TetraSeed Naked Singularity 2016 11 4 Lawrence Gold

Facebook: Lawrence.Gold.Somatics | 505 819-0858
CONTACT: http://somatics.com/wordpress/contact

Clinical Somatic Education | a New Discipline in the Field of Health Care
#somatic education
#intelligent-self empowerment
#personal development

http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/comments/lawrencegold.wordpress.com/730/ TetraSeed Naked Singularity 2016 11 4 Lawrence Gold https://lawrencegold.wordpress.com/2017/05/14/tetraseed-naked-singularity-2016-11-4-lawrence-gold/

A Riff on the Gold Key Release 2017 5 12 Lawrence Gold

Facebook: Lawrence.Gold.Somatics | 505 819-0858
CONTACT: http://somatics.com/wordpress/contact

Clinical Somatic Education | a New Discipline in the Field of Health Care
#somatic education
#intelligent-self empowerment
#personal development

http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/comments/lawrencegold.wordpress.com/728/ A Riff on the Gold Key Release 2017 5 12 Lawrence Gold https://lawrencegold.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/a-riff-on-the-gold-key-release-2017-5-12-lawrence-gold/

The Standard, Deviated Thinking and Straightened Out Thinking

The title is a play on words meaningful to those who know something about statistics.

If you don't know something about statistics, here's what "standard deviation" means: the average --
and not just a single numerical average, like, "the average of 1+3 is 2".

It's a range of "average" that contains about 60% of the population, with half (30%) more than the average and half (30%) less than the average. It's what we mean, when we say, "it's about average" or, "That's pretty normal." It's a range.

There's a standard, deviated thinking by people who consider percentages, in themselves, meaningful -- which is nearly everybody. Not we, of course, no.

A percentage tells a relative size, compared to something else, a relative degree of change -- but nothing of the quantity. The percentage is only part of the equation; the other part, "the percentage of What?".

Percentages, like, "10% off" "25% off" "40% off", etc., are significant only when the, of What, is taken into consideration.

10% of $10.00 is one dollar.
10% of $3,000.00" is $300,000.

One Dollar vs. Three Hundred Dollars - See? So, "10%" is really meaningless, by itself.

Is this obvious?

Here's the undeviated thinking outside the first standard deviation (what 60% of people think): Whenever someone, say, a newscaster or a politician or any other thought-caster cites a "government" or "official authority" percentage-statistic in an effort to persuade or "inform", ask, or at least wonder to yourself, "That percentage of What?" Don't let them dissuade you from exercising your intelligence about a percentage number that is meaningless, by itself. What is he [or she] really saying? Is it puffery?

For example: with taxes:  Get the dollar amount of the increase of the tax base, altogether, and the dollar amount of the new tax induced change. "A 2% increase of What?" -- and give the statistic in dollars, not just in terms of percentage. How much, altogether? and what percentage change? Then, how much is left? Proportion.

See if a "thought-caster" is blowing things out of proportion or just being lazy-minded, carelessly distorting the importance of things, or perhaps aiding an "official smoke screen." Don't let your intelligence be weakened or distracted by half-witted assertions -- and that's what stating a percentage without a quantity to which that percentage applies, is: a half-witted assertion.

Then, notice how significant, or trivial, someone's percentage statistic really is. Consider the overall amount involved as well as the percentage of change of that amount.

Now that I've brought this to your attention, you'll find that you do sometimes end up asking, "of What?". You won't be able to help yourself. You'll just find yourself doing it -- perhaps figuring out how much tip to leave at a restaurant. Percentage? Amount? Again . . . . . and again . . . . . because it tickles your brain.

To do it once, as described -- noting both the amount and the percentage of something will trigger the formation of an internal connection and you may undergo a spontaneous deep breath and postural shift, particulary if you are paying at a restaurant. Let me know if you don't.

This kind of effect is what the term, "psycho-active", refers to, in educational settings (as distinct from "chemical" settings).

