05.28.07
The Knitting Continues
This week I was finally able to work up my Manx Loaghtan ball of yarn I got as a present. I only got one ball, so I wanted to find a project that only required one ball. I originally chose a small clutch purse, but one of the more experienced knitters at my knit group told me that the loaghtan yarn was too thick for the pattern I wanted to make. So instead I made up my own pattern. Here is a picture of what it looked like when I got it started.
Just before I started on that, I also had another project that I worked up while I watch the rental DVD, Blood Diamond. Wow, what a movie. I never used to like DiCaprio much, but honestly, his performances in The Aviator and Blood Diamond is giving me a new respect for him as a serious actor. I used to just think he was a young pretty face, but he seems to have talent, too, ha! 
Anyway, here’s a picture of another experimental purse where I used some “fun fur.” I wasn’t sure how it would felt up, but this is what it looked like “before” I felted it. The bottom portion is some very old Crystal Palace yarn that I had stashed for 18 years or so, the fuzzy fur stuff is called “Fun Fur” which I bought on sale for $1.99 at JoAnn Fabrics almost half a year ago now, the red band on top was the left over yarn I had from my mom’s purse, which is a Cascade yarn. I didn’t have enough red left to complete the straps, so I used part red Cascade and part left over brown wool I’ve had for ages, and came up with the straps. So after I felted it, I was actually happy with the results! I’m telling you, felting is addicting! Here is it pictured below, next to my completed purse using the Manx Loaghtan yarn, which I didn’t felt because I wanted the cabling to show. I also attached a little Chinese talisman onto the zipper as a little finishing touch.
The little brown Manx yarn purse is my first purse or knit project where I tried to add a lining and a zipper. I’m pleased with the way it came out, although I would do it a little differently in the future. But for now, since this is for my personal use, I’m satisfied with the outcome. And it encourages me to try other sweater patterns where zippers are attached. I used the suggestion in Big Book of Knitting by Katharina Buss to add a crocheted edging to make a clean zipper attachment. It worked out very nicely. Here’s a picture of the top view showing how nicely the zipper fit in there with Buss’s recommendation to crochet a border.
Here’s a picture of what the lining looks like.
I know, funky choice of lining, huh? Well, it was just something I already had in the house for some of my quilting projects. I just thought the brown swirls matched the brown wool okay, and thought the pattern was fun, so what the heck? 
And finally, here’s a picture of another experiment wherein I used some varigated yarn and knitted in the round. The pattern came out interesting, and since I ran out of the yarn, I finished it up with some red Cascade yarn.
I have to say that felting is really addicting. It’s like Christmas everytime I open the washer to see what happened to the knit project. However, I am also pleased with the way the Manx yarn worked up, and now I have pictures that I can send back to my friend who sent me the yarn. I told him that once I make something out of it, I would sent him a picture of the completed project. Now that I’ve used up the yarn, I look at it and think that that yarn would have also made a nice little teddy bear. Hmm. I might try that sometime! Oh, did I say, “finally”? Well that was in error because I did also “finally” start on the ball of wool that I handspun months ago. I decided to make squares out of it. I plan to keep spinning all the roving I have and hopefully, I’ll end up with enough squares to sew together to make an afghan. Right now I have four squares laying out to be blocked. Hope that turns out okay. We’ll see. If so, I’ll be adding a picture of them in another post.
Toodles for now!
Marlakins 
Andrew said,
May 30, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Hi Marla!
You have been very busy! Looks good.
I am still in Finland……did you know that? Not sure.
I Had a really interesting experience last week that was kind of life changing. You might be interested in it? You might have heard this idea that we all create our own reality? For some reason i began to believe this was actually really totally true and then had this experience of believing that we live in a cocreated universe where our collected thoughts create the world we live in. It made a great deal of sense (to me). For example in a cocreated universe there is no real reality. Scientific facts simply become what people believe them to be……..and strangely as we find out more and more we seem to know less and less……..indeed when we measure what is there at the smallest level we find each measurement makes it different (from quantum physics). From this way of looking at life it is possible to really believe that anything we want to imagine as being possible *is* possible providing we can only believe it is possible.
Related to all of this have you ever seen the video the secret? I suppose that was the trigger for all of this…….I started to see my life in a different context and see that so much of what was happening in my life was entirely due to me attracting the wrong kinds of experiences. And also some of the seemingly good but more or less unexplainable experiences which seemed too good to be true (like my first house doubling in price in one year) became much more explainable or believable. Importantly i also found the ideas to make some of the more “terrible” events in my life as being something that i had somehow allowed to happen when i could have changed them had i believed i could have influenced them. I can say much more about this. It has in fact been life changing. I feel more authenticly confidant for example.
Anyway it was quite an experience……I dont seem to have your correct email any more…..i am still at the same hotmail address.
Take care of yourself!
Andrew
Administrator said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Hi Andrew!
Wow, Finland, huh? I bet you’re having a great time there!
As usual, I see you’re still “deep thinking,” ha! I think I have heard of The Secret, and even saw a short clip of it, I think. I don’t think I was able to see the whole video, tho. Will have to hunt it down again to view.
I am interested in your recent experience that left such an impression on you! If you don’t feel comfortable sharing it here, then feel free to send me private email. My address hasn’t changed, so I don’t know why you’re having trouble reaching me? But I’ll send you a private note so that you’ll have it again.
So back to creating our own realities, so what does that say of people who become seriously ill? They created that reality for themselves by means of “willing” themselves to get sick? I can understand part of what you say regarding creating our own circumstances. I do agree we have some control over that, however, I am also under the impression that there are some circumstances that we don’t control because we don’t know those conditions are affecting us or we are not even aware that they exist. Does that make any sense to you?
Anyway, good to hear from you! And hope the rest of your stay in Finland is enjoyable! Do you know how much longer you plan to stay there?
Marla
Andrew said,
May 31, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Hi Marla
Re: Creating our reality
Well perhaps you could look at this like a life philosophy or a story or just something interesting or indeed something completely real and true for you and the way you experience life on Earth?
If you have a God belief then God created the earth. But what did God create exactly? We believe that we see the earth but how do we know that what we see is in fact real? Maybe our *experience* of what we see is part of Gods creation? Perhaps we are part of God?
If in Gods creation we create our own reality based on what we belief to be true *and* our experience of reality is a jointly created co reality built from the experiences of all other souls then the world is a cocreation of our joint beliefs.
So if for example a person finds what they believe to be an enormous bone and then believes this thing they find to belong to an enormous animal and people believe that these enormous animals once lived on earth then this becomes real. Things that were not bones becomes bones. Reality is changed by the belief that something exists.
Meanwhile others have different beliefs. Even though the cocreated reality has created the bones they are seeing they do not accept the belief that the bones belong to animals that roamed the earth millions of years ago.
But meanwhile the collected belief that animals did roam the earth millions of years ago is now looking for things that explain how this is possible. And things are found and new beliefs formed and new things are created by the belief of those who find them. All that is required is that they believe it to be true. If an archeologist believes he will find the missing link then he will find the missing link because he is creating his own reality based on what he believes. If what he finds and has created is convincing to others then they too will believe the link is found and then more consciousness is creating a more and more elaborate reality.
Think about this:
To the ancients the human body was a mysterious thing filled with ethers and indescribable elemental things. Then just a few hundred years ago Harvery said that blood was pumped thru the body. And now for some reason although the ancients worked out by trigonometry the distance to the moon and had no awareness of the body that we have, even a child witnessing a terrible car accident can see a pump pumping and blood flowing. Reality changes depending upon what we belief.
Can a man fly? If he can find a way to believe he an fly then he can fly. So he flys thru the air in pieces of metal. Can a man communicate with another man over vast distances? The belief creates the reality. Are we talking via computers? We believe it to be true. Are communicating via the english language? We believe it to be true.
And yet we also might believe we are spiritual beings having a soul. Perhaps in fact our bodies are only the creation of our collected beliefs? Perhaps our bodies and our health is entirely dependant upon our faith that we can have a perfect body?
We have a dual way of seeing. There is the logical way of seeing and then there is faith. If you believe it to be true you dont need a reason to know it exists (for you) and oppositly if you have no faith then you can never believe it to be true.
Illness might arise because of tension in the consciousness creating the reality it experiences, and unknowingly it is attracting experiences to it.
Prayer attracts to you the experiences you want.
Newspapers and films filled with bad images create the belief that the world is full of bad things. What you belief to be true becomes true. Each session in front of the TV that encourages you to believe the world is full of bad things is like a prayer that attracts bad things to you.
However if you believe otherwise, then God made an abundant universe where all of us can live happily without illness poverty hunger and deprivation.
We all see these bad things. And we all see happy people amongst bad things.
We create our own reality
Life can be exactly as God intends it for us or it can be otherwise. It is only our choice because God gave us the ability to enjoy this Earth. All that we need is total and absolute faith in his word.
Personally, and importantly i think, i believe that the word of God does not exist in books written by men and woman but is something that only God can know. God is inside us. We are part of God. We are therefore all like God. We were created in his own image.
Andrew
Administrator said,
June 1, 2007 at 7:55 am
Hi Andrew:
Thanks for taking the time to type out and share your views. From our past discussions, you may recall that I always appreciate that.
My initial feeling to what you’ve conveyed is that the term “reality” has a very ambiguous meaning according to the way you seem to be defining it. I do agree that there are some things we can make a reality-i.e. we reap what we sow scenario, hard work can result in a nice paycheck, etc. However, I feel that your examples have extended that concept out too far because I do believe that there are “absolute” truths and not just “relative” truths whether a person believes it or not. For example, do you exist? I suppose under your logic, you only exist to those who believe you exist, but I think in reality, you do exist no matter what anybody else believes.
So many things go on in the world that I have completely no knowledge of, but they happen and events take place and people exist completely apart from my personal beliefs. Think of all the wars in foreign countries. People have been massacred by the hundreds and millions. Who wants that? Who wants to believe that? But it has happened time and time again. I have no control over that no matter how much I wish for it not to happen. And it continues to happen regardless of my beliefs. I believe there is a reality, and whether people want to face that or not doesn’t change that reality. One person may believe there are no wars and there never have been wars, yet that would not change the reality that there have been and continue to be wars. I don’t believe that I’m the only one in the world who believes that these wars have taken place, and if I am, then what does that say of me? That I “want” to believe that millions of people have been brutally massacred? I don’t think so.
