[true]

For a long time now I've been aware of the inability of people to communicate, not just in forums, but in everyday life too. It requires a great amount of fluidity, basically demanding that one assumes another's AP position, or dreaming together.

Knowledge cannot be shared by the conscious mind, our 1st att awareness. It can appear to, but it is really just touched or batted back and forth and never absorbed, which is the domain of the subconscious or 2nd att. Even if we can agree on many definitions, communication will still only be on the surface - a sharing of a description, and not in the heart - a true sharing of experience.

The "key joint" of communication is intent. Obviously reading CC's books, which are full of knowledge, didn't turn us into warriors, seers or sorcerers. Why? Because aquiring knowledge happens in the mind (a first att imaginary construct) and not in the AP (the 2nd att/energy body energetic factual reality). If you want a real change, it has to happen in the real world. Intending knowledge, intending a description, is very different than aquiring knowledge and descriptions. Aquiring intends seperation - intending intends unification. Your assemblage point doesn't give a shit about knowledge. Did you realize that? The AP is moved by sheer intent. Knowledge is the antithesis of intent. Knowledge is fixation, concentration, definition, limitation. The freedom and fluidity that are required for intentional intent come from the place of no knowledge, not-knowing, the unknown. Knowledge is only needed for choosing a destination. But knowledge cannot move you from here to there; there is no knowledge for how to intend. Intending is what we do, it's what we are, it's always happening. We can't learn to be what we always already are - that intends our seperation into mind and makes it appear that our link with intent is severed. Our link is fine - we're just using it to incapacitate our unthinkable greatness.

So why has my conversation about communication turned into a conversation about intent? Well, they're pretty much the same. When one listens, or reads, with the entirety of one's attention and not with knowledge/mind, one engages intent. But to say it that way makes it seem like we're not always intent. So, better said, one intends the 2nd att instead of the first.
And you'll notice the same mystery appears: "How does one intend?" now becomes "How does one listen without knowledge?" ie, "how can I understand someone if I don't use my inventory?" And the same answer is given - this "problem" is resolved in the doing and not in the thinking (ie, it has appeared because the ask-er is there, the seperator.)

I'll close with some words by J. Krishnamurti:

"It is far more important to listen with the depth of one's whole being, than to indulge in merely superficial explanations. If we can listen in that way, with the totality of one's being, the very listening is an act of meditation."

"You have to listen without any effort, without any struggle. It is a very difficult problem to listen with the totality of one's being - that is, when the mind not only hears the words, but is capable of going beyond the words. The mere judgement of a conscious mind is not the discovery or the understanding of truth. The conscious mind can never find that which is real. All that it can do is choose, judge, weigh, compare. When you read a book, you might translate what you read according to your particular tendency, knowledge or idiosyncracy, and so miss the whole content of what the author was trying to convey; but to understand, to discover, you have to listen without the resistance of the conscious mind which wants to debate, discuss, analyse."

"I do not know if you have ever tried this. That is, to listen to the words and to find out the truth of any statement that is made by the speaker, not only intellectually, not only with considerable doubt, but also to listen without any resistance - which does not mean accepting, but to listen so profoundly, with great attention, so that the very act of listening brings about a total breaking down of the pattern of the brain."

[true]

The other side of communication is that there is an art to speaking. CC noticed that DJ had a marvelous mastery of the spanish language. Many teachers have noted that need for a conscious language, an intentional language. A teaching requires a specific syntax. Like 1st 2nd and 3rd attentions for CC. Or man number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 for Gurdjieff. Or quantum physics, or whatever... each requires contextual knowledge of its terms and agreement.

Speaking and listening are basically, but not strictly, traits of stalkers and dreamers respectively. Most dreamers don't have to have any knowledge of what they do or how they do it - they just have very fluid APs. A stalker, on the other hand, can pinpoint precise details and take you by the hand, one step at a time - one track at a time, as in hunting.
Stalkers and dreamers are the organic manifestation of quantum physics' particle/wave duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (which states that if we focus on the position with clarity, we cannot measure the momemtum with accuracy; and when we measure the momentum, we lose sight of the position. Stalkers are "position" and dreamers are "momentum".)