To ask, "10% of What?" and get an answer awakens your Attentional Intention and it cultivates your Intentional Attention; it prepares you to learn (Imagine into Remembering).  It activates your intelligence.

Experience The TetraSeed (all Four), for yourself, --

The TetraSeed, Revealed:


different angle

a mental deviant. Deviate from the standard track of thinking and acting as everyone else does, going down "the same familiar track" direction, which leads to more of the same . . . . . to the next track a divergent track 15% further developed along the spectrum of intelligence, on average.

Play with The TetraSeed.

  • the ultimate "mental tinkertoy set and mental workout"-in-one, 
  • refreshing self-grooming process, 
  • relationship transformer,
  • spontaneous intelligence booster, 
  • karmic clean-up tool,
  • dilemma-buster 
  • philosophical mind-game and mind-probe, 
  • transformational power-contemplation matrix, 
  • both the tangible and transcendent foundation of all epistemology, phylogeny, and ontogeny.
  • de-stressor: "karmic override program" 
  • the "self-straightener-outer"

Below, The Star TetraSeed {SOMA} consisting of two TetraSeeds, interfitted so that their corresponding parts face each other. "subjective" and "objective". You figure out which is which, below.


Shit or Shinola?

Good fiction enhances imagination and intelligence. Bad fiction abuses imagination and degrades intelligence -- leading to the inability to tell, "Shit from Shinola" -- to distinguish deception and low-grade creativity from authenticity and high-grade creativity -- and yes, there is validity to that distinction.

Here's what fiction, as in stories that portray possibilities that never happened, does to the human consciousness.

When read, it stimulates the imagination and also creates, through the "seepage" of imagination into memory, remembered impressions that bring a certain resonance to someone's life.

When portrayed in theater by actors, the situation calls for a suspension of disbelief that must be cared for by the playwright -- not to insult the intelligence by calling for suspension of disbelief to the point of abandoning ones intelligence or accepting the abandoning of intelligence, by others.

Fiction should not require us to be stupid, to enjoy it.

Another thing fiction does, if suspension of disbelief has been abused to the point of stupidity, is to dull our ability to tell truth (or honesty) from falsity (or dishonorable actions) -- to distinguish "authenticity " from fallacious behavior -- so that the phrase, "The Real Thing", takes on an absurd significance -- you know what and whom I mean.

Fiction, mis-handled, may leave people abandoning their intelligence for a time of distracting entertainment. That's okay, momentarily, but when it becomes a trend . . . . .

On the other hand, theatrical/film acting, well done brings, to the audience, a channel of understanding of a character, an authentic feeling based upon insight that deepens intelligence. It's a degree of depth that awakens discernment. This is the potential magic of theater, that the actor shows what is in the audience members and they recognize it, in themselves. And thus fiction may then aid recognition and release.

Thus, fiction may go two ways. The thing is, which of the two ways is more prominent, today?

When the higher possibility of fiction is made junior to the possibility of making money publishing fiction in one form or another, and money is the object, and not the artform (a high-quality product of which may call for more money in the act of creation than a poor production) the rigor of creation falls short of the level that would do anybody any good. That's much of contemporary film/cinema, theater, art and music (especially music). It seems to me the overwhelming output of film entertainment comes out motivated by a mediocre intelligence and seeks to appeal to the mediocrity and immaturity of consumers, for its sustenance -- gratuitious sex and violence, spectacle without human insight, exploitation of unnecessarily extreme turns of fictional plot (explosions, chase scenes, deaths, caricatures of "evil characters") -- you get the idea.

Fiction in the hands of fools
develops a generation of fools who can't tell the difference
between what enhances them
and what degrades them --
between shit and "Shinola" (shoe polish).

They assert the right to go any old way they want and never be questioned, about it. "Don't tell me what to do!"

Fiction can awaken or weaken the intelligence of the populace.

It has.