I believe that what a person believes does not change truth. If I wore a pink dress today and someone who saw me wearing that pink dress recalls the next day that I work a yellow dress, that still does not change the truth/fact that I really wore a pink dress. He just recalled that fact wrongly. Just because he believed I wore a yellow dress doesn’t change that reality that I wore a pink one. Sure “his” reality may be skewed, but that does not change “actual” truth/reality. Perhaps what is being mixed together is the difference between “actual” truth and “relative” truth. They are two different things.
I suppose I could give many more examples, but in short, I think your logic has a certain application for “some” situations, but is not sufficient to answer our beliefs in the existence of the earth or God, etc. The earth or God either exists or doesn’t exist apart from what you or I believe or whether you or I exist. In that case, we don’t make that a reality, we only choose whether we want to believe it or not. Extending your logic out that way seems to have arisen from the old sayings, “I think, therefore I am” and “do I really exist” and stuff like that. My observation is that that is an introverted perspective. Rather than look out at what is really out there, we into/inside of ourselves to try to find truth. That’s more of an Eastern way of thinking, looking into one’s self to find god/zen/nirvana, while biblically speaking we are taught to look “outside” of ourselves to find God and truth. We are made in the “image” of God, but we are “not” God.
Marla
Andrew said,
June 1, 2007 at 1:14 pm
If God made us to believe we experienced reality and we share that reality experience with other people but in fact we are simply souls who experience this god given experience how would we know the difference between life as illusion and life as something real?
Administrator said,
June 2, 2007 at 9:55 am
Hi Andrew:
Well, if we are speaking of God’s reality, then I suppose we would need to consider what is God’s reality. Proverbs teach us “For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.” That is in reference to what’s in the man’s heart, not that if the man believes he’s a butterfly, he will in fact be a butterfly who has wings to flap around and fly. Basically, what comes out of the mouth (words) shows what’s in a man’s heart. Thus what comes out of a man is what defiles him, not what goes in. This is a very different concept from “creating our own reality.” Biblically speaking, God shows us and tells us His attributes so that we would know Him, not how we “imagine” Him to be.
Also consider the following passage from 1 Corinthians:
“Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.”
I believe the Bible teaches us to love one another. By doing so, we may in fact affect our realities, but I don’t think we have “complete” control of it because we are all also affected by one another.
As far as from the perspective of how one knows what is an illusion and what is real, if one believes that we are not able to distinguish the difference (between real and illusion), then “that person” can not prove the supposition that he can make his own reality because how would he know if what he was thinking is reality or just an illusion?
I do know that I’ve seen quite a few mentally ill bums roaming the streets talking to themselves. I believe some of them think in their minds that they are somewhere else and talking to someone, but there is no one there, as far as I can see. They are off in a delusional world in their minds, but the reality is they are mentally gone. In reality, some of them are walking on the streets, filthy, homeless, and oblivious to those truly around them.
Oh, and another thing the Bible teaches is that God is not a God of confusion. (1 Cor. 14 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.) Not being able to distinguish reality from non-reality would be pretty confusing.
Take care,
Marla
Andrew said,
June 3, 2007 at 3:08 am
Hi Marla
I was not talking of Gods reality but instead the experience of reality that God may have given us.
Only God knows the answer to this. The answer is therefore unknowable.
If you believe you know the answer then that to me seems anti God because it places you in the position of being the ultimate decider of what is true.
Do “bums” walking around this earth talk to themselves only, or do they in fact have the ability to hear and communicate with other souls? What is real? What is illusion?
Can a man hear the voice of God? Can he talk with the angels?
One observation i would like to sneak in here at this point regarding eyesight is that your astigmatic condition was i believe related to inflexibility stubborness and impatience. The issue perhaps arising from being overly criticised when younger and now when older tending to feel as if you are being attacked?
But it must be true that when a person decides that their own way of seeing is the true one then they tend to project that outwards to the world in a way that is not helpful to them and will tend to experience the world in a rejecting or critical manner towards them at least sometimes.
So in that sense at least, if that is true you are creating a reality that you *will* see revealed to you. But what *is* real? and what is illusion or only a perception?
I think these are interesting questions and ones that are not easily answered by ourselves but are more easily answered by those of us around us who experience us from a point of view that is not our own.
It would for example be interesting to know what Brians point of view might be on what i have said here about you. Not necessarily interesting for me to know but instead interesting for you to know.
As you pointed out, looking inwards can be unhelpful, the view from outside looking in can often be the most helpful one
Andrew
Administrator said,
June 3, 2007 at 10:43 am
Hello Andrew:
I will ask Brian to read our conversation and see if he will reply. I too would like a third party opinion. But even so, even if a third or fourth or fifth party didn’t agree with me, that would still not prove that I’m wrong because I believe truth is truth whether no one believes it. Isn’t it possible that no one has the truth? Speaking of that, since you think we all create our own reality, then you should have no problem that I disagree with you because that is my reality. But interestingly, you seem to feel unsettled that I don’t agree with you. Your reaction is contrary to your belief that we all create our own reality. I would think your logical reaction given your belief that we all create our own reality would be, “okay, that’s her reality, so be it.” Instead you seem to be trying to make me change “my” reality by psychoanalyzing me. That’s manipulative, Andrew.
I do think that we can have a discussion presenting our own points of view just to see if our logics hold up on its own merit “without” having to know why I or you think them. The issue is “do people really create their own reality?” We should be able to logically discuss that without having to drag out whether Mom and Dad abandoned me or you as a child. If there is actual reality, then “why” I believe something does not change reality whether its a real reality or an illusional one. It either is or it isn’t apart from me or what ever shaped me as a person. If I believe King Henry VIII existed, then he either existed or he didn’t regardless of whether I believe it or not or whether I was an abused child or not. I am not relevant to King Henry VIII’s existence, therefore we should be able to discuss him (as with the topic of creating our own reality) without bring in personal judgment calls.
I do find it interesting that you say you are not interested in Brian’s opinion, yet you want me to know his opinion. Why is that?
Take care,
Marla
Andrew said,
June 3, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Marla
Perhaps i can just mention that i am interested in brians opinion but *my meaning* was his opinion (in my opinion) is more important to you than it is to me
Overall my feeling is that this conversation is getting further and further away from the experience i had that you were interested in hearing about. So i wonder why that might have happened. Maybe we both wonder why that might have happened?
A part of my experience was the experience of realisation **for me** that while there may be a single truth I dont believe we can ever know what truth is. All we can know is what our perception of truth appeared to be at the time.
You said that you think I am trying to control and manipulate you.
From my point of view i have only wanted you to understand my experience as i experienced it. And i have attempted to do that because you did say you were interested in it.
So from that point of view you need to *allow* yourself to see my point of view as if you were me. If you do not allow yourself to see *my* point of view, then from *your* point of view you might experience me as being controlling as I attempt to explain my experience to you against some resistance you might have to what i am saying. So perhaps the feeling of control and manipulation you get is one that arises due to you putting up an opposite “power” to mine as i attempt to clarify my meaning to you? That is what i believe is happening here.
This experience of feeling oneself controlled or manipulated by another person is hugely relevant in nearsightedness. I believe it is mainly created by a perception of what is happening that does not fully reflect what is really happening, even if elements of the perception are true it is not the whole truth. .
You dont have to agree with another person. All that is needed (for the purposes of relationship/business/interaction/cooperation/relaxed conversation) is that you understand their point of view without changing it to reflect what you yourself believe.
You are of course free to believe what you want as we are all free to believe what we want. But to see normally you need to allow yourself to see another point of view that is presented to you from outside of yourself. And you see that point of view by a process of continually attempting to use your skill and judgment to work out what information is in the other viewpoint that is presented to you.
In nearsightedness there is at work a kind of belief filter that changes what enters from outside so that it fits with the prexisting ideas the person has.
You can keep all the ideas and beliefs you already have. All that is needed is that you allow yourself to see the other point of view as if this was your own view, so that you can say back to the other person (in this case me) your description of that view so that the other person can recieve your understanding of the view and say that it is the same as the one that they were “sending” to you. Once you can do that, the other person can say to you, “yes that is how it was for me”. Otherwise all they can say to you is “no it was not like that, you are not seeing my point of view, or you dont understand what i meant”. I believe that a nearsighted person tends to feel provoked by that kind of response and they do feel as if they are being controlled and manipulated to agree with the other person. Often the other person has got very upset at that point (which seems hostile and threatening to the nearsighted person). But all that was desired was that the nearsighted person sees the other point of view and respects it even though they might not agree with it.
So in the example of the experience i had, i presented my experience but you did not seem to me to have understood what i had said and i then continued to explain what i had meant by further clarification and pointing out where you had not seen what i had meant. I can see that by continuing i did create a problem and i am sorry for doing that. Maybe myopicly i imagined it would work out just fine in the end:-) On the other hand maybe it will not:-(
Regards
Andrew
Administrator said,
June 3, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Hello Andrew:
Okay, your explanation sounds understandable to me. I did not mean to ignore your “experience” because I was truly interested in it. However, from your explanation, you had what I understand to be a “revelation” more than an experience, so perhaps there is where one misunderstanding appeared. As far as I was concerned, you had not yet shared your experience. I did not realise that your revelation was your experience and so I was responding to your comments with my perspective not realising I was “negating” (for lack of a better word) your experience.
If you believe that you create your own reality, that’s fine with me. But that is not how I see life. I did mention I agreed with it to a certain point, but I do not feel is it sufficient to explain the existence of the world and God.
As far as being able to see from another person’s perspective, I understand the concept you have described about creating our own realities, but again, I don’t agree with it. I don’t believe we have to agree with it to understand it. After all I “think” you feel you understand my position, but you don’t agree. And since you don’t agree with my perspective, under your logic, you don’t see my reality through my understanding as well, so we’re not much different from each other in being unable to see from each other’s eyes. But these differences in people is what makes communication interesting. These differences are one big reason why we even communicate at all. I do think everyone disagrees at some point or another whether they are normal sighted or not.
I’ve asked Brian to read this thread. He said he would and would reply if he had any comment to add.
I appreciate you taking the time to clarify, Andrew. I feel we are getting closer to some understanding here.
Okay! I’ll go remind Brian to come take a peek here.
