our attitude towards learning something new. How eager am I to use my other hand, how do I deal with the frustration of failed experiments, how much is my end of doing a computer task in the way of observing myself in this process, how persistent am I to just observe myself, do I really dare to observe emotions that arise as part of this experiment, etc.

Although Dr Who knows his Tardis very well, it can still surprise him, and he might detect new areas. The same applies for our knowledge of our own subconsciousness - as it is an ever changing process, while will never have a 'complete' picture of it. But that's not require to lead a fulfilled life anyway.

Greets,

Lutz

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AlexTech Mail List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to alextech+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to alex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/alextech?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Keith Bacon]

Hi Lutz,

On 26 May 2013 13:26, Lutz Golbs <lord...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ... Our self-perception has Tardis-like qualities.....
> ... With increased proprioception we zoom into

> the data that habitually and automatically gets processed,

Indeed. That's why directly training to become aware of proprioception
seems a good idea to me

> We're bigger on the inside than we appear on the outside.

I like that Tardis analogy. It's like that because our mind builds us
a simplified picture of reality. Instead of allowing us to accept our
vastness it hides it from us. It narrows our external views too.

> While it's interesting to shift the boundary between conscious and subconscious

> processes...

More than merely interesting for me. It's the key thing about
mind/body work. To change the mind fundamentally in the way it handles
stressors you must change the body. The more body awareness the easier
that is to do.

> It would be very cumbersome if our body forgets how to grasp something. It is intelligent,
> because it stores and potentially adapts all our learned movement patterns.

I think that's complexity but not intelligence! It does 'forget'. I
think the grooves of acquired habit and of learned skill fill in very
slowly if they aren't re-enforced with repetition.

> ... I would claim from personal experience that our 'subconscious' can very

> precisely acknowledge things. Muscle testing (kinesiology) provides a method to
> access this information, and tell us exactly what the 'body' part of our
> whole self thinks about ideas the 'mind' part believes.

That's used in scientology (dianetics) - clever folks. I think using
surface EMG to learn to see these reactions is probably a valuable
helper on the path to this self knowledge. Maybe once you sense them
with propcioception you don't need a machine though.


> ... our knowledge of our own subconsciousness - as it is an ever changing

> process, while will never have a 'complete' picture of it.

I think an 'enlightened' person has completed the picture as much as
it can be completed. If you could sense every one of your reactions
and your mirroring of others reactions and states how much would you
know about people?

Interesting stuff,

Keith

[Lutz Golbs]

Hello Keith, and list.

Keith wrote:

> I think that's complexity but not intelligence! It does 'forget'. I

> think the grooves of acquired habit and of learned skill fill in very
> slowly if they aren't re-enforced with repetition.

'Intelligence' is a word hard to define in body-mind-unity context anyway. Repetition is only one factor in learning/habitualising, the other is attention. We can re-program our movement patterns by intentionally shifting our awareness - the observer influences the experiment. 

When we learning something 'completely new', our attention is quite automatically in the right spot (like all generalisations to be taken with a grain of salt). That makes chair work valuable - it goes into some activity that has been learned before episodal memory develops. This might help to unhook the deepest pattern of habitual bad use. 

> I think an 'enlightened' person has completed the picture as much as

> it can be completed. 

Watch your metaphors, or they become prison wards of your mind. There's nothing like 'matter' in Buddhist thinking, consciousness witness an infinite seeming process. The impermanence of all being. Is there a 'complete picture'? Or is it maybe a complete movie? Or an infinite VJ show? 

We can detect basic pattern of universe, and many ways how these pattern interact and transform into each other. The bigger 'picture' might then look like a fractal from the Mandelbrot set...

Greets,

Lutz

> If you could sense every one of your reactions
> and your mirroring of others reactions and states how much would you
> know about people?

[noel]

How clever was that :)
List, Guys
Interesting if divergent views. Here's a quote which might (or might
not) bring some cohesion. It's from, I think, CCC;
'to resist, to overcome and then to control the circumstances of our
lives'.