Advanced Training video 2 Lawrence Gold

Facebook: Lawrence.Gold.Somatics | 505 819-0858
CONTACT: http://somatics.com/wordpress/contact

Clinical Somatic Education | a New Discipline in the Field of Health Care
#somatic education
#intelligent-self empowerment
#personal development

http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/comments/lawrencegold.wordpress.com/726/ Advanced Training video 2 Lawrence Gold https://lawrencegold.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/advanced-training-video-2-lawrence-gold/

The Formation of the Subject|Object Distinction | The Fallacy of Duality

For one thing, there is no such thing as "duality" or "split mind". The terms come from within the perspective of mind that looks at words or ideas, instead of actuality, words that indicate or imply something that is not true. It's all conceptual.

In such a case, the mind is generating two formations:

subjectivity ("I")
objectivity ("other")

They are simply two, mutually interdependent concepts that, together, form motivation structures, or motives, or the motivations, of personal existence.

The subjective formation exists as a reaction to the objective formation, where I will define, "formation", in a moment.

For now, let's just say that in every moment of experience, we seem to be confronted by circumstances, situations, and conditions of life -- imposed upon us by outside, inexorable and incomprehensible forces -- kind of like, "the news". Objective circumstances contain some elements that change little by little, over time, and many more elements that change a lot, from moment to moment, sometimes in repetitive cycles and sometimes as new developments.  All of these functions correspond to the "objective or yang TetraSeed". Think of driving in your car: the experience consists of things that exist, that persist, that have location, and that are moving in a direction, relative to ourselves.

In every moment of experience, we are paying attention (more or less), recognizing what our circumstances are, imagining what might happen, next, and enforcing our will (intention) to control both ourselves and circumstances (by means of controlling our actions and feelings). Controlling circumstances involves, "more", "less", and the "direction" we imagine them to be going. All of these functions correspond to the "subjective or yin TetraSeed". The "yin TetraSeed" consists of attention, remembering, imagining, and intending.

Every moment of experience is the combination of "imposition from outside" (no apparent control, on our parts), and our facing that "imposition from outside," with more or less "control initiative".

So, split mind isn't split, at all. The two TetraSeeds are interactive and inter-related as a single system of experiencing.  Their existence isn't even mutual; together, they form a single experience and without that mutual togetheriness, no experience. Nothing happening, nobody to experience it.

The main function of the Dual TetraSeeds is to provide contrast between perspectives -- mainly a "figure | ground" or "Foreground | Background" contrast. Contrast is a "gradient" or influence-from-being-different that causes the experience of intensity. More contrast, more intensity.

In this case, the "foreground" is the objective world and the "background" is the self. The foreground changes a lot and the background changes much less, generally, cycling within a repertoire or library of learned sensings and responses, with adaptive modifications more or less pertinent to the uniqueness of the moment. The objective world moves and changes and the subjective world recognizes it and responds. Always, there is contrast between self and world, if only through the contrast between what we remember and what we're facing, now. That's the memory function of soma -- a "subjective TetraSeed" face or facet.

What happens with memory is that it tends to fade unless refreshed. We humans have an "automatic refreshment" mechanism. That "automatic refreshment" mechanism is, imagining, of which one form of it is, thinking. Imagining is more specific than thinking, which only triggers imagining.

So, now, we have remembering and imagining, which are two facets or poles of the same thing. Remembering is "stored imagining" and imagining is opening to remembering.

Certain meditation or contemplative practices involve immobility for long periods of time and long periods of monotony. Because memory fades unless refreshed, and since such practices involve either desisting from following the stream of thoughts  or desisting from imagining, the anchoring of attention in present-conditional reality (as remembered) diminishes, at which point reveries may (and commonly do) ensue. The discipline is also not to follow the imagining, but to "observe" it (which is to say, to dislodge attention from the tendency to localize on anything by catching it doing so). Taken far enough, the sense of world and body fade out and there is no world, no self, but the intuition of a kind of quality-less, location-less awareness.

Those who have worked with such disciplines to some degree of maturity recognize the futility of stopping thought by means of discipline. Thought can only be allowed to subside; otherwise, the effort to stop thought is, itself, a thought. Problem is, lines of thought often tend to be habitual and chronic, and not only not subside, but recycle.

