Sanity

cropped

To me, sanity lies in the beauty of consistency as in Mozart’s music, mathematics, science, or in a well executed maneuver. There is consistency with reality. There is also consistency wihin a system itself.

To me, sanity lies in the ability to see things as they are, and the criterion for this is consistency. When an inconsistency is observed it must be resolved for oneself to perceive sanely.

.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Bud  On July 11, 2013 at 5:57 AM

    What is reality?????

  • vinaire  On July 11, 2013 at 6:49 AM

    Reality is what a person perceives.

    Reality can be fuzzy. Reality can be clear.

    Reality is not one thing. It starts with physicality and dives into abstraction. What keeps it together is consistency.

    When one starts to clarify reality by seeing things as they are, one finds that reality could be made up of layers upon layers of varying perception like that of an onion.

    It is an exciting mixture.

    Please see Reality & Mindfulness

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 11, 2013 at 7:46 AM

      Ahhh, a cool breeze for my mind after the firestorm at Geir’s. I have definitely been iterating philosophically into this direction.

  • Chris Thompson  On July 11, 2013 at 7:55 AM

    Then we come to the topic of socializing sanely. Why do you suppose that the way we communicate affects the consistency with which they are received seemingly as importantly as the content of what we are saying? Is it because the way we communicate is part and parcel of the content of what we communicate? . . . Or?

    • vinaire  On July 11, 2013 at 12:34 PM

      Any response here will get us into exploring the subject of FILTER. Hubbard looked at it narrowly as the reactive mind and his proposed solution was to run out engrams. But there seems to be a lot more than that involved here. A better understanding is needed.

      What is socializing? What is the purpose of socializing? Right there one may find many different answers and a lot of inconsistency among those answers. I think that when man first started to socialize, the purpose was to pool mental resources to solve problems and to understand things better. That original purpose seems to have been diluted and corrupted. I have tried to restore that purpose with Discussions and what needs to be avoided.

      There are filters at both ends of a communication line. The content of communication is viewed through those filters. If the filters are different then the same content shall be perceived differently. It is a waste of time to try to change one’s way of communication just to suit the filter at the other end.

      One must adjust one’s way of communicating in the direction of greater sincerity, lack of reactivity, and increased simplicity. One can gradually take care of the filter at one’s end. Still the communication would not be smooth as long as a filter is there at the other end. Many a time, the content of the communication is fine, but one is running into a filter at the other end. In that case, the attention has to be put on the filter (without focusing on the “I”), and not on the content of the communication.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On July 11, 2013 at 12:58 PM

    Good points. I find that much can be done about filters on the other end of a communication. One thing is to know the filters of one’s culture and design communications that pass smoothly through those filters. Or if someone you know and have familiarity with their filters, package one’s communication to match with and pass smoothly through those known filters.

    • vinaire  On July 11, 2013 at 3:15 PM

      Almost everybody is working on how to live with these filters. My focus is on methods to help remove the filters.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On July 11, 2013 at 4:27 PM

        Excellent retort — I see what you mean, and that’s important. Maybe what I am discussing is a “sending” filter. Something like, before it goes on the wire, it gets checked for its manners-frequency, something like that. A person doesn’t have to change their message maybe just side check it for digestibility. You do this very well with me. Anyways, it seems that we can only act upon our own filters and sort of have to live with the filters of others.

        • vinaire  On July 11, 2013 at 4:57 PM

          Yes, I am always working on my own filters.

          I don’t think improving my “manners” further will have much affect on other people’s filters. If a person is reacting to my “manners” he is not ready to get the message yet. His filter is too strong to see knowledge for what it is without extraneous associations.

          I just have to keep polishing up my message and putting it out there.

          .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: