RendHeaven

There's a strong fragmentation in this statement - you are mentally splitting reality into two halves, identifying with & upholding one half (the "solid," the "structural," etc.) while dis-identifying with & shitting on the other half. Do you agree or disagree with my observation? If you admit that I might have a point, are you further willing to admit that maybe you haven't fully explored reality in an unbiased way, or will you insist that your contemplation work is a completed project? If you are truly a student of epistemology, you ought to be familiar with two central realizations: not-knowing, and relativity. I suggest you double down on your inquiries with not-knowing and relativity on the forefront of your mind. I suggest this precisely because I sense in all of your posts that you actually believe that you know [a thing], and you actually believe that your position on [the thing] is non-relative. Huge pitfall. If you truly understood not-knowing and relativity, you would actually smile and apologize when accused of 'mansplaining' instead of getting overheated and excessively expository, because you would realize that you don't even know what 'mansplaining' really is: Has it personally happened to you? How many times? Just once, or hundreds? Some women claim to experience it hundreds of times. Perhaps you have logic and dictionary definitions on your side, but even you must concede that women understand more than you on the level of personal experience. Do you know the string of complicated emotions that arise when you are the target of mansplaining? Many women do, intimately. What if the mansplainer doesn't actually realize that he is mansplaining, and this ignorance is a key feature of the phenomenon which women are trying to bring attention to? If this were the case, then your denial of mansplaining would actually be in favor of mansplaining. Are ya gonna deny that? What if it only seems unfalsifiable because you're looking at the phenomenon from within? e.g. - what if appeals to logic, argumentation, dictionary definitions, and narrative control (e.g. "being right," "being objective") are themselves components of mansplaining? Maybe to see mansplaining in full view, you need to literally stop arguing entirely, maybe you need to let go of the need to be right, and then the phenomenon reveals itself to you. I mean clearly many people see it happening, but you don't. So is everyone stupid and wrong, or are you just looking in the wrong places? And this is just a taste of what it's like to admit your not-knowing. Furthermore, notice that your standards of what a thing is are particular to YOU or your school of thought. Even if you appeal to what "the dictionary says," the contents of the dictionary must be interpreted, and your interpretation will be different than someone else's interpretation, and are you really arrogant enough to assert that your interpretation is the right one objectively? After all, by what criteria do you assert that you have "the right" interpretation? After honest reflection, you must admit that your criteria for right interpretation is particular/relative to YOUR frame of reference. This is a taste of relativity. Let's go one more step. Beyond the level of semantics and word games, there is the realization that the feminine lived reality literally sees the world differently from your masculine lived reality, and you actually have no "solid grounds" upon which to insist that your lived reality ought to be prioritized and upheld as true over theirs'. Take this example: maybe from your perspective, you nonchalantly say something condescending without realizing that you were hurtful, but to you it's really not a big deal. Meanwhile, to the person you were talking to, what you said was seriously hurtful. To you, it seems like they should just be less sensitive, I mean fuck it's really not a big deal dude it's literally just words! Get over yourself! But to the other person, it really feels like wow this guy has no regards for my emotional world at all - they're completely blind to their impact on others, they have no self-awareness beyond their own skin, and now they're blaming me for something they did, how the hell is this fair?? So I ask you now, who is "right?" Who has the objectively correct worldview? Before you try to get out a measuring tape where you try to discern how "objectively" hurtful a statement is, lemme just spoil for you that there is no such thing. In fact, both interpretations that we found above are valid when we realize the role of relativity in the way that reality unfolds. The statement was simultaneously innocent and hurtful. When you finally accept this paradox, you lose the will to "fight" over "being right," because no such thing exists anymore. And that's where your body-mind begins to taste freedom.

Totally normal.

I wonder what kind of things you were saying/doing (subtly or otherwise) that would get someone to accuse you of mansplaining? I appear strongly opinionated around my peers, but I am never accused of mansplaining.

@Logan you gonna be that role model one day?

lol

@soos_mite_ah Ok seriously you gotta stop being my twin ? Yes, yes, and yes. Material ownership + structural inflexibility in general just doesn't do it for me. A house is so obviously not something to want (for someone like me). No.

@Emerald Oh my god Emerald ? I'm so sorry. And thank you for taking the time to paint the picture so vividly.

???

