Someone, everyone, please take this seriously.

[Harbal]

So how does government by thought free awareness work?

It doesn't. It cannot.

''Governing'' the action of having authority to conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of a state, organization, or people works by association within the 'thought processing mechanism of the mind' which cannot be known without an awareness aware of each ''thought''

Awareness has to be present and prior to any thought. And is not dependant on a thought to be.

Well Roy says that his system of reality, which he calls "Fundamental Model of Reality" is the system that needs to be adopted. I would be interested in knowing how that would manifest itself in the way governments govern.

[Dontaskme]

So how does government by thought free awareness work?

It doesn't. It cannot.

''Governing'' the action of having authority to conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of a state, organization, or people works by association within the 'thought processing mechanism of the mind' which cannot be known without an awareness aware of each ''thought''

Awareness has to be present and prior to any thought. And is not dependant on a thought to be.

Well Roy says that his system of reality, which he calls "Fundamental Model of Reality" is the system that needs to be adopted. I would be interested in knowing how that would manifest itself in the way governments govern.

The FMoR doesn't NEED to be adopted, especially if there is a demand for knowledge and is how we know an action has taken place as and through reaction..the moment awareness becomes aware.

We can be in ''thought free awareness'' or we can be engaged in ''mental activity'' which is a conceptual overlay upon ''thought free awareness''. While aware of..conscious of concepts/thoughts/idea.. we are not conscious of the ''thought free'' part of us. Both active and inactive awareness are the same one awareness, but just differing in appearance.

One cannot be aware and not aware at the same time...the conscious mind is an alternating phenomena, it's either on or off...but cannot be both on and off at the same time.

The 'thought free'' part of us is our permanent place of peace and contentment, and can be accessed any time we want it. But we do not need it, we only need it if we WANT it.

[Harbal]

The FMoR doesn't NEED to be adopted

But Roy says it does.

especially if there is a demand for knowledge and is how we know an action has taken place as and through reaction..the moment awareness becomes aware.

We can be in ''thought free awareness'' or we can be engaged in ''mental activity'' which is a conceptual overlay upon ''thought free awareness''. While aware of..conscious of concepts/thoughts/idea.. we are not conscious of the ''thought free'' part of us. Both active and inactive awareness are the same one awareness, but just differing in appearance.

One cannot be aware and not aware at the same time...the conscious mind is an alternating phenomena, it's either on or off...but cannot be both on and off at the same time.

The 'thought free'' part of us is our permanent place of peace and contentment, and can be accessed any time we want it. but we do not need it, we only need it if we need it.

I don't understand what you mean by any of that.

[Dontaskme]

But Roy says it does.

Roy is only the messenger of a message that points one to a place of peace, and in order to know that peace you need to adopt the FMoR ...or not, it's entirely up to the needer to want it or not.

I don't understand what you mean by any of that.

That's fine, honestly. I don't understand algebra myself.

You asked and I answered. I understood how I answered, but I cannot make you understand what I understand.

Understanding comes from our own need to understand only if we want the understanding...we do not need to understand anything to be...and that is good news.

Understanding something is always available within the realm of knowledge which is the mental sphere. But Roy's videos are pointing to a place that is beyond the known mental sphere of knowledge, it is pointing to the unknown that can eventually become known, but not until it's wanted..not needed, but wanted.


As for the unknowable, that can never be known.

[Harbal]

Roy is only the messenger of a message that points one to a place of peace, and in order to know that peace you need to adopt the FMoR ...or not, it's entirely up to the needer to want it or not.

How can you make an informed decision about whether this "place of peace" is worth visiting if all information about its nature is withheld from you? And Roy has not come here as only a messenger; he is presenting himself as some sort of guide.

Roy says I am deluded, so is it unreasonable to ask him to point out my delusions? He also says that he knows of a better way for humanity to progress. Is it unreasonable to ask him how that way would work in practice?

But Roy's videos are pointing to a place that is beyond the known mental sphere of knowledge, it is pointing to the unknown that can eventually become known, but not until it's wanted..not needed, but

So how do we know that Roy isn't talking a load of rubbish if we can't enquire into what he says?

[Iwannaplato]

How could Roy be discouraged? Have you read what he wrote?

I just threw that in because you have been quite encouraging and reasonable with your postings, and early in the thread your longer postings are pretty good.

The conditions you set? I don't understand.

Roy understands. He set conditions on how his transmissions should be received.
So, I set some conditions for his transmissions earlier on in the thread.
It’s the theme of checking out another’s motes, as mentioned in Matthew.

And also, it's me ragging on.

I didn’t notice you ragging.

I appreciate the compliment on my posts. I really don't understand the conditions still. I feel like I missing something, perhaps obvious. I thought...is Walker a moderator? He set some conditions on Roy's transmissions? What does transmission mean?

[Iwannaplato]

To be fair.
Roydope made a generalised claim implying that his ideas were pearls and that anyone reading them were pigs.

Sure, it certainly could have been general - he can comment on that himself, too. But it would be hard to imagine a scenario where, yes, it was not directed at you. And hey, you and I both can be quite harsh on occasion. I don't have a problem in general with that. However if someone is presenting themselves as he has himself, it becomes an odd thing to say, I think. So, I wanted to explore it.

I may well have been directed at me, but was not a "quote" response on one of my posts.

No, but coming directly after a post from you responding to him, it would be the most likely interpretation. He can of course say it was different.

But I'll take it. I think Roy the boy is sincere, but them crazy people can be very sincere indeed.

