An important first step in establishing relations of control and order in the self is to be conscious of how new relations of association are formed between different of your experiences. If you remain unconscious of how and where these associations are forming, and they almost always are, you prevent your self from becoming not-accidental, not-arbitrary to some degree.

A subtle shift in velocity can provide the needed force to make or prevent associations in the mind, without forming secondary associations based on the control factor. This takes a small bit of practice, but is not hard to learn. Consciousness is only the creation principle of expansion-contradiction played out in the delimiting body and mind; place limits and you force the genesis of substance.

Can you expand on this? I’m intrigued, but it doesn’t make much sense without saying more. To me, anyway.

me too

What I mean is, you can subvert these associations from being “noticed” by that which would create a connection of meaning between them, by denying this impulse to associate. Alcoholics and other addicts get very familiar with this ability, after a while. It’s a kind of self-self-control, like: “I know that if I think/do/see X, then I will respond by… (Association formed; in the case of addicts this also immediately compels the body to action)… Therefore I will refuse X before “I” know that X exists”.

A kind of raising the threshold for action (compulsion) to catalyze, by inserting more substance into the causality taking place.

Consciousness is just a kind of substance/“time” filled in between sensation and “self”. In the case of the above chain of reasoning one intones to oneself, this is a crude form of control; better control is developed when this kind of impulse is performed “magically” without ever being verbalized to oneself, without becoming conscious (yet one is still “aware” that one has performed the control).

In the case of “velocity” as I wrote in the OP, the control occurs as a natural consequence of the relative difference between two reference-frames of thinking. On the one hand the typical frame of thought and ideation, on the other hand this becomes for just a split second interrupted upon by another frame, one that has awareness but is not mapped into or by the first. The “control” itself is the resulting shift in behavior, in automatism, that occurs as a result; basically, one changes one’s own potentiality for one crucial moment, then returns it to normal.

I understand.
Very likely, our two brain hemispheres also can be brought (and often are so used as) to operate alongside each other bound only ‘magically’ - what would seem to be with a body-awareness of the two, but without a synthesized brain-awareness of the two in combination.

The Chinese use a ‘second brain’ for this to anchor their awareness of the two hemispheres working in their own right, the Tan T’ien.

This is exactly how the observed and unobserved behaviors in QM’s double slit experiment should be interpreted.

Here we run into the problems with the law of identity.
“A” is “A” only if something can be said to be “A”.

I’ll stick with the brain hemisphere example.

Logical interpretation of, say, an emotionally charged vision, would require the synthesis of the content of the parallelistic conception within the framework of a linear conception. Thus removing or at least altering the meaning (being-valued in terms of the subjects self-identity) by which the vision was sustained.

Control here would mean the ability to sustain ideations within the context from which they arise, and only ‘reap’ them (integrate them into, for example, a logical system) when they are finished as seen from their own context, thus when their behavior has become clear to the point of being able to be presented to a logos-framework, within a frame where the law of identity is valid.

An important first step in establishing relations of control and order in the other is to be conscious of how old relations of behaviour to stimuli make themselves felt in new situations. If you remain conscious of an other’s essence as it expresses itself with respect to certain triggers then a pattern can be established and a system of prediction formulated.

The observer cannot make such a profound disconnect from itself such that it can observe itself in any profound way. The disconnect can only ever be minor, a looking back through memory. The present is always inaccessible to the self.
A void can be filled, an emptiness can be filled… but the shape of that emptiness defines the emerging phenomenon. The -liquid- takes on the shape of the vessel.

That assumes an a priori set vessel. But what is the vessel besides the consciousness that fills it?
Does the mind “sink into the body”? But what is this mind of not the body?
The thought, technique or meditation MM describes is the mind/body (self-experience) refusing to reduce itself to a function of itself.

Not exactly my point, but I’ll roll with it.

Think of it metaphorically as the vessel being one’s nature and the liquid filling it being experience.
One’s nature is set in stone, but it can be added to.

Or you could also say that one is the vessel itself and that the liquid filling it is one of life’s necessary masks. A pose, an act, which inevitably to the discerning eye betrays the shape and contour of the vessel itself through it’s negative shape.

One’s nature always makes itself felt one way or another.

 Apasha:  you can say it one way or another, but the liquid is more like milk. The cream of the total reductive symbol is a pose, albeit an authentic one.  We all are left with the masks we deserve, in the end, and it becomes sort of an iron maiden, it becomes us, even if, not becoming. Aphorisms are made of stuff like this.

It is true that experience is never the full extent of ones nature, but I do not think in terms of a duality. rather, Nature would be the cumulative latent potential for experience. The experiment should be seen as widening the vessel, making ones nature more fit for experiencing itself ‘accurately’ - more powerful, closer to the full engagement of the various drives that make up the nature.

To really approach such wholeness is only possible in an open war like situation when the full implications of ones might become determining rather than ones ability to engage ones nature as mask, as a hidden power behind the social experience, diplomacy, bartering and wit.

In a city-state, those who combine Mercury, Venus and Pluto are most powerful. In international politics, Jupiter is required.

I tend to Think it is better to Think of undoing Control. When you have fixed associations - ones that so far have been impervious to exceptions or cause pain - or habits, we could say, you are controlled by one part of you. You have a shortcut, an oversimplified game plan for reality, a partial solution, an overused solution/over application of something. This is rigid and more flexibility might be better and generally is for me at least. Awareness of the habit certainly helps. Then, for me, getting at the emotional/thought form knot that makes it seem like this is the only solution/Connection possible. Which, if the habit is really entrenched, means getting at painful shit, or at least fear of what will happen without the habitual pattern. I don’t see this as accidental or abritrary, the problem that is, just cookie cutter limited.

The way you describe it and your approach reminds me a bit of Gurdjieff and his formation of a central ‘I’.

For me control issues are in part instinctively based, where if we de construct them, especially the impervious ones, adjustments made maybe based on premature attempts based on certain hypothetical situations, and under certain circumstances. If ever there is a regression, these de constructive types will be of no service at all. The margins of error regarding the kind of adjustments to be made have still much to do with instinctive rather than abductive premises.