Hey I just read your comment on soosmiteah's journal, and wanted to casually respond without derailing her journal... I hope it's ok if I post here? I think that this is the biggest issue that anybody with any great idea will face... Streaming/Video does not erase this problem in the slightest - even on twitch you'd be competing for eyeballs day in and out. I have a buddy who's been streaming his video game playthroughs on twitch for years now and only gets like 3 viewers per stream lol (now to be fair he's doing a lot of things unoptimally, but my point is that the struggle for eyeballs is universal and inescapable). This is fucked up but 100% valid lol. I've noticed a really interesting phenomenon (at least on this forum) where female members on average gain nearly double the followers as their male counterparts -per post count (ESPECIALLY if they have a face-shot in their profile image). I can only theorize, because the "facts" of this matter are vague, but I am guessing that female members effortlessly follow each other out of a sense of empathy and shared perspective, while male members will also follow female members because of pretty profile face shots. I mean there are girls on here with content post counts in the low 100s that already have almost 10 (majority male) followers, like dwarniel, barbara, jessichell, etc. They all have extremely high post-to-follower ratios! On the contrary, I find that women don't follow men as often due to a disconnect of perspective (not to mention that there are many many more men here, so if a woman is to follow a man it's more likely that they'd go for someone established like Nahm rather than a nobody with only 100 posts). In other words, I don't think it's possible for a new male here with no prior clout to replicate the high post-to-follower ratio of a semiattractive girl after just 100 posts, (unless each post was somehow GODLY in quality a la TJReeves or BeingFrankYang) and I think we can reasonably attribute this disparity in attention to visual appearance... All in all leads me to the half-baked conclusion that "looks," especially if you're a woman, is definitely a valid way to get your message more heard. That's not good or bad or right or wrong, it just is what it is...

Dear God this entire post speaks to my soul on a molecular level. My parents had the exact same parenting "strategy" as you're describing... and I've dealt with the same personality shadow that that produces. I'm determined to end the generational ignorance here and now: I'm prioritizing trust, acceptance, and love over "correct action" with any children I ever have responsibility for.

Smile with your eyes. Words come and go

@Flowerfaeiry yeah pretty much

I'm so relieved that you're gay lmao

Interesting... can you elaborate? This goes against conventional wisdom, do you think you can anticipate counterarguments and articulate why "emotions = logic" nonetheless?

I felt this especially with Leo's newest episode. His words mean nothing to those without Direct Experience. On the other hand, those with Direct Experience do not need Love to be "logically explained" to them Mm. Yes. Please chill though, I'm still mildly attached to my heterosexuality

Lol there just happens to be a new episode addressing this exact question... But long story short: Love = Acceptance. Acceptance = To Embrace. To Embrace (in the Highest sense), is to Contain Wholly. To Contain Wholly is to exclude nothing. God, as All Things, excludes nothing, and thereby Contains Wholly (All Things). Therefore, through simple substitution, we arrive at the insight that God (as All Things) literally equals (The Highest) Love.

~~imagination~~

lol

@MatteO22 You seem to have a giant shadow against submission. Consider that submission (coming from a pure heart) IS ultimate feminine empowerment, but I don't believe you recognize this since you work so hard to denounce and disown it. Not to mention that you made the connection between submissiveness and inferiority, to which I say, "says who?" Be careful of conflating the full scope of submissiveness with our stupid cultural notions of submissiveness. At the highest level, all finitude submits and surrenders to Infinity, and such an act of submission is Greater than any petty human domination. Likewise, all degrees and gradations of human submissiveness mimic this Divine Process (some degrees and gradations more pure than others). When one realizes this, there is no room left to ascribe "inferiority."

To "come to [any] conclusions" IS to define. Without first defining (explicitly or otherwise), there is no thing of which to make a conclusion out of. So you can't really separate definition from conclusion, which you seem to want to do. It's like you're saying: "better to draw a square that isn't a quadrilateral." --- But maybe I'm being overly technical, I feel I understand what you mean to say

I agree with the bold, but let's be real - there does seem to be a strong correlation between self-identified femininity and sexual submissiveness. No, that doesn't mean that the feminine is weak, lol. I never said that. It's just an acknowledgement of general social trends, void of value judgement. So, does all femininity literally equate to submissiveness in a one to one ratio? Obviously not. But at the same time, to say that femininity "has nothing to do with submission" is naive.

@Raphael AUGHH THE DISCOMFORT BURNSS

Bingo. Might as well try it... you're not alone... --- @Bob Seeker On it

~~just being feels sooo gooood~~ ?? ?? ??

Of course! But how often do we see this?