There's a certain elemental (even brutal?) quality about this. Life is
not meant to be easy. On the one hand it might help explain Bruce'
comment elsewhere that the Technique can set up conflicts within. It
might also help explain why Keith is insistent that AT enhances but
does not replace methods of sensory fulfilment.
On the other hand in (at least) western thought there is no heroic
quality to passivity. It's about struggling against the odds.
I can even see aspects of Lutz Tardis analogy. FM wants us to be 'Time
Lords'. Able to go back to our beginnings -Paleolithic -in order for
us to be able to move into the foreseeable future.
In the end the guy with a crook neck just wants to be free of the
pain. The nobility of a cause is irrelevant. Yet can we afford to be
held hostage to the present?
NoelH

[Keith Bacon]

Hi Lutz,

> Watch your metaphors, or they become prison wards of your mind. There's
> nothing like 'matter' in Buddhist thinking,

A brick is solid matter and hurts if I hit myself with it. Correct and
not the field of buddhist philosophy.

That person might embarrass me if I talk to them so I won't try. Wrong
and the subject of buddhist philosophy.


What 'matters' most to us is the working model of the world in our
mind body. The model in the mind/body of an enlightened person has
much less in it than most people's because they have shed that huge
part of it that is built by the defences of the ego mind. The edifices
of fantasy, belief and muscle tension are gone. But objective reality
is the same.

People read buddhist texts without having had the experience which
makes them meaningful. The meanings they then ascribe to them are
rather different from those that have shared the experience. The wish
to transcend mundanity fuels all sorts of ideas!

Thats my view!

Keith
PS Advanced philosophy deals with the fact that what's commonly
perceived as solid is more complex and there is no complete definitive
definition of what a brick is etc etc but that's not so relevant to
what feels real to us, (maybe?) gawd this stuff twists my mind!

[Lutz Golbs]

Hello Keith, and list,

Einstein has said: Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. Whether a brick is solid, or composed of vibrations of high density is not exclusively a question of philosophy, but something that can be experienced. 

It's a matter of trust whether we accept this fact about life vicariously, and which sources we might trust more. However, neither quantum physics nor buddhism claim that an 'objective reality' exists. I subscribe to this idea for at least half of life, and haven't met anyone that could make the existence of an 'objective reality' plausible to me. In fact, description about the processes within scenario universe of advanced meditators and quantum physicists sound very compatible.

Greets,
Lutz

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AlexTech Mail List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to alextech+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to alex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/alextech?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Lutz Golbs]

Hello Noel, and list.

Noel asked: Can we afford to be held hostage to the present? As beings that can look back and forward along the 'linear time line', we still need about three years to develop this ability in first place. While tuning into the moment, we're still engaged in the life process, without erasing our past and with setting up the future. In the bigger picture, it looks like being held hostage by the present, in the movie of life we're rather held hostage by our addiction to the past and future.

Greets,

Lutz

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AlexTech Mail List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to alextech+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to alex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/alextech?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[noel]

List, Lutz
That 'hostage' comment Lutz was likely as much about the marketing of
AT. Perception is the key in marketing and this applies to AT as in
anything. Do 'We' -as in the AT community -decide this or do we let
'the market' decide.

This still leaves the questions raised by the FM quote unanswered.
What do we resist; What do we overcome. Finally, those around us have
an impact esp family and friends. Since we can't 'control' them it
implies surely caveats on controlling the circumstances etc.

BTW; my comment about poor computer use carrying over into TV. Just
saw the advert for a Smart TV. With a flourish the guy picks up the
mouse/mic and speaks a command. Only he doesn't fully raise it to his
mouth -instead drops his head! Rest my case.
NoelH

[Tim Kjeldsen]

Hi Lutz

On 01/06/2013 02:59, "Lutz Golbs" <lord...@gmail.com> wrote:

I...haven't met anyone that could make the existence of an 'objective reality' plausible to me.