The act of pitting one faculty ( discipline or will ) against others, ( memory and imagination ) is self-defeating.

The alternative is something quite different: to comprehensively and inclusively turn on both four-element TetraSeeds and to develop the ability to switch from element to element while maintaining continuity -- and if one is working with a specific issue, to maintain continuity of attention on that issue, until it dissolves.

One who works with this practice will likely notice that some of the elements are easier to turn on, to reach, than others. This bias reflects uneven educational development. It can be worked with. There are TetraSeed transformation procedures, for that.

What happens when both sets of four elements are turned on is that we witness the very force of life and of our very existence, in that moment. It stands are as a subject|object confrontation, "Me, facing the World" (or some particular circumstance). It's a felt thing. We feel the force of existence, the very drama of our circumstance, as a theme or drama that now seems self-explanatory.

There is no way, in my view, to describe it any better than that. For more, one must practice the TetraSeed transformation procedures, starting with the complete Set-Up, also known as The Crystal Crown procedure. The procedure involves turning on all four elements of both TetraSeeds and then integrating every TetraSeed element with every other.

With that self-other revelation comes immediate psycho-physical (somatic) changes as ones faculties, now on-line in life, synergistically combine. It's an awakening, shift of consciousness and an increase of integrity that changes how one behaves, in life. This is one definition of the term, psycho-active.

As to, "Duality", there ain't no such animal. Mind isn't dual; its apparently "separate" parts are one dynamic, living "system" (or soma), made to seem separate only because one or more of the elements of the Living-Self TetraSeed aren't comparably turned on or mutually integrated. The unconscious part seems like "other", separate from "self". "Other" may be defined, as "not immediately controllable by self".

In that sense, we are, in many ways, "other", even to ourselves -- especially on days when, "We're not ourselves."

Those days are among the best for working with TetraSeed transformation procedures.

Intending vs. Doing | Playing with a Full Deck | The Four : On-Line In Life

Intending and doing are two different things. Obviously. Now, here's how.

Intending is one of the four fundamental attributes, functions, or facets of life -- of which there are four.

The Four

that particular order or sequence being that of the evolutionary drive, from an egoic point of view. I say, "an egoic point of view", in distinction from, "an impersonal process".

In any case, intending is one of those four.

Doing, on the other hand, consists of those four, all simultaneously, all together, all differentiated from each other, all integrated with every other.

Doing, consists of
  • attending ( paying attention to the location of ) to whatever you're doing
  • remembering ( persistently focussing your attention on ) whatever you're doing
  • imagining ( having a sense of the direction, keen or general ) whatever you're doing
  • intending ( bringing into existence ) whatever you're doing
These are the "suits" in your "deck of consciousness".

Without all four, 
  • You don't know where to turn, next.
  • You have no idea what you're doing.
  • You have no idea where you might possibly go with it.
  • It is of no consequence, to you, and so you don't notice it.
Without a full complement of all four, you aren't playing with a full deck. You certainly have aces and wildcards missing, since those are the top "power" cards.

It is impossible for us to have an experience of being altogether without all four. Try it. Check yourself . . . . . 

BUT, I say, BUT . . . . .

It's possible for one or more of the four to be running on-automatic, without our recognizing it, even at full-blast, and influencing the outcome of our doing, distorting it, causing us to miss things or to take things for granted that shouldn't be taken for granted; prejudices of all kinds bending our reactions; superficial or cursory attention (inattention), leading to wrong perception, wrong conclusions, wrong actions; insensitivity to or or disregard of clues or premonitions; failure to notice habitual patterns of thought and feeling (memory); being poorly focussed, producing mediocre (or outrightly errant, off-base, delayed, or never forthcoming) results.  This is called, "Unconscious Incompetence": Flakiness.

If you notice your flakiness, it's called, "Conscious Incompetence."  Not to worry; another stage follows.