Yes, I differ from some of Harbal's early assessments. I suspect he does think he has solved something and what he is sharing would be great for things, us, humanity. And I don't really begrudge any side urges to get some hits on youtube or money down the line.

[Iwannaplato]

I am sure Roy will be along shortly to clarify ..

Maybe, hope so, but in any case that's what I'm interested in. His take.

[Iwannaplato]

Super!

I wasn't upset, so we're good yeah?

We?
It's good. The whole is good. Nothing wrong with my posts. Nothing wrong with yours. I'll keep it simple like that in the future.

Yes We

As in my and yours and I'll

Those are metaphors.

[Walker]

How could Roy be discouraged? Have you read what he wrote?

I just threw that in because you have been quite encouraging and reasonable with your postings, and early in the thread your longer postings are pretty good.

The conditions you set? I don't understand.

Roy understands. He set conditions on how his transmissions should be received.
So, I set some conditions for his transmissions earlier on in the thread.
It’s the theme of checking out another’s motes, as mentioned in Matthew.

And also, it's me ragging on.

I didn’t notice you ragging.

I appreciate the compliment on my posts. I really don't understand the conditions still. I feel like I missing something, perhaps obvious. I thought...is Walker a moderator? He set some conditions on Roy's transmissions? What does transmission mean?

You're welcome.

My conditions were for Roy to make his presentation of concept 50 words or less using no form of the verb “to be,” and using no pronouns. Such a format is more transparent to any message for it functions in the narrative realm of algebra. It is the language of science.

I’m not a moderator, but Roy is emphasizing “getting it,” and by meeting these conditions of transmission, the receiver is more likely to get it.

Transmission is the first part of a communiqué. Reception is second part.

When I made the request of Roy, I used no form of the verb "to be," although I did use pronouns because while their absence leads to greater clarity of transmission, their absence also can lead to a clunky read.

After all, this is the Philosophy of Language subforum, and Roy does incorporate the significance of language into his transmission.

[Sculptor]

To be fair.
Roydope made a generalised claim implying that his ideas were pearls and that anyone reading them were pigs.
I may well have been directed at me, but was not a "quote" response on one of my posts.
But I'll take it. I think Roy the boy is sincere, but them crazy people can be very sincere indeed.

That's more than fair, well, except for the crazy part. Everyone knows the pearls before swine reference.

Anyone who thinks we are "pigs" is either crazy or insulting.
So which is worse? Me calling a crazy person crazy, or Roy being insulting?
My view is that his ideas are, in fact, crazy. It the sort of angst many small children have to go through when they learn that many words have multiple meanings. Just because they over come that problem whilst Roy has not oes not make them "pigs". On the contrary it makes them far more pragmatic and intelligent.

Claiming ignorance of the reference and the use is just making noise, making fog.

No sure what you mean here. Did he deny using the phrase?

[Sculptor]

To be fair.
Roydope made a generalised claim implying that his ideas were pearls and that anyone reading them were pigs.

Sure, it certainly could have been general - he can comment on that himself, too. But it would be hard to imagine a scenario where, yes, it was not directed at you. And hey, you and I both can be quite harsh on occasion. I don't have a problem in general with that. However if someone is presenting themselves as he has himself, it becomes an odd thing to say, I think. So, I wanted to explore it.

I may well have been directed at me, but was not a "quote" response on one of my posts.

No, but coming directly after a post from you responding to him, it would be the most likely interpretation. He can of course say it was different.

Owing to, sometimes transatlantic, delays as to when posts appear, it could have easily been directed at another.
And I should remind you that "swine" is also a plural.
Since he was not responding to me directly I have no reason to suspect that the comment was meant specifically for me.

But I'll take it. I think Roy the boy is sincere, but them crazy people can be very sincere indeed.

Yes, I differ from some of Harbal's early assessments. I suspect he does think he has solved something and what he is sharing would be great for things, us, humanity. And I don't really begrudge any side urges to get some hits on youtube or money down the line.

He seems to think he can take-down language itself and the basis of all meaning. These are the very tools by which he also tries to convey his own argument. I have to say that this is the most clear example of shooting oneself in the foot I have ever seen.

As for YouTube hits, he was 4 likes. Urummmph

[Dontaskme]

I am sure Roy will be along shortly to clarify ..

Maybe, hope so, but in any case that's what I'm interested in. His take.

Obviously

[Dontaskme]

We?
It's good. The whole is good. Nothing wrong with my posts. Nothing wrong with yours. I'll keep it simple like that in the future.

Yes We

As in my and yours and I'll

Those are metaphors.

Obviously

[Iwannaplato]

You're welcome.

My conditions were for Roy to make his presentation of concept 50 words or less using no form of the verb “to be,” and using no pronouns. Such a format is more transparent to any message for it functions in the narrative realm of algebra. It is the language of science.

I’m not a moderator, but Roy is emphasizing “getting it,” and by meeting these conditions of transmission, the receiver is more likely to get it.

Transmission is the first part of a communiqué. Reception is second part.

When I made the request of Roy, I used no form of the verb "to be," although I did use pronouns because while their absence leads to greater clarity of transmission, their absence also can lead to a clunky read.

After all, this is the Philosophy of Language subforum, and Roy does incorporate the significance of language into his transmission.

OK, I am closer to understanding. I understood transmission even in communication, but it seemed a specific and odd choice. Now, I'm more on board. I think, my best guess, that I like your challenge to him.