[Merged]

While never dismissing your post, but only in agreement, the thought of communication only stirred further thought to this early morning member. What arrived was how easily communication can breakdown even with a heart's intent. So, after two clicks and light as a feather fingertip typing while attempting to add humor to the subject of communition, I submit:

Osmo Wiio gives us some communication maxims similar to Murphy's law (Osmo Wiio, Wiio's Laws--and Some Others (Espoo, Finland: Welin-Goos, 1978):


*If communication can fail, it will.
*If a message can be understood in different ways, it will be understood in just that way which does the most harm.
*There is always somebody who knows better than you what you meant by your message.
*The more communication there is, the more difficult it is for communication to succeed.

These tongue-in-cheek maxims are not real principles; they simply humorously remind us of the difficulty of accurate communication. (See also A commentary of Wiio's laws by Jukka Korpela.)

Peace,
Parker

[BratscheWarrior]

So true, all this stuff that you write about, have you verified it in dreaming? Have you dreamed together with others?

And by the way, in case this interests you, Don Juan Matus also had mastery of the English language.

[true]

Hi Bratschewarrior.

I haven't "dreamt together" since I was a child. My brother and I used to do it.

Have I verified these things in dreaming? That's a little different question. In the way you probably mean it, the answer would be "no". But I'm a stalker. And you know that true stalking and dreaming utilise the same attention. So my "method" is to ponder something, to contemplate it obsessively you might say, to stalk it - and then the insight comes, not from thinking, but from exhausting thinking and becoming quiet and directly seeing what is. I would say that desire held long enough, intensely enough, becomes will and intent - stalking starts in the first att and moves into the second, the dreaming att. And you probably know that DJ said that when the AP moves you are technically asleep.
So on these technicalities, I have verified these things in dreaming, with my dreaming att. I'd call it seeing. You probably know CC gave several definitions of seeing. One was something like knowing something for certain, and another was seeing to the essence of a thing, then the third was seeing energy as it flows in the universe. My seeing qualifies for the first two.
I don't have to contemplate things very long anymore. If I want to know something, I just look at it, without the mind, without preconceptions or motives. Then I see. Then I match this seeing with the proper words, as best as I can.

I really wish I could convey this: One step closer towards seeing energy as it flows in the universe is to see actuality as it is - to see what actually is there - without thought, without mind as interpreter/mediator. This isn't as difficult as one might think. It doesn't require lengthy periods of no thought. This reality is here all the time - thought is always followed by a pause/silence, and reality is there between each thought. So you really have as many chances to see actuality as you do your thoughts. It's just a matter of un-conditioning your awareness, deconstructing your mind/beliefs. I've practiced alot of self-observation and recapitulation, to the point where I can recapitulate events as they happen. That ability is the same as seeing 'what is' without mind-emotions-thinking. Remember how CC saw the old seers by recapitulating them as if they were his own life? That's what I do with anything I want to know. But I have to be really interested - it has to come from my life, not my mind; meaning I can't just think up things to see because that would degrade it into philosophising instead of seeing actuality. Thus I see and say that life isn't mind, and being mind/1st att is being dead. We think about life instead of being life/living. DJ said we are always one step removed from reality (while in the 1st att.).

[true]

*There is always somebody who knows better than you what you meant by your message.

Hey Parker. Welcome.

I've noticed this one. My experience is that people say they understand you and you can see that they don't.

[Merged]

Hey true, thank you for the "welcome".

You know, sometimes people say they understand what another person is talking about but really don't, or that they know better than what you meant by your message, because:

maybe,
*they don't care to listen,
*they have over inflated tummies,
*they don't want to admit they are naive to the subject, or
*their clarity is flushed down a toilet?

Your guess is as good as mine.

It would be easier if someone would say..."could you repeat that for me?" I've said that both in my human conversations and in dreams. If I'm not getting the message, which could be valuable, "hey, could you repeat that, thanks...."

Thanks for your posts...

Peace

[true]

Here's a different slant - in NLP they say
"the response you get is the meaning you gave".

I usually see fault in the listener, but NLP emphasizes knowing/stalking
whoever you're communicating with to find their "modality" and
communicate on their level.