Toodles!
Marla
Andrew said,
June 3, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Marla
“since you think we all create our own reality, then you should have no problem that I disagree with you because that is my reality. But interestingly, you seem to feel unsettled that I don’t agree with you. Your reaction is contrary to your belief that we all create our own reality. I would think your logical reaction given your belief that we all create our own reality would be, “okay, that’s her reality, so be it.”
You do have a point here.
Firstly though I need to clarify that i was talking about a *cocreated* reality where each of us creates our own reality. In a cocreated reality your beliefs do change the reality i experience because even if i do not agree with the reality you create i still receive your point of view. The cocreated reality is a concensus reality created by the concensus point of view.. So in a cocreated reality i am free to create my own reality provided i am not resisted by an equally powerful force to my own. Generally people tolerate (even if very annoyed) differences rather than attempting to destroy difference. So if you want something badly enuf you can usually get it, because others allow you to have it because (in this cocreated view of our life) we are all equally important souls who are all equally loved regardless of our actions (that being in the design).
It is a feature of nearsightedness that we give away our power to be who we could be to others……….and yet we resent it. It seems from our point of view that we are controlled by others against our will. But we find it hard to see how we *allowed* this to happen. From the point of view of the other person since you allowed the change to happen then you must have been ok about it, because for sure a normal sighted person would *never* allow anything to happen that they did not want it to happen or genuninely believe it is better (for them) to allow to happen because it is in the better longer term interests of their higher selfs interests.
So in the cocreated universe you have a power to create a reality, and so do i have the power to create a reality. The overall reality is the consensus reality and that is one we receive and feel around us as being reality.
In tension, each of us can create any reality. But in relaxation we can only create a reality that fits with the concensus reality. But even so if we can avoid disturbing the concensus reality we are free to create whatever private reality we want that is best for us that uses the elements of the concensus reality.
OK so back to the point you raised:-)
Nearsighted people do not have a good boundary around them. Therefore they experience the reality created by another person as being something that they need to resist in order that their own reality can be maintained without it being changed.
I am nearsighted, and so i do experience another persons reality as if it were my own and it does unsettle me
A good example of this that i began to see last week is my girlfriends father who is highly myoic. He is a friendly man and likes me and yet when i get in a car as driver and he is the passenger i get the feeling of immense control coming from him. If he asleep in the back then i dont get this.
So in the cocreated model, his power to create change is coming out from him in a controlling and manipulating manner to alter my behaviour in a way that is not clear to him. So his own boundary is leaking outwards.
Interesting after my experience last week i can now more or less “see” the force field coming out from him…..and see it as his issue……and providing i can be compassionate towards his fear of my driving then i can be relaxed and reassuring and careful and therefore he can stop the controlling force that he is applying to me that i be different.
And so when i explain to you my belief and see you dont agree with it or understand it then for some reason i do feel i have the need to go that extra mile to justify what i believe. And you are right i dont need to do that.
But perhaps also you also could see that i am free to have a different point of view to your own. Maybe i am experiencing your power that I be different? And since i am not attempting to understand your point of view, because i am seeing mine as being more important, then i continue to experience your power that i be different.
There are various solutions. We can agree to disagree….and allow the subject to fade away….and the power we have over each other to fade away too. Or we could attempt a resolution of this – that might be an almost impossible task though and one that cant really be done in the context of the kind of friendship we have.
Even so, from my point of view the stuff coming up for me, which is helping to make things clearer for me, via the itneraction we are having is becoming quite interesting:-)
Andrew
Andrew said,
June 4, 2007 at 12:24 am
“And since you don’t agree with my perspective, under your logic, you don’t see my reality through my understanding as well”
Under “my logic” i am saying something *different* to this.
I am saying that when i listen to you and see things from your point of view then i *do* see as best as it possibly is to see for any other person, as if seeing via your “reality through your understanding as well”. (part in quotes modified slightly from the quoted part of what you said that i copied in at the top)
So that is why i ask “why do you think that? And that is why i “analyse/psychoanalyse what you are saying”. It is not i believe to manipulate you but it is my attempt to put myself in your shoes so that i can understand your point of view as if I was you.
To understand another persons point of view we need to see as if we had received ourselves the experiences the other person has had. So it seems valid in a discussion to kind of say “help me here please, i dont see what you mean, How are you arriving at this point of view? I just dont see it” but i guess you are right that doing uninvited analysis might be an invasion that was not wanted. And also i can see it requires a judgement by me that only via analysis of you can i hope to understood what it is you do mean………..or rather perhaps can you hope to understand what i mean! So not such a good insight for me perhaps
But either way allowing for my foibles and weaknesses, to understand another persons point of view we need to let go of our own view entirely and just receive their view as if we were that other person. But to do that often we need to also know what their experiences were that have created that view and be sympathetic to them as if they were our own experiences that we see as the other person sees..
When a person is good at this then they are “sympathetic” or “emphathetic” or “sensitive”. But rather than it being a personality/genetic trait it is simply something that a person can learn to do and is i believe part of the process of good seeing.
Andrew said,
June 4, 2007 at 12:51 am
“However, from your explanation, you had what I understand to be a “revelation” more than an experience, so perhaps there is where one misunderstanding appeared. As far as I was concerned, you had not yet shared your experience.”
I think this is the core of the issue here.
Until you can see my point of view then you will not be able to “get your head around” or “mind warp” or “orientate” yourself to what i experienced.
I am though not sure what you mean by a “revelation”, because from my point of view had i used the word “revelation” it would be a very similar word to “experience” as a word to describe what happened. The “revelation” having created the “experience”
The result of this “word” is that the world is now seen differently by me. Or possibly more accurately, the Earth and its events that i see presented before me, and the Earth and its events that i believe exists (as i see it), is now a more integrated, understandable “thing”/”experience” for me.
For example i had previously no integrated awareness of God that existed and i was comfortable allowing to exist, without a lingering fear that i was wrong. I still dont *know* but i am far less resistive to the possibility. And for sure there is a part of me that does believe and does want to believe. I am all these parts if i am an integrated person.
Andrew said,
June 4, 2007 at 1:27 am
me again!
Another way to see this issue of points of view is as follows:
10 people are positioned around the sides and above and below an Elephant.
One person is positioned at the rear end and only sees the rear end.
If no person has ever seen an elephant before and the elephant does not move and no person moves then the only way to find out what the elephant actually looks like is to suspend all disbelief and allow all of the various viewpoints to be considered to buid a picture of the elephant.
If one person says “it is impossible for an animal to be that large” then they limt what they can believe and they see a smaller animal and so they describe a smaller animal.
If the person at the rear end sees an ugly disgusting animal then if they keep saying to others “yes i know what you are saying but i cant see how this is a magnificant animal, it is disgusting to me” then that is what they see until they set aside their own opnions and allow in the views of the others.
Similarly if the person at the rear end keeps saying to the others this is a disgusting animal i am seeing then the others are going to see something disgusting as being the view from the rear even if there own view is magnificant. Some of them might conclude that the view from the rear is biased and some might believe it is accurate. But the most accurate viewpoint of the elephant is produced by the person who attempts to understand the viewpoint of all of these people taking into account the experiences that each of them have had. And so they understand why a person might not believe the elephant could be so big and why it seems disgusting but they themselves produce their own (in this case more accurate view)
So the most accurate viewpoint might know that the rear end view is produced by a person who tends to see negatively and who is not open to new experiences but even so the accurate view has received entirely the view of the rear end as described by the other person as they see it.
Administrator said,
June 5, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Hello Andrew:
I appreciate that you care enough to make sure your intentions are not construed as being malicious, but rather just how you deal with these types of discussions. In situations when you want to know “why” a person believes something or “why” he does something, it does seem logical to try to put yourself in their shoes. An example is if you are trying to solve a murder mystery. However, in our discussion, I was not even attempting to figure out “why” you believed what you did, but merely taking the statements at face value of why I thought your blanket statment of us creating our own realities even to the point of God’s existence didn’t hold up in my thinking. And that is why I said that I think we can have a discussion to see if the “logic” of the “concepts” put forward regarding creating our own reality would hold up.
What I think might be happening, tho, is that you’re already starting from the viewpoint that we create our own realities and that is how your are trying to back up your point. And that is why you were trying to put yourself in my shoes. “Why” I hold my opinion is not the issue as far as I’m concerned. The issue that I thought I was discussing was “which is true?” a) do we create our own reality? or b) we don’t create our own reality. Although, I did give a third option that I believe it is both because in some situations we do affect our realities, while in other situations we don’t. Perhaps this explains it better so that you understand why I did not think my personal childhood experiences were relevant in our discussion because it’s not “me” we are talking about here, but a “concept.”
As to the difference between “revelation” and “experience,” the way I have understood those two is that a person can have a very memorable, even life-altering “experience” “without” having a revelation. This is what I thought you meant when you first wrote that you had an experience. An example of this type of experience is taking a trip to some far away place where you have the BEST time of your life and you will always remember it and hope to make changes in your life to keep that experience going. That is an experience, but there was no revelation, per se because there is no answer to a deep seated question. While a revelation doesn’t necessarily require an experience, per se. I could just be sitting out in my backyard daydreaming and all of a sudden a thought pops into my head of something that I had not thought before. And that little new thought helps to answer others queries I’ve had in the past for which I had been perplexed. That type of scenario is what I consider a revelation. Something was revealed to me, I get an “answer.” An experience doesn’t necessarily answer anything, but can be life-altering none-the-less. I suppose they can be combined, but in that case, if I were to describe it, I would describe it as an experience (and that is what I thought you meant). You didn’t mention an “event” or trip or anything, which I would have associated with an experience, therefore your thoughts to me are considered a revelation. So hopefully now we are on the same page!
Now regarding the elephant, yes, I’ve heard that analogy before. The way I’ve heard it explained is that all the people were right. You seem to be putting more into it by saying that those who saw negative aspects may be “negative” people. I don’t think the elephant analogy was trying to convey that, but rather that since all the people were looking at a different view, they all saw different things, and although what they all saw were different, they were all right. Now you appear to be taking it a step further to judge their characters, which I think given the analogy is permature because you are “assuming” that they think there is no alternative. I don’t think that’s the way the analogy goes because it doesn’t go that far. It doesn’t continue to ask each person whether there is a possibilty that things are different, etc.
Now having said that, I am going to take it one step further, too! Ha! But rather than judge their characters, I think that not only were they all right in their assesment of what an elephant is like, but they were also all wrong or rather they were all “partly” wrong because they did not see the whole. So not only is an elephant like this, but it is also like that. So again, there is the third scenario. And I suppose there must be another way to look at it that I’m not seeing!
Anyway, those are my initial thoughts for now. Brian did read this thread just before your latest 4 posts, and he was going to send a reply, but I think he got busy and side tracked, and didn’t finish. He might get to it by the weekend, ha! I did get to peak at what he was writing, but he doesn’t like me to do that, so I have to let him finish before I can read it, too, ha ha!
Okay, toodles for now!
Marla
P.S. I think I have been so focused on the first point of creating our own realities, that I still have not even really gotten to “cocreating” realities. That’s another interesting aspect, and a thought came to me regarding your girlfriend’s father’s influence on you while he is awake. You mentioned you did not feel his influence while he slept. In that case, do you think our influence is only there while we are awake? Our aoura changes when we sleep? Or were the feelings you got from him really from you and your conciousness of knowing he was awake to judge you?
Andrew said,
June 5, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Marla
I have the feeling that in response to what i have said you are putting up all sorts of logical reasons as to why i am wrong. And yet in each example you bring up i feel your example does not make me wrong and yet i can imagine you might believe it does.
For example:
*An* elephant story is usually told as three blind men who are convinced they know what the animal is from what they can feel. You describe that part of *your* analogy accurately. But in *my* story the most *appropriate* use of the mind is *not* to be right but is rather to learn from the others so that the *most right* person can know what an elephant is like. So my story is not really taking *your* elephant story a step further but is really desciribing a new idea that i have not seen described before using an elephant:-). The bias each person brings to what they see was of lesser importance than the fact that to see the elephant each has to receive the point of view of each other person (rather than just being like a blind man who is convinced they are right as per the common use of the elephant in a different story)
My girlfriends father:
If i believe that no person can control my mind while they are asleep then my consciousness is *not* affected by their thoughts *until* such time as my belief changes. You replied logically about the aura having to change between awake and asleep but it does not have to. The issue here was one of boundaries. If my boundary is secure between myself and an asleep person then i am unaffected by their consciousness until they are awake. (In fact even when he is asleep it bothers me but much less so – but this seemed a minor point not worth mentioning)
This revelation or experience word is really bugging me.
If i said to a person, “man i had a life changing revelation over the weekend! wow it was incredible” or i said “man i had a life changing experience over the weekend wow it was incredible” To my way of thinking this amounts to as near as damn it the same thing. But for you it seems these two things are profoundly different. I just dont get where you are coming from on that. And to be honest i dont think i want to hear more about it! It seems important for you but not for me. Either way *for me* my experience was educational and revalatory and life changing no matter how you want to interpret or warp my words!
The main issue or problem i am having with the way you have replied to me thru this conversation is that i was describing my story and you have produced your own stories to decide i am wrong and yet i dont feel you have really listened long enuf to my story to understand it. And it seems that no matter what i say you are going to keep doing this.
The issue is important in eyesight i believe.
To see normally you need to allow what is there to come to you rather than superimpose what you believe is there as if the originally seen “experience” or scene or sight can only be the way you want to describe it *from your point of view*
I dont want to be unfriendly here but i think i have said all i want to say here. If you cant see my point of view then so be it.
Regards
Andrew
Administrator said,
June 6, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Hello Andrew:
I was just going to let your comments go and let this thread drop because obviously you are not interested in my points of view. However, upon reflection, this is “my” blog. This blog was created by me so that I could express myself. It was not created so that anyone could come on here and pontificate ideas and concepts of which I do not agree while I sit back and make no comment. I am happy to hear other people’s points of view even if they are contrary to mine “provided” that I be “allowed” to also air my viewpoint in response and that the exchanges are civil. These are typed words which can be read as many times as one likes. I realise people do not agree on lots of things, and if you peruse other threads on my blog, you may see that I have left conversations intact even though I did not agree with the original poster. The purpose for that is so that I allow ideas to be aired even though I do not agree with them (I do have an edit feature by which I could just delete any post, but I choose to leave them so that the discussions can be viewed). When you finish a post, my assumption is that you have completed your thoughts. I was not interrupting you or preventing you from sharing your ideas. I have read all your posts “before” I have commented. I commented according to my understanding of what you had written. You accuse me of not taking enough time to understand you even though I have read your lengthy posts and took the time to comment. You infer you are not interested in my point of view. Therefore, I am left to feel that all you wanted to do was air your thoughts “without” opposition even if there were opposition. Do not expect that here. If you want to air your points of view “without” critique, this is not the place for it.
Please understand that this is not to be hostile or unfriendly, but I must lay down the guidelines for my blog. If you comment here and I happen to find questions or disagree with what has been shared, then I “will” comment if I feel compelled, and not sit back like a good little doggie. If you are no longer interested in sharing your points of view, then that is okay, too.
I have enjoyed what I “thought” were conversations and sharing of ideas. However, from your latest reaction, I see I was mistaken. Now I feel that all I have been to you was someone to “listen” to “you” or someone by whom you want to practice psychological analysis, but not someone who was your friend just having a discussion.