If you sometimes get good results, despite your Conscious Incompetence, I call this, "Unconscious Competence." This is usage of the term is not the common usage.

The common usage places, "Unconscious Competence", at the end of the course of development, as mastery at the ready, ever adaptable.  It's also a kind of competence that the individual may possess, by grace or "by birth".  I disagree with that usage; that's conscious, but smaller-range competence, as I will shortly explain. Unconscious Competence is "beginner's luck", the competence of the dilettante, vulnerable to turbulence, the unexpected. It's the competence of a little knowledge -- good as far as it goes.

As you learn to course-correct after encountering turbulence, to improvise to get better back-on-track, you're on the road of (not "to") "Conscious Competence."

Conscious Competence arises as The Four come on-line in life. The force and focus of intentionality may now be magnified, softened, or let free. Those words correspond to a kind and range of feeling that anyone may experience -- but not if they only hold the words in mind and try to understand it by reasoning or comparing it to what they already know -- without the experience. The experience is IT. 

Instructions, below.

While it's impossible totally to account for, or predict, the turbulence, curves, spins and bumps life may throw our way, we can at least optimize our capacity to handle them with a minimum of disturbance and a maximum of effectiveness. The word I just used, is optimize.  To optimize implies a process of correction, over time. The half-baked phrase commonly used is, "Trial and error"; it is half-baked because the process is, "Trial, error, and adjustment."

The turbulence of the unexpected is something we experience, within us and as our own state in the moment. 

We can make adjustments relatively well or relatively badly. Our own turbulence calls for a balancing of The Four, of which we are made and by which we experience life. To the degree we have The Four on-line in life, balanced and integrated, we make to our adjustments relatively quickly and relatively well, even if sometimes adjustments are difficult or laborious. In some cases, even the laborious quality diminishes to the degree that The Four are on-line in life, so that the correction seems to go easily.

Then, we respond to life's conditions with more of our native intelligence on-line, in life, absorbing and dissolving their effects in ourselves (like digesting them -- even if there is some indigestion), and bringing more of our native intelligence to our doing -- which we weren't doing when we weren't playing with a full deck.

When corrections go easily, it's just flow. The feeling of flow is, ease. "The Master Makes it Look Easy", is the saying. This is Transcendent Competence, not Unconscious Competence.

To the degree that one or more of The Four is "running the show from behind the scenes," we adjust relatively badly, both emotionally and interactively. Know anybody like that?

We tend to be unevenly developed in different ways in different areas of our lives. In some areas, we lack imagination; in others, our memories have taken over and color our actions; or we may have little or too much interest, or too little or too much attention on, something. Obsessive, oblivious, fixed-minded, or whack-o, or some mix or balance. Do you just act on your impulses? Do you bring your full intelligence to them?

Best to bring all four on-line, to life, balanced and integrated. 

Then, intending shows up as relatively intelligent and relatively effective doing.

This doing shows up as bursts of creativity and the ability to carry a creative burst to a tangible conclusion, despite possible turbulence. Because The Four are integrated and relatively balanced, we experience that turbulence as, navigable, and are able to dissolve emotional turbulence fairly quickly, by bringing The Four on-line and to life.

"Bringing The Four on line and to life" means, with regard to anything we are experiencing:
  1. ATTENDING to it
... not just thinking about it; experiencing how we experience each. It's a drill you repeat until it comes to life. This drill, as basic as it is, is psycho-active. If you don't feel changes occurring in you, it has yet to come to life. Persist a few more times. Soon, you'll be fit for the more powerful procedures involving The Four.

Now you know what bringing The Four on-line and to life does, and what that can do to both your intending and your doing.

Intending is a part of doing. You need all four on-line, in life, to be playing with a full deck.

An ounce of "prevention" is worth a pound of "cure". 

The Four: on-line and in life

The TetraSeed Transformation Procedures
Power Contempation Practices
The Two-TetraSeed Polarized Star-Tetrahedron

The Soma|Kosmos Synergy
The Merkaba