Learning to surf the Ocean of energy

[Jonesboy]

11 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

Hi Jonesboy,

 

Yes, it is; you are so right.

It shines on good insights.

Fear not a dark night.

Light makes it bright.

 

You the are the LIGHT that allows connections honed with permission.

 

May I add that - "when someone connects to me they can experience it also up to their level of purification" - I thought of the rainbow thus:

LIGHT => PERMISSION => CONNECTION => PURIFICATION => RAINBOW

 

And then I heard this .... 

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

- LimA

 

 

 

Nice song

 

 

[Limahong]

3 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

Nice song

 

Hi Jonesboy,

 

It is from Kids TV 123.

Still nice for you & me.

7 colours & it is free.

For you & me & thee.

 

- LimA

[Brian]

<pedant_hat>

 

That's nice but pink isn't in that location in the spectrum.  Seems a shame to be teaching small children so patently wrong, I think.  Using English names, we typically follow "blue" with "indigo" and "violet."  Pink is a light shade of red so it is at the far other end of a very faint rainbow.

 

</pedant_hat>

[silent thunder]

I always considered pink a bridge from purple back to red. 

The completion of a cycle.

 

As you lighten purple (red and blue) into lavender it eventually hues pink to me, which when saturated returns to red.

 

So pink to me is a transition in perception of the return of perceived colors back to red.

 

This Time article on the color pink considers it a fabrication of our perception process and that it technically doesn't exist... not sure how they get to that semantic conclusion myself... but then, I don't believe everything I think, let alone believe everything I perceive is real.

 

Interesting stuff.

 

 

[Brian]

Strictly speaking, pink is not a color of its own but it light red.  We often think of pink, however, as being a family of colors which include light red mixed with bluish or orangey colors (see: shades of pink).  As a single frequency or wavelength, though, "pink" is "red."

 

This may help:

[silent thunder]

That makes logical sense to me. 

But it doesn't reconcile with my experience.

I paint and work with color mixing and still and in spite of the practice and theory of light and color...

 

pink is a bridge for me.

 

Which is another awesome example of why I no longer believe everything I think and can't any more assume taht what I perceive is real.

 

Thanks mate.  As always, your education, experience and inclination to share is deeply apprectiated.

 

p.s.  pink is a bridge  

[Limahong]

12 hours ago, Brian said:

Strictly speaking, pink is not a color of its own but it light red. ...  As a single frequency or wavelength, though, "pink" is "red." - Brian

 

12 hours ago, silent thunder said:

That makes logical sense to me. But it doesn't reconcile with my experience. I paint and work with color mixing and still and in spite of the practice and theory of light and color. - silent thunder

 

Gentlemen,

 

Both your civilities - heart-warming in terms of respectful disagreement.

 

One is theoretical, and the other - experiential. Yet the sharing is most cordial in disagreeing.

 

Both of you have reminded me of this from Rudyard Kipling which I have posted on another thread:

Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,

Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;

But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,

When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!

This may be read as saying that 'it is indisputable that geographic points of the compass will never meet in this life, but that when two strong men [or ... meet, the accidents of birth, whether of nationality, race, or family, do not matter at all—the mutual respect such individuals have, each for the character, prowess, and integrity of the other, are their only criteria for judging and accepting one another. Any differences in ethnicity between such individuals are never even considered.

 

silent thunder - your accolade given to the "very naughty boy" thus is touching:

 

13 hours ago, silent thunder said:

Thanks mate.  As always, your education, experience and inclination to share is deeply appreciated.

 

You are also very naughty. Why? I have noted this from you - p.s.  pink is a bridge  .

 

Bridge over troubled water? Behave yourselves boys.

 

- LimA

[Miffymog]

I love this pink discussion. It was only a few weeks ago when I was thinking about colours and thought 'all they are is a continuous variation in wavelength with a higher and lower limit, then why do we not experience them as a simple increase / decrease like we do with the frequency of a sound?

I spent some time thinking about how our interpretation of the world was benefited by our perception changing this simple linear increase with a top and bottom limit in to the circular colour circle painters are familiar with.

As has just been suggested, the link in the circle could well be this colour pink! But why make it a circle?

Well, I then went on to think that we perceive three main colours, yellow (maybe due to the predominane of the sun), green (due to the predominance of green leaves etc) and blue (due to the 'blue' sky and sea).

Now, if you sense the colours not as a continual increase in wavelength, but by taking three sample points amongst that spectrum. It may then, in fact, be relatively easy to conceptualise these three points as actually existing on a circular spectrum, rather than a linear one.

This conclusion satisfied my thought process somewhat - but not entirely. If I'm honest, I am little disappointed that we don't experience colour in a linear way with an upper and lower limit like we do with sound and I actually feel our brains are just playing a big fat trick on us, one that we can't stop it from doing ...

But, maybe because we can sense intensity / brightness on a linear scale, the brain decided having a linear colour scale too was too much, and that our lives would be easier if it was circular ... I don't know.

[Brian]

43 minutes ago, Miffymog said:

I love this pink discussion. It was only a few weeks ago when I was thinking about colours and thought 'all they are is a continuous variation in wavelength with a higher and lower limit, then why do we not experience them as a simple increase / decrease like we do with the frequency of a sound?

I spent some time thinking about how our interpretation of the world was benefited by our perception changing this simple linear increase with a top and bottom limit in to the circular colour circle painters are familiar with.

As has just been suggested, the link in the circle could well be this colour pink! But why make it a circle?

Well, I then went on to think that we perceive three main colours, yellow (maybe due to the predominane of the sun), green (due to the predominance of green leaves etc) and blue (due to the 'blue' sky and sea).

Now, if you sense the colours not as a continual increase in wavelength, but by taking three sample points amongst that spectrum. It may then, in fact, be relatively easy to conceptualise these three points as actually existing on a circular spectrum, rather than a linear one.

This conclusion satisfied my thought process somewhat - but not entirely. If I'm honest, I am little disappointed that we don't experience colour in a linear way with an upper and lower limit like we do with sound and I actually feel our brains are just playing a big fat trick on us, one that we can't stop it from doing ...

But, maybe because we can sense intensity / brightness on a linear scale, the brain decided having a linear colour scale too was too much, and that our lives would be easier if it was circular ... I don't know.

The reason is that we do not perceive light with a single polychrome receptor but with receptors which pick up one of three bands of frequency and then we blend them in the brain.  We leverage this model in the ways we produce colors and tints, too, so we tend to think about colors as literally being "a wheel" rather than "a spectrum."

[silent thunder]

Yea light and color is always fascinating to me too.  I particularly enjoy the optical illusions widely available now, that point out just how much 'interpretation' is involved in our optical process and how much variance there is person to person.  I appreciate how they illustrate that my perceptual tools are filtered, interpreted and extrapolated from the incoming raw information into internal projections that do not match exactly what is 'out there'.   Sure it's impressive, and is close enough that we don't often bump into things... but we do not 'see the exact truth'.  We filter and interpret it.

 

We navigate the ocean of energy largely through our senses and just how much of what is there do we actually perceive?  And how much of what we perceive do we perceive accurately?  Fascinating stuff.

 

I was originally looked into this after my wife and a good buddy were consistently seeing blue cars, where I perceived purple, or blue where I saw distinct greenish tones.  This became a running joke with us over the decades... and it turns out, even among the non-color blind, we do not all perceive the same colors or all the potential gradations and variants of the various hues.  This was also pointed up to me over the years while working on scenery with Scenic Painters... It is a mark of distinction if you are capable of mixing colors for prep, as not all folks on the crew are capable.  They have to test you, as some folks just can't perceive subtle variations in some hues. 

 

Dichromats comprise aproximately 25% of the population and have two color receptors.  Trichromats comprise 50% of the population and have three, while Tetrachromats the remaining  25% have four.  The more cones, the more subtle variations within certain hues can be distinguished.

 

quick test:  see how many distinct hues you perceive.

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

<20      Dichromat

20-32   Trichromat

33-39   Tetrachromat

 

[Brian]

35 are distinct, but I have a "weirdness" in the greens.

 

I had (still have) this really nice brown wool sports coat with gold threads running through it.  I had been wearing it for over a year (not every day, mind you) when a co-worker commented on how much he liked that green jacket.

 

"What green jacket?" I asked.

 

He realized I wasn't joking the same moment I realized he meant the one I had on.

 

Since then, I have realized that there is a particular shade of green I simply don't see.  Slightly lighter or darker, no problem.  That  one? Nothing.  This means that other colors are often "off" for me because that missing tint messes up blended colors (dyes, paints etc.)

Edited July 14, 2017 by Brian

[silent thunder]

I found it interesting that my innate dislike of yellow is not unusual among tetrachromes.  It always seems harsh to me.  Sunlight is a real bugger for me out here in Southern California lol.

 

On some of these tests, I have noticed slippery areas in the orange hues for me.  I counted 37.

 

For the record, there are 39 colors in that diagram... according to those who produced the image.

[Miffymog]

16 hours ago, silent thunder said:

I found it interesting that my innate dislike of yellow is not unusual among tetrachromes.  It always seems harsh to me.  Sunlight is a real bugger for me out here in Southern California lol.

 

On some of these tests, I have noticed slippery areas in the orange hues for me.  I counted 37.

 

For the record, there are 39 colors in that diagram... according to those who produced the image.

 

? - Isn't it just that each colour change is evenly spaced out? So if you see the same colour spread over two or more 'bars' you're just not good enough at differentiating them? But if you then divide the grid up into evenly spread out vertical bars you get about 44 different colours - ? - I'm just confused.

[silent thunder]

2 hours ago, Miffymog said:

 

? - Isn't it just that each colour change is evenly spaced out? So if you see the same colour spread over two or more 'bars' you're just not good enough at differentiating them? But if you then divide the grid up into evenly spread out vertical bars you get about 44 different colours - ? - I'm just confused.

 

I thought so at first, but according to the creators of the test, the colors are not evenly divided.  It's a cheat prevention I assume, so when using the test for actual scientific results they can throw out answers greater than 39 so this doesn't throw off the data, due to people's desire to 'score better' by deducing how many colors are present that they think they should be able to see, when they can't actually perceive them, (not sure why anyone would try and cheat on this anyway, since it only indicates the number of receptors in your eyes and thus has no bearing on the outcome and won't change vision.  It's just an interesting way to uncover a bit more about one's self and how our perception works). 

 

Those who made the diagram claim they made it with 39 distinct hues. 

[Limahong]

22 hours ago, silent thunder said:

Quick test:  see how many distinct hues you perceive.

 

22 hours ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

I counted 46...I think I might have gotten something wrong...

 

22 hours ago, Brian said:

35 are distinct, but I have a "weirdness" in the greens.

 

21 hours ago, silent thunder said:

On some of these tests, I have noticed slippery areas in the orange hues for me.  I counted 37.

 

4 hours ago, Miffymog said:

But if you then divide the grid up into evenly spread out vertical bars you get about 44 different colours - ? - I'm just confused.

 

Hi Guys,

 

I don't even know where to start counting and where to stop. But I find the discussions fascinating in terms of REALITY.

 

46, 35, 37 and 44 = four realities?

 

How about theses - (i) .I think I might have gotten something wrong... (ii) I have a "weirdness" in the greens. (iii) I have noticed slippery areas in the orange hues for me. and (iv) I'm just confused ?.

 

To each his/her own?

 

I will not join in at this point in time and spoil the colourful developmental flow.

 

Will do so at an appropriate time later as a budding critical realist.

 

In another thread, I have introduced a little on critical realism and Roy Bhaskar.

 

Guys - the RAINBOW is curved.

 

A good weekend.

 

- LimA

Edited July 15, 2017 by Limahong
Enhancement of sentence.

[silent thunder]

1 minute ago, Limahong said:

the RAINBOW is curved

 

and it's absolutely, radiantly awesome!

 

I find myself jealous of the fish and bees who can see the world in ultraviolet... what I wonder obsessively at times... are their rainbows like?

 

ah well... I love the way the rainbows reflect in my eyes. 

[Limahong]

1 minute ago, silent thunder said:

I love the way the rainbows reflect in my eyes.

 

Hi silent thunder.

 

But of course.

 

- LimA

[Limahong]

7 hours ago, silent thunder said:

 

Those who made the diagram claim they made it with 39 distinct hues

 

Hi silent thunder,

 

The makers of the color spectrum claim there are 39 distinct hues.

 

Why the word 'claim' when they are the makers?

 

- LimA

Edited July 16, 2017 by Limahong
Correct typo error.

[silent thunder]

That's what they claim... I can't prove it, I see 37.

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, silent thunder said:

That's what they claim... I can't prove it, I see 37.

 

Hi silent thunder,

 

I travel to Thesaurus frequently; it is almost like my second home.

 

When I was last there:

Claim = maintain, assert, say, state, declare, argue, allege, aver and profess.

 

The above synonyms of 'claim' highlighted cyan are more definitive; the rest are more suggestive and open to interpretations.

 

So you don't have to prove anything; believe in your 37 handsomely but with dignity.

 

I am concerned about you though. Why? You have indicated this - "I don't believe everything I think".

 

Colours are always colourful - so don't claim but celebrate differences.

 

- LimA

[Limahong]

On 7/16/2017 at 2:06 PM, silent thunder said:

(1) Not one raindrop has ever fallen in the wrong spot... there are no accidents.

 

(2) Everything I Love and Everything I Despise manifest from the Same Source.

 

(3) No I'm not serious.  I'm never serious.  I am however, completely sincere.

(4) I don't believe everything I think.

(5) Stop glorifying busy

 

Hi silent thunder,

 

You inked the above snippets? If so, very good. Why? I am not wasting your time as you do not glorify "busy".

 

So you are free to help clarify the above snippets?

 

Good. Here goes:

 

(1) So it is the right of rain not to fall in drought-stricken localities e,g. India. The Indian farmers who had taken their lives were "no accidents"? They died naturally?

 

(2) The Same Source is the TAO?

 

(3) But of course - anything, everything, something and nothing is possible in the TAO.

 

(4) See (3).

 

(5) WUWEI all the WAY as Daoist Bums?

 

Are you now an almost 100% Taoist? 

 

- LimA

Edited July 17, 2017 by Limahong
Correct typo error.

[silent thunder]

5 hours ago, Limahong said:

(1) Not one raindrop has ever fallen in the wrong spot... there are no accidents.

 

(2) Everything I Love and Everything I Despise manifest from the Same Source.

 

(3) No I'm not serious.  I'm never serious.  I am however, completely sincere.

(4) I don't believe everything I think.

(5) Stop glorifying busy

 

 

5 hours ago, Limahong said:

 

Hi silent thunder,

 

You inked the above snippets? If so, very good. Why? I am not wasting your time as you do not glorify "busy".

 

So you are free to help clarify the above snippets?

Yup, conversations about cool concepts is one of my favorite things about being.

 

Quote

 

Good. Here goes:

 

(1) So it is the right of rain not to fall in drought-stricken localities e,g. India. The Indian farmers who had taken their lives were "no accidents"? They died naturally?

Rain falls as is the nature of rain to fall.  In the desert it grows thorns, in the gardens... flowers.

Rain falls without distinction on murderers and healers alike.  I find this reassuring for some reason.  It makes no choices and follows the natural way.

 

It is the nature of humans to die after a time.  Sometimes to me, it seems too soon, or too violent, but this is my own baggage.  It seems in the universal sense, beyond duality, there is no good and bad.  But on the relative scale.  Everything seems to easily want to fall into positions of value based on my tendency to judge.

 

This insight came to me spontaneously when unified awareness had settled on my thought pond.  I'm not sure why, since I'm still living in relative duality, but it brings me comfort.  So I would say yes... the farmers and all of us who die, die naturally, no matter the cause.  And if we assign meaning to that good or bad, it's because of our own aquired and maintained personal judgements and energetic matrices.

 

 

Quote

 

(2) The Same Source is the TAO?

Tao, God, Zoroaster, Awareness, Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, Random Statistical Probability...  seems humans are always naming things and I have used many terms over the years when I try and talk about these things.  Tao works for me often, but not always.  Source is source, and that term is more neutral to me, so I like it right now.

 

But I do find whatever name I try and use, it never seems to encompass and adequately express the experiences I'm trying to convey and share with the words... but I try anyway.

 

This insight hit me when I was considering someone I really despised and it struck me in the midst of my very visceral negative judgement and emotion, that this human and I, come from the same source... the same source of flowers and also dog shit.

 

So if the things I love, flowers and the things I don't like... dog shit, come from the same source... then the difference in my experience of them probably lies in my awareness... in my mind. 

 

I love this insight because it reminds me my responsibility in all my interactions, thoughts and judgements.

 

Quote

(No I'm not serious.  I'm never serious.  I am however completely sincere.)

(3) But of course - anything, everything, something and nothing is possible in the TAO.

 

I should ammend this one... I'm rarely serious, not never serious.

 

Seems in the West we have supplanted the words sincere and serious.  For me, there are very very few things we need to be serious about... but it is almost never possible for me to be insincere.  This is a tricky bit and can easily drop into semantics.  But for me, intention is key to the mix and too often, in my upbringing in particular, serousness was a panacea to connote sincerity when often, it turned out, there was no sincerity and the seriousness was a mask to cover ulterior motives.

 

So I rarely am serious... but can't recall the last time i found it ok, or palatable to be insincere.

 

I find levity and laughter to be paramount in my process of late, which is all about being aware... acknowledging conditions of life as they are, doing what I can, or not, as is my nature... and then utterly releasing what transpires to live in the moment as fully as I am able.

 

Quote

 

(4) See (3).

Yup.  Can't believe everything I think... just because I thought something and perhaps even felt strongly about it, doesn't make it real, true, or important.  This insight is astounding to me.  Because for many years I thought that my perception of the universe was truth.  That I saw and heard and took in reality with my senses accurately. 

 

I no longer can make that claim.  Most of my thoughts seem to be emotional reactions and are utter fantasy.

Some thoughts are important... at least to me.  Wasn't it Buddha who said... "be careful what you let yourself think... your thoughts become your reality.

 

I was raised fundamentalist, evangelical christian.  Extreme judgement.  Extreme guilt and shame over very natural things.

It was abusive and harmful to me.  So after my apostacy.  I have come to re-evaluate regularly the thoughts that settle on my thought pond.  I find, the vast majority of them have little to no bearing on reality and thus no longer live long in my awareness due to this insight lighting my awareness.

 

Quote

 

(5) WUWEI all the WAY as Daoist Bums?

I had heard of wu wei but never really investigated or understood it before coming to the Bums years ago.

Now I realize that throughout my life, this concept is paramount in my life and is a cornerstone and foundation of my process over the last few years.  It is a blissful release and at the same time, an inroad into deeply saturating my being and awareness in the present.

 

As for not glorifying busy.  I find the lost art of doing nothing has been woefully overlooked in our Western materialist and consumer based lifestyle.  I find it a great and worthy pursuit, in fact, absolutely essential to me, to just allow myself time every day to simply do... nothing.  Just breath and be.  Empty, simple and me.

 

Quote

 

Are you now an almost 100% Taoist? 

 

- LimA

I can't say for certain what I am.  It's far easier to talk with some certainty about what I am not.

 

I don't claim to be a Taoist or any ist, although I do seem to express Taoist tendencies.  I will say that I have great gratitude and affinity for many Taoist teachings that resonate as strongly with me as some teachings of the Druids of the Emerald Isles and the Lakota People of my home.   Many of the insights and some of the things I do believe, seem to be best stated by Taoist writers, so there is a lot that reflects my own inner state now, even though they were written down and shared many centuries ago. 

 

I find great comfort in that as well. 

 

Thanks for asking.  It is always refreshing to re-evaluate what I hold to be concrete.  I appreciate the impetus to reflect on my assumptions.

 

Cheers Mate!

Edited July 18, 2017 by silent thunder
expand/reword phrasing on sincerity and seriousness.

[Limahong]

14 hours ago, silent thunder said:

It is always refreshing to re-evaluate what I hold to be concrete.

 

Hi silent thunder,

 

Thank you for refreshing so openly and freely. It is thoughtful, insightful and meaningful.

 

I have re-read your post twice and will do so again, with this in mind:

 

14 hours ago, silent thunder said:

Just breath and be.  Empty, simple and me.

 

Thanks again.

 

- LimA

[Limahong]

On 7/18/2017 at 8:03 AM, silent thunder said:

Rain falls as is the nature of rain to fall.

 

Hi silent thunder,

 

Granted - rain falls as Nature intends it to fall.

But men/women have confused rain to fall otherwise,

What with - deforestation, river damming, genetic modification, pollution ....

So will this still  hold  - "Not one raindrop has ever fallen in the wrong spot... there are no accidents"?

Case in point - floods, droughts ...

 

On 7/18/2017 at 8:03 AM, silent thunder said:

Rain falls without distinction on murderers and healers alike.  I find this reassuring for some reason.  It makes no choices and follows the natural way.

 

Again granted - rain falls naturally unbiased  "without distinction"

But when rain falls unnaturally, who suffer the most?

The rich and powerful? My take - no.

The marginalised that live off the land - had suffered, is suffering and will suffer more? My assertion - YES.

 

Your thoughts please.

 

- LimA

 

Edited July 22, 2017 by Limahong
Correct typo error.

[Limahong]

On 7/18/2017 at 8:03 AM, silent thunder said:

It is the nature of humans to die after a time.  Sometimes to me, it seems too soon, or too violent, but this is my own baggage.  It seems in the universal sense, beyond duality, there is no good and bad.  But on the relative scale.  Everything seems to easily want to fall into positions of value based on my tendency to judge.

 

This insight came to me spontaneously when unified awareness had settled on my thought pond.  I'm not sure why, since I'm still living in relative duality, but it brings me comfort.  So I would say yes... the farmers and all of us who die, die naturally, no matter the cause.  And if we assign meaning to that good or bad, it's because of our own acquired and maintained personal judgments and energetic matrices.

 

Good morning silent thunder,

 

I can accept your thoughts on 'death' as the other end of the natural continuum from 'birth' as expressed and highlighted in cyan. 

 

But your - "Sometimes to me, it seems too soon, or too violent, but this is my own baggage" - is not just your own baggage but mine too; plus many others, especially those in India.

 

What have I in mind when it comes to the baggage? WATER an accrual of raindrops. WATER when it is unpremeditated, unintended, accidental ... in terms of untimely/unnatural deaths thus:

 

 

 

"Not one raindrop has ever fallen in the wrong spot... there are no accidents"?

 

- LimA