Take care,
Marla
Andrew said,
June 7, 2007 at 5:45 am
Marla
If i could sum up from my point of view.
What has happened here is a bit like the following.
I for example go to the movies and see a film you have not seen. After hearing what i have said you begin to make an argument that the film does not make sense and i point out to you that you have misunderstood what i have said about what happened in the film. So in order for you to understand the film you do need to be a good doggie and listen and understand that the film was not like the way you are describing it.
Woof woof
Andrew
Administrator said,
June 7, 2007 at 7:30 am
Hello Andrew:
Perhaps you forget that it is customary for movies to be critiqued by movie critiques, which does not change the movie itself. The film makers commonly “expect” a “reaction” from those who have viewed his film. All those who participated in the creation of the movie also anxiously await reactions from those who have viewed it. And those who are interested in watching the film also read the critiques of the movie critics for their perspective as well. It is natural for people to desire interaction whereby they can receive imput as well as give imput.
You may say I have not viewed your movie, however the closest I can get to viewing “your” movie is reading your type-written words, of which I did. So essentially, I have viewed your description of your movie.
The way I see it, you do not welcome imput. Therefore, I believe a better analogy for what has transpired here is that of a “classroom lecture” whereby students are just expected to sit, listen, and absorb hopefully for the purpose that they can regurgitate someone else’s ideas, not their own. Or another analogy could be that of a parent and a child whereby only the parent teaches the child, and that child should be quiet and obey.
Meow,
Marla
Andrew said,
June 7, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Hi Marla
I am pleased that we have been able to get back to this being a discussion.
I agree aspects of what you are saying about me are relevant for me. And it is almost certain that had i been a better communicator and listener this conversation would not have evolved as it has.
Even so i think there are aspects about the evolution of this conversation that are relevant for both of us.
From my point of view the way this conversation has developed appears to be as the result of misunderstandings by both of us I believe.
But also i think the way this conversation has developed does in some manner show the manner in which each of us responds and interacts with another person and I believe can give us insights into our wider life and what is not working for us. I also think that some of these insights are important for the conditions of nearsightedness and astigmatism we both have.
I agree i have gone completely overboard on this “listening thing” and this “points of view thing”. Even so i do passionately believe that good listening or good observation, or being a trained observer, are related to good vision.
Roberto Kaplan OD for example talks about our reaction between more or less the same thing as the blur we experience. No reaction and no tension means relaxation and simply and uncomplicatedly receiving what is there to seen. Reaction involves a process of resisting what is there to be seen. You asked early on that if a person is creating their own reality why is there illness. And i replied it suggested tension or lack of at easness with ourselves or our consciousness.
Now since i know you were very seriously ill i suppose i have been that more determined to do what i thought was going to *help* you:-). And as i pointed out earlier i think you tend to react to a person sometimes who might be wanting to help you in a way that makes you believe you are being attacked. And i linked that thru to the idea that maybe you were critisised alot when you were a kid. Now i know you said you dont want to talk about that area. Even so in the circumstances it does seem relevant for the purposes of clarification of what i think was happening for us both in this conversation.
I have tried to slip in these ideas during the conversation and i suppose just ended up with a horrible mess of complexity where you have interpreted what i am saying as being some kind of lecture where your only role is to listen and learn. And as i said above there is an element of truth in what you are saying no doubt at all.
Ok…..so thats some thoughts on the way the conversation developed from an abstract view point that tries to avoid “I said that” and “you said that” and leads us nowhere in our experience so far.
Back to the movie example since you seemed to like that one:-)
If critics respond well or badly, often the directors and writers get involved in trying to point out the message behind the film and reinforce their own message, rather than allow the critics interpretation to become the “received” idea of what the film was about.
If you were a “critic” of my film and you said
“My initial feeling to what you’ve conveyed is that the term “reality” has a very ambiguous meaning according to the way you seem to be defining it”
I might reply
“If God made us to believe we experienced reality and we share that reality experience with other people but in fact we are simply souls who experience this god given experience how would we know the difference between life as illusion and life as something real? ”
and if you replied
“Well, if we are speaking of God’s reality, then I suppose we would need to consider what is God’s reality.”
I might reply
“I was not talking of Gods reality but instead the experience of reality that God may have given us”
And so on. Where it appears to me that you have not understood what i have said.
I then tried to link this confusion with your blurred vision.
And i included in that
“It would for example be interesting to know what Brians point of view might be on what i have said here about you. Not necessarily interesting for me to know but instead interesting for you to know.”
And you replied
“I do find it interesting that you say you are not interested in Brian’s opinion, yet you want me to know his opinion. Why is that?”
And i replied:
” i am interested in brians opinion but *my meaning* was his opinion (in my opinion) is more important to you than it is to me”
So in summation it seems that we keep developing misunderstandings which take quite a bit of working with to resolve.
And yet ultimately we dont really get to the heart of the matter which (from my point of view) was to enable you to understand what i experienced since you were interested in it at the beginning anyway!
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew said,
July 11, 2007 at 5:35 am
I found this to be rather inspirational
http://greatday.com/cgi-bin/jsenter.pl?1706h07B4zna