Hello, viewer. Glad you could make it. Alan Watts at one of his seminars once said something along the lines of "it is difficult to say what the subject of this seminar is going to be, because it is too fundamental to give it a title". Considering this particular post, it is the same way, but the funny thing is that the things I'm going to talk about are even MORE fundamental, and therefore any title would not only be NOT correct, there would have to be more than one title... That's also the thing with the "The Fundamental FALSEHOOD of Humanity" post.
This post will describe how is it that we understand things... Well, this immediately means that I need to first explain what I mean by "Frequencies":
Each person exists on a certain frequency.
The deeper a person goes into thinking about something, the deeper the meaning. The deeper the meaning, the more unique it is, and hence the LESS FREQUENT it becomes to hear such a thing on an average day. The deeper you think through something, the more time you spend on it. The more time you spend on it - the more valueable it is to you; the more patient you're willing to be in order to get "the answer". Also, the more deeper you go into a thing, the more profound it is as a result of thinking about it. And the more unique it is, and hence - less frequent in the society. Also, the more time you spend on a thought, the less frequent the "impulses".
When something is average and usual, people don't pay much attention to it, like when somebody gets killed or something, as it's been said on "The News" - it's nothing special, and people more or less "ignore it". But when, say, there were news about "a baby born with dragon wings" - it gets an incredible amount of attention from people, because it is so rare. And so we can say that "the less frequent a thing is - the more value it has".
And so - each person exists on a certain frequency. Therefore, each person spends a certain time on thinking about something, and the most fascinating thing is that the timing CAN BE ESTABLISHED. This also applies to reaction time, and I figured out how exactly does this happen.
I already explained in the previous posts here, that we (humans) DON'T think in words. As an example of what I'm saying, I'll describe a situation that took place with me about two days ago.
I just woke up, and went to the kitchen to have breakfast with my parents in the morning. We have a small TV there, and the "news" were on. A small misunderstanding always takes place in this situation. Read on...
I sit, eat, and watch the TV... Mom and dad do the same thing. The interesting thing is that I'm not listening to the words that are being said AT ALL, but I just watch it. I watch it, and am "thinking" at the same time. I'm looking directly at the TV. At a certain point dad looks at me (that's fine). He looks at me, and sees me watching the TV with a "very interested look". He then looks back at the TV, to see what made me make that expression, but here's the funny part:
At that particular moment I had NO idea what was being said by the news reporters. My thoughts were about something else, but it's obvious that my dad not only did not realize that, he also didn't consider the possibility of that. And so - I am misunderstood. And people never take such things into consideration!
Now... Let's just jump right into it from here, on how frequencies work... Using the example given above:
When I watch the TV, first of all - I will react to the things being shown at a certain moment - at my frequency. I know that. But what happens, when there is the "pause"(between "impulses")? Well, you don't THINK about how to react to whatever it is at all, but at a certain time you react, spontaneously and your reaction is geniune and cannot really be faked. And so, I've figured out, that, for example, when somebody is talking and you're listening (you take on the role of "The Perceiver" in the conversation) - you watch and listen to HOW a person is saying something, rather than WHAT he is saying, at first. When you notice a point in the pattern of his speech, that, for example, signifies the end of his "thought", that he tried to convey - THEN your reaction time comes into place. When the person was talking - you were doing nothing, except pay attention to simply "him, doing it, and THE WAY HE DOES IT". Then, when it is your turn to talk (to give your reaction), a pause takes place in the conversation. Only NOW you "think" about WHAT did he say. You backtrack, and this time you in your mind pay attention to the WORDS he said - it is a REPLAY, in a way. In your mind.
You see, "each" person (some people are exceptions to this, but it is an insane rarity) uses certain patters, and you recognize those patters as "his", easily. And the person always knows the following reaction too, because he uses those patterns on a regular basis. However..: "same person, different people, 1 subject - the person will use different patterns with different people", but, if..: "same person, same "reactor", 1 subject" - this person may use one and the same pattern (A WAY OF TALKING (HOW)) multiple times, and "the reactor" can react in a "usual" way, too, but not nescessarily, and the same goes to the "giver".
The first thing to note is that - when a person uses the "known" pattern in the way he talks, - it usually is the case, that he is "playing". What I mean by that is that he pretends he is not God. He pretends he's an ego. That usually takes place when the person needs to "get out of trouble". All of that applies specifically to "the persona". And we know ourselves by the way we talk or react, to be more specific - IN WHAT WAY. If a pattern of the conversation so happens that you can use the pattern you "are" - you can use it, and that will imply something like "I don't know what you're talking about", but if you DON'T use it, then people take it as "something's wrong" , or "something's strange", but it really means that the person is "God".
There's also another thing considering the "how-what" thing. If you say something about a UFO crashing into the White House in a usual way you talk about school homework, - everybody is going to react in the same way as they do to "you talking about school homework" , instead of reacting the way you expected them to react. It is not the words that matter, again. It is HOW that matters, it is HOW that captures attention. If people were talking about amazingly fascinating things, but in a boring, monotone way, - nobody ever would be interested or fascinated.