I don’t want to seem pedantic, but if there is no ‘objective reality’, all these people who have failed to persuade you of its existence are not objectively real either; so what you are really saying that you haven’t been able to persuade yourself that only you exist! :)

Tim

[Tim Kjeldsen]

Oops! I meant to say  ‘you haven’t been able to persuade yourself that you’re not all that exists’. Shouldn’t have bothered really :)

--

[Keith Bacon]

Hi Lutz,

On 1 June 2013 02:59, Lutz Golbs <lord...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Whether a brick is solid, or composed of vibrations of high density is not
> exclusively a question of philosophy, but something that can be experienced.

I think we would agree there is no one 'correct' way to view things. If you are
building a wall viewing a brick as solid is fine. If you are trying
to extract energy
from it a particle or quantum physics view may be appropriate.

I'm not sure a person can directly experience the quantum aspects of a brick?

> It's a matter of trust whether we accept this fact about life vicariously,
> and which sources we might trust more.

Many urge us to trust our direct senses above all else. To me a huge
part of mind body work is that awareness of proprioception introduces
another sense into our conscious world view and that information
contradicts other bits of that world view. Proprioceptive sensing of
faulty kinesthesia is different from only seeing it in a mirror.

> However, neither quantum physics nor
> buddhism claim that an 'objective reality' exists.

You are in fact right. I feel there must be an objective reality just
as I feel 1+1
must equal 2 and how others feel there must be a God.
The only 'proof' is my trust in my feelings and the value and
interpretation I put on my experiences.

A human mistake is to think if we can find others who agree with me we
must be right.

> In fact, description
> about the processes within scenario universe of advanced meditators and
> quantum physicists sound very compatible.

These days I beleive advanced meditators directly sense their own and
the earths magnetic field.

How that means they can sense the subject matter of quantum physics I
don't know.

A pet annoyance of mine in the so called spiritual world is that
people apply scientic arguments to different objects to those the
science deals with. It's amazing how much people say science proves
this or that when it doesn't. Just because something is analagous in
some respects doesnt mean it is in all.

cheers,
Keith

[Keith Bacon]

Hi Tim & List,

English is great. We know what you mean even if you say the opposite.

One thing meeting people from various mind/body disciplines has taught
me that when we get below the level of the consensual view of
objective reality people's ideas differ hugely.

There are views of facets of the universe that are supported by little
or no clear evidence and in our our case by evidence of experiences
which very few people share. And even those that have shared the same
experiences seem to have widely varying views on what lies behind
them.

I'm ever so slowly starting to accept this is really how humans are -
and what follows from that is that the way the world is in terms of
disagreements and competition for resources is a natural outcome of
our basic nature. Very few people can re-adjust that nature in the way
Alexander taught becasue they will not let their world-view adjust.

oh dear!

Keith.

PS.
There was a brilliant episode of the X-files where Mulder got 3 wishes
- he wished for Peace for every person on Earth. The Genie removed all
the people except Moulder and said that was the only way that wish
could be granted!

[Lutz Golbs]

Hello Tim, and list,

I'm grateful for your Freudian slip. Indeed, solipsism and the idea of an 'external, objective reality' have a lot of things in common. I subscribe more to the idea of 'cosmic consciousness', being one facet of an interconnected whole that experiences a continuous, non-simultaneous process of impermanence in the scenario universe.

Greets,

Lutz

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AlexTech Mail List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to alextech+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to alex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/alextech?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Keith Bacon]

Hi Lutz,

On 4 June 2013 16:40, Lutz Golbs <lord...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Tim, and list,

> I subscribe
> more to the idea of 'cosmic consciousness', being one facet of an
> interconnected whole that experiences a continuous, non-simultaneous process
> of impermanence in the scenario universe.

Cosmic consciousness may just be that a big part of consciousness of
body involves sensing your magnetic field, a subsoncious process that
is brought into conscioussnes with training in meditation. When this
aspect of your field resonates with the earth's Schumann resonances
you sense the boundary of your body dissolving. Indeed you might feel
infinite or part of everything. I have not experienced this phenomenon
but hope to one day.

This is an explanation for a directly sensed experience mystics report.

It may be a mistaken interpretation to think that because you are
conscious and feel your field there must be another consciousness
generating the field outside yourself that you sense. I just love the
idea that people were 'talking' to the earths magnetic field when they
thought it was God! Pesky science keeps ruining high notions!

magnetically yours,
Keith

[Tim Kjeldsen]

Hi Lutz

On 04/06/2013 16:40, "Lutz Golbs" <lord...@gmail.com> wrote:

I subscribe more to the idea of 'cosmic consciousness', being one facet of an interconnected whole that experiences a continuous, non-simultaneous process of impermanence in the scenario universe.

What’s a ‘scenario universe’?

[Lutz Golbs]

Hello Keith, and list,

Keith wrote:

> I'm not sure a person can directly experience the quantum aspects of a brick?

The description of the processes of quantum level, which becomes some sort of probability cloud, can be found by many advanced meditators. 

> I feel there must be an objective reality just as I feel 1+1

> must equal 2 and how others feel there must be a God.

If I replace 'feel' with 'believe' above, it makes sense to me. Besides this, Buckminster Fuller proved elegantly that 1 plus 1 equals 4. Arithmetic is just a human invention, and each emanation of it reflects only certain aspects of the rules of the processes and events happening with universe.

> It may be a mistaken interpretation to think that because you are

> conscious and feel your field there must be another consciousness
> generating the field outside yourself that you sense.

Is there really an outside and an inside? Our brain develops neuronal connections for our peri-personal space, and basically for everything we pay sufficiently attention to. I guess it's possible to sense the earth's own resonance, although I wouldn't know what to do with it. 

When we describe life in terms of processes involving events and event foci, we make objects obsolete. That way of thinking might or might not make even bricks permeable. Individual consciousness becomes then an interconnected event focus, and non-simultaneously interacting with some of all interconnected event foci. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AlexTech Mail List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to alextech+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to alex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/alextech?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Keith Bacon]

On 6 June 2013 15:39, Lutz Golbs <lord...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The description of the processes of quantum level, which becomes some sort
> of probability cloud, can be found by many advanced meditators.

It can? The field of causes and events which are themselves causes
moving forward in time in the buddhist theory of Dependant Origination
is based on the real world as perceived with 5 outer senses - the
realm of Newtonian physics.

What advanced meditators perceive is their inner experience and the
way their mind creates perceptions from external sensory input. I have
never heard they could discern quantum effects. Many I think put
delusional interpretations on what they do sense. But I can't know for
sure as I am not one such!

>> I feel there must be an objective reality just as I feel 1+1
>> must equal 2 and how others feel there must be a God.
>
> If I replace 'feel' with 'believe' above, it makes sense to me.

The key thing is that what we believe is based on what we FEEL to be true.
If when a belief is challenged it makes us upset, stressed, angry etc.
this emotional defending is part of the reason we get 'brought down'
in AT terms. To truly accept challenges to these beliefs I think
requires greatly reduced muscle tension and calming of the nervous
system. Then we dont react to strongly to challenges to them and then
we can use logical analysis to weaken and change those beliefs.

> Is there really an outside and an inside?

I put food inside my mouth to survive. In someone else's mouth or in a
bin I die. I have an inside.


> .... I guess it's possible to sense the earth's own

> resonance, although I wouldn't know what to do with it.

It may be useful if there really is a communicating consciousness
behind it as many believe. I believe there isn't so the usefulness is
the somatic condition I think a person must be in to sense it ie.
their system would be mostly empty of the noise that a normal person
has.

> When we describe life in terms of processes involving events and event foci,
> we make objects obsolete.

In the model in your head that is. As far as I know the buddhist
theory about dependant origination still has objects, it's just that
they are transient and can't be defined as precisely as they are
modelled in peoples minds. In my mind a stone, a planet and my life
are more or less permanent and ever lasting. Logical analysis shows I
am shortest lived and a planet is longest and we are all transient.
But the model in my mind is different and that mismatch is one of the
things that causes us stress.

If you try to live as if 1+1=4 and as if there are no objects I think
you will get stressed!

regards
Keith