This was great. DON"T DO ANYTHING> Just know the possibilities are endless and there ( although I can't make them happen) and that gives hope while letting me be with what it is in acceptence. What do you think of my understanding did I miss it?Thanks for this Brett! I also thought that last night's webinar actually covered the main questions from this thread very well.
It does seem so hard sometimes, trying to reverse not seeing something as Thought (to have it be seen as Thought).
I did have one question I'd like to ask. I reckon, there are plenty of people, who don't know anything about the 3P, or any other type of helpful understanding, but they have insightful thinking a lot of the time, too. What seems to be happening there? Would you say these are not insights?
Also, I don’t think it’s not only one industry built around “influence,” I assume the whole world is built upon a groundwork of outside-in thinking, and that we keep layering upon it, too. (But those are the assumptions that I have that may not be that helpful for myself )
I want to draw something out quickly, to get another line-of-thought around the questions asked and thoughts in the room.
View attachment 47
Here you have your input and and output.
Let's just say, for argument's sake, that your output is abosolutely determined ("influence" sounds a bit obscure to me).
In this representation, we see that we only have one possible output for this input.
But what if... and this is just a thought... What if there isn't only one possible output?
View attachment 48
Same representation, but "unknown output" included.
So, you have your input, but we include the fact, that there might be something we don't know about yet. This something is in your range of possibilities for outputs.
So what do I need to do to uncover this "unknown output"? Say I don't like my "known output" and I'd like to have a different, better output.
I observe that people often try really hard to do something (I do, too). Or they try to do something in the other direction, this could look like "tuning out" (a favourite approach of mine!).
This is trying to do something in relation to the initial input or its output. So, we try things like enlarging it/them, reducing it/them, hammering at it/them, ignoring it/them, etc... trying to make something different out of it, for there to be a different output (or new output). But, in a way, we're already going down a misguided path.
This could look like:
View attachment 49
As long as we are in the belief of any specific input having determined its output, hidden outputs remain hidden.
And because we're already down a misguided path, we're likely going to end up back at where we were or just keep going down a same path (that's why I added arrows in both directions).
Said in another way, we're taking the baggage we want to carry over with us, maybe even adding to the weight. But, in that moment we learn, we then carry over the baggage. Does that make sense? We don't carry over it by carrying it with us.
To me, "not doing anything" is just staying with the fact that there is a range of possible outputs, that the output we already have (or are in) is not the only possible output. Which means, that the input doesn't actually absolutely determine any specific output.
My explanation as to the reason, would be that: the input is created in mind, the output is created in mind. That's where they are born, that's where they go on to give birth.
And "not doing anything" means as much as just staying with the understanding, while you're still living outside of understanding. Not doing anything doesn't necessarily mean that you'll just sit there and do nothing (it might, though, if that's the approprite thing to do).
Nobody knows what the insight will be. If we are trying to get to insight, as a target (as Brett explained) then what are we trying to get to? What target have we made out of insight? It's more like a direction, than a target, I would say.
I got really annoyed trying to draw out these figures (Paint + touchscreen... difficult). I almost gave up. It wasn't the "quick" I was going for. Plus I didn't even know whether any of this would be helpful at all. I probably went into and out of seeing what was annoying me a thousand times. Even if it doesn't help anyone, and if it confuses you further (I am sorry!), in the end I think I enjoyed doing this, anyway.
edited: format, typos