After figuring that one out, I've tried it out in all sorts of ways. I was interacting with my dog, my parents, and, more or less, everyone - in a "fascinating" fashion. Meaning, - I was really making an accent on HOW I (ex.) talk, rather than WHAT I am talking about (in words). And my thoughts appeared to be true! The reactions were those of interested people. But, in the example of talking, it is not only the way you talk. It is also about what your facial expression is like, what emotions you convey, and body language.
In the end, it comes down to this... Alan Watts once said, that "the interesting question is not WHY, but WHAT". And at the time I heard him say that (in the "Time and The More It Changes" , on YouTube), I thought, that "probably my favorite question is "Why?". As time went by, some months, - I understood his words, and was able to agree with him, in a "non-blind" way (when I hear Alan Watts say something I haven't yet thought of, or haven't "concluded" something (understood something myself) - I took it that it was the truth, because it is Alan Watts saying so, and I can trust him for thinking through what he says). The only thing I don't agree with Alan Watts fully, is the on the subject of thinking.
And so, I state, that it is not the question of WHY that really is interesting, and it is not the question of WHAT that really is interesting, but rather - it is the question of HOW , that REALLY is interesting. You bet it is. Take dancing for example. There is a trick to this, by the way, which I will explain.
-Do you have a hobby?
-Why yes, Sandy, I do.
-What is it?
-I dance. I love dancing.
-Really? What is your dancing style?
-It is Karate (lol).
-Wow, what belt do you have in Karate-Dancing?
-A blue-green-rainbow-striped-red.
-Cool! Is that the most difficult one to get?
-Almost.
...Who CARES what is your dancing style? The importance of WHAT here is only in this: "What do you do?". And that's it. "What is the subject". You can say that fundamentally it is the most important question, and I'd agree with you on that, but only partially. You see, if you say "I dance", the following question should not be "what is your dancing style", but something like "how do you dance", and not in the sense that "how do you do it", as in "how good" or "how bad", or "how did you achieve it", but in a sense that... Hmm... It can be explained by reactions, such as:
"Wow! The way he moves!!"; "I really like the way he does that"; "I love what his dance looks like". "How" is a different form of "What is it like".
And this applies to EVERYTHING. And it can change EVERYTHING, especially the way you look at any-thing. It is the spice of life - "How?". You can get up in the morning with a long yawn, by doing everything really slow and mellow; and you can also get up with dance movements, along with a good deal of spontaneouity. And THAT's when anything stops being boring, and becomes fascinating, fun, interesting and so on.
On the subject of frequencies, though, I need to end the thing I was saying. Let's again take the situation I described previously with me and my parents having breakfast in the morning.
You watch the TV; absorb the information. By the time you react, you just literally STARE at it, and pay attention to the pattern. Note: same thing goes with listening to music. When you notice something that is (to some extent) fascinating enough in order for you to pay any attention to it and think about it, you basically STOP paying attention to the pattern, and you backtrack and "replay" what just happened, but you now pay attention to concrete things, which do not apply to the patten, but to the particular, concrete situation, things like "words" and "names" and just basically "Who?" and "What?" (ex.: male/female, short/tall, car/train, dog/person, etc.), and JUST WHEN YOU'RE DONE "reviewing" (or "replaying") the pattern, (but this time around paying attention to concrete things) - that's EXACTLY the time you will give your (thanks to replaying-) appropriate reaction to the pattern of the situation. To recap, first you ask yourself "How does he do it? In what way? What is the way he does that?" (and you just pay attention, being completely here & now), and then, when you notice something WORTH MENTIONING, you stop asking yourself "How?", and you ask yourself "What?"
"How is he saying this to me? In what way? What are his emotions? What are his feelings about this? --- "Oh, that was something worth mentioning/worth looking into/worth paying attention to" OR "that was nice, I liked the way he said that, and he clearly made a thing out of it, he clearly made this STAND OUT, and I noticed it, and I like it (the way he did it) ---- Now, WHAT did he say, IN SUCH A WAY? --- *re-playing* ---- "Oh, I see" ---- THE REACTION."
And so, the reaction should always be based on the pattern FIRST, not the words. Because if you pay attention to the words: "Oh yeah, I love you so much, I'm beginning to think that I can't live without you!" - you can misinterpret the message, if you don't pay attention to the pattern, and think that the girl is really in love with you and she really meant what she said. But that is a misinterpretation for the reason she was being sarcastic and she clearly meant the opposite thing, and therefore - YOU'VE SCREWED UP.
So, what is relevant indeed is - the flow/the pattern/the way. What is relevant is "HOW?", and not "WHAT?", in the end. The point is that in a conversation you should always pay attention to How one says something first-hand, and only then pay attention to What he's saying. You can find this out for yourself. All of my words here. Take a look around. Try all of this yourself. Investigate. Experiment. This really is the case.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment