lkwdblds
Crusader
I corrected the post number, it is 5488
The actual post number is #5488 not #5561. I found that out this morning but had to leave to make a dental appointment. I fixed it as soon as I got home.
The truth for me is that when I read someone's story. be it fiction or non=fiction, I read it as I always have, I track the story experiencing the emotions of the various characters. I am looking for entertainment and enlightenment. I do not concern myself much with what the author's state of case is or associate the book with mental or spiritual technology unless that is a subject within the story itself. I am very aware of the author's skill as an author and I form an estimate of his level of wisdom while reading him.
I read Johnny's book in this manner and after I was done, I realized he wanted comments from us and in order to comment intelligently, I had to duplicate what he was saying. I gave it my best shot in post #5488 (sorry for using the wrong number earlier).
Then Johnny thanked me for my response and wrote those 3 paragraphs indicating more of what he was going for. At that point, I went back and read the story again, really trying to duplicate the story as much as possible. In all honesty, I do not believe I engaged in any figure - figure since I was remaining exterior to the story and I was trying harder to duplicate only so I could give him the best possible meaningful reply.
I then replied in a heartfelt manner. In neither of my replies did I give him any sympathy. I did admit that I did not know the ins and outs technically and just mentioned what little tech I new about this area. I was secretely hoping that you would pick up on this and fill in the tech which you were kind enough to do.
Your technical analysis was spot on as a technical analysis but I see that is a separate matter. To me, you seemed to be reading things into my reply that were not there. I am going to continue reading stories and novels, both fiction and non fiction the way I always have, immersing myself in the story and reexperiencing the emotioins of the characters and the author. I am going to apply your fine technical analysis only in auditing or processing type of situations, If an author asks me to duplicate his story fully and give him my honest feedback, I will not be applying duplication tech to that situation. I am going to give my true personal opinion including any emotions that I experienced.
Lakey
Lakey, Mate, you lost me with the above.
There's missing sequence, a wrong post number, and apparently comm between you and Raffo you refer to above that is not on this thread. (See the the part I highlight in blue, and also post #5561 is you ack'ing Purple; nothing to do with between you/Raffo/me) But no matter.
It's simple. I am making a specific tech comment on the issues you raised concerning the duplicating of another's condition versus duplicating their comm.
You see, the important thing that happens when a person communicates about something is that they are viewing it and, if needed, as-issing it. They are doing it . . . the listener doesn't have to do much except be present and receive and duplicate the comm.
It's also why solo-processing works. The person writes down in session onto the physical universe session notes paper what he is inspecting as-is while he is blowing it.
Re-read what it is of yours I commented on here:
It's your analysis as stated in this above that I am making a tech comment on. All the other stuff that went on, and what or which happened first etc., I have no clue about.
What is true, is that folks very often require someone to talk to, and to flow their communication to in order to be able to bring to view that which gets as-issed . . . but that is a whole other and different tech issue.
The routine human condition is that folks "sympathize" either believing it helps, or because they are in a condition such that they involuntarily suffer whatever those around them are suffering . . . but such sympathy isn't what is behind the action or phenomena of as-issing what the person is viewing. It as-isses because he is viewing it
Rog
The actual post number is #5488 not #5561. I found that out this morning but had to leave to make a dental appointment. I fixed it as soon as I got home.
The truth for me is that when I read someone's story. be it fiction or non=fiction, I read it as I always have, I track the story experiencing the emotions of the various characters. I am looking for entertainment and enlightenment. I do not concern myself much with what the author's state of case is or associate the book with mental or spiritual technology unless that is a subject within the story itself. I am very aware of the author's skill as an author and I form an estimate of his level of wisdom while reading him.
I read Johnny's book in this manner and after I was done, I realized he wanted comments from us and in order to comment intelligently, I had to duplicate what he was saying. I gave it my best shot in post #5488 (sorry for using the wrong number earlier).
Then Johnny thanked me for my response and wrote those 3 paragraphs indicating more of what he was going for. At that point, I went back and read the story again, really trying to duplicate the story as much as possible. In all honesty, I do not believe I engaged in any figure - figure since I was remaining exterior to the story and I was trying harder to duplicate only so I could give him the best possible meaningful reply.
I then replied in a heartfelt manner. In neither of my replies did I give him any sympathy. I did admit that I did not know the ins and outs technically and just mentioned what little tech I new about this area. I was secretely hoping that you would pick up on this and fill in the tech which you were kind enough to do.
Your technical analysis was spot on as a technical analysis but I see that is a separate matter. To me, you seemed to be reading things into my reply that were not there. I am going to continue reading stories and novels, both fiction and non fiction the way I always have, immersing myself in the story and reexperiencing the emotioins of the characters and the author. I am going to apply your fine technical analysis only in auditing or processing type of situations, If an author asks me to duplicate his story fully and give him my honest feedback, I will not be applying duplication tech to that situation. I am going to give my true personal opinion including any emotions that I experienced.
Lakey
Last edited:


You can if you choose; but then you are getting into the realm of recreating it at your location/position in the scheme of things or otherwise attempting to be the other person and experience his experience versus allowing the originator to view his/her own experiential existence and to "admire and retire" what is unwanted.
Why?

