RendHeaven

It's clear that you're deeply lost If you're really such a champion of open-mindedness and not-knowing, try maintaining an openness to the possibility that some people do have omniscience; be humble enough to not-know the state of others. Right now you're using the ruse of "not-knowing" to try to "know."

Conflation: Leo bans trolls for the sake of the entire community. He has a collective mission statement to uphold. He doesn't personally care about the troll. You're wishing to ban trolls for the sake of your personal needs. You have no care for how these trolls affect the mission statement

Lol.

I've finally understood, Leo. Thank you.

Same

You are Jesus.

"Groundless ground."

@Forestluv Hehe, of course~ I asked because in your original question, for some reason (and maybe I'm entirely projecting) I got the feeling that by listing partial forms of love, you were setting up a punchline - mainly, you were waiting to spring upon us the distinction between relative love and Absolute Love - and in doing so, you'd show the greater nature of Absolute love and the lesser nature of partial love. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is exactly how you replied! I'd like to point out a possible "trap," if I may. The trap is this: You approach (conversations of) Love by defining, categorizing, and distinguishing - but Love fundamentally undefines, uncategorizes, and undistinguishes. Furthermore, by approaching Love with the razor of differentiation, you implicitly disparage one side of your own differentiation in favor of the other (i.e. "Emotional love" is disparaged in favor of "Absolute Love.") - this last point is very subtle. The disparaging that I believe you are doing is not such an obvious thing, but I encourage you to check for yourself. In your mind, it may seem like not such a big deal. To you, it's like: "Hey, all I'm doing is I'm noticing the difference between the partial and the Absolute." Maybe you are doing more than that, however. Notice your language regarding emotions: The implication is clear: "Emotional love" is lesser. But what exactly do we mean by lesser? Let's speak a bit of SD Yellow for fun It seems that Love for you (in this moment, at least) is split into differences in kind (or, even if you insist that the difference is only in degree, this insistence nonetheless creates a rift, in the sense that we conceive one extremity of degree as not-the other extremity). That is, Love for you is manifold. From a certain perspective, it's useful to frame Love as manifold - it helps us clarify that the Absolute is not the partial/relative. This framing helps us avoid conflation. But by what means do we say that these things are not-same? I like the word you used - "subset." It seems like you are conceiving Love more like a Russian nesting doll. In the same way that it would be absurd to take apart the doll and proclaim that the smallest piece is the same as the entire stack of dolls, we then find that it is absurd to fixate on a minute portion of love and to declare that it is the same as Love with a capital L. I believe this is also where we get our notions of greater or lesser - for we understand that the Whole is greater than the part, and so if we imagine that the relative is contained within the Absolute (but does not occupy it fully), it only seems natural to conclude that the relative is not the Absolute, and hence is lesser - for it omits totality. But of course, we can always expand our frame of reference to that of the Whole, and realize that all 'lesser' parts must partake in the same substrate as the Whole - so much so that, from the vantage point of the Whole, it could NOT be said that the 'lesser part' is not the Absolute. In fact - the 'lesser part' ceases to be a thing in itself - no longer capable of having definition - and All is Absolute - and the Absolute is Great(er), for it is not contained by anything (other than itself). Now, to elaborate on the "trap" from earlier: For the most part, we tend to lock into the former perspective of Love (which concludes that the relative is not the Absolute, for it omits totality). From within this frame, the Whole is greater than the part, and it therefore makes perfect intellectual sense to disparage the relative in favor of the Absolute. After all, the Absolute is by definition greater. However - recall that from the frame of reference of the Whole, all 'lesser parts' must partake in the same substrate as the Whole. So, even if we find ourselves rightfully disparaging the relative because it omits totality, it would be a grave error and shame were we to forget that all relative love is literally the same as Absolute Love on the level of 'substance.' We may rightfully disparage the branch on the conceptual grounds that it omits the totality of the Tree, but it would be a grave error and shame were we to further disparage the branch on the misconception that it is not literally made of the same substance of Tree-ness! Or, to bring this down to earth: "Emotional love, such as: I love my gf, cat, playing tennis, etc." is rightfully disparaged for its partial nature, but the wise nonetheless honor it on the basis that love is Love. Just because "emotions" are (seemingly) not the Whole, it makes them no less Love. As a thought experiment (or maybe even a heart experiment ) can you envision Love as being wholly contained within Emotion, as opposed to Emotion being within Love? Obviously, at the ultimate level - there are no withins or withouts. Nonetheless, just as from a certain perspective, Emotion is contained within Love, I say that from a certain other perspective, Love is contained within Emotion. Can you bring yourself to see that? Or rather, can you bring yourself to feel that?

INFJ?

I finally understand. Your presence is such a gift. Thank you (for everything)

Drop spiritual ideas. Get survival handled

These distinctions are ultimately arbitrary. Depends on your frame of reference.

It's gonna be ok bro, have faith in the process.

"Emotional" as opposed to..? As if there's any difference

@aurum Man, I just wrote a mountain of text exploring compassion and death in a non-ideological way, not with the intention to reason or argue with you, but rather to encourage us both (and anyone else reading) to delve further into personal awareness and intuition. Alas, my computer crashed and all of it got wiped before I could post, lol!~ Instead of forcing all that text back onto the page, I'm just gonna let this one go. Much love to you, brother

Yo chill that's my boy

Recall that this is what you wrote: "But I also do not believe I am above taking a life to sustain life. And I don't take that responsibility lightly." This claim is what I was curious about. It seems to me like you are holding on to something. Why can't you simply be "above" "taking a life?" I bet you can. It's not hard. You said you even did it for 2 years. So why hold back? What would you lose by committing to being vegan? (or even, what gain from non-veganism are you attached to, if any?) I'm not asking for a reasoned analysis of variables, but rather for an honest reflection of identity-level instinct. You can just simply choose to minimize killing, lol. It's not rocket science. What's so personally precious to you about "taking a life to sustain life?" Why make it into a responsibility? For a number of us, this "responsibility" you describe has dissolved into nothingness... no longer a burden. 1) You can live according to veganism without being ideological. In fact, you can live according to veganism for reasons entirely other than ideology. 2) Veganism at its core is not about taking ethical positions. It's simply a mode of being. You need no "ethics" or "positions" to be in a particular mode. 3) Have you tried vegetarianism? Matters of compassion are not all-or-nothing as many vegans would declare. Simply putting meat aside is still a meaningful personal change, and products like eggs really do help (for those who insist that "they need meat for health"). Obvious exceptions if you have health problems like SIBO but I assume I am communicating with someone of average health

@Mannyb Ok And you can get the vaccine while I do that~

You're not turquoise lol.

@Forestluv Loving that the structural format of your free-flowing is mind-centered (distinction-making, elaboration, numbering, defining, concluding) despite the topic

What are you afraid of losing by being vegan until the day you drop dead?

Self-made prison

lmao, God weeping for someone else to come save him. Dude wake up. Love comes from YOU, and nobody else.

Who said they're disliked? The question in the title comes loaded with assumptions.

Click link below. Godspeed brother