LastThursday

I understand the dynamic here more than I care to admit. I don't see anything bad or terrible in what you want, it seems very clear and uncomplicated: you don't want the guy in your life. The only complication is that he's abusing your wishes and harrassing you. It would seem unlikely that any amount talking will resolve his behaviour - talking has already failed - because he's not able to stop himself. Giving him a different and very clear and consistent signal one way or another doesn't make you a bad person. He's not your responsibility anymore.

@Preety_India I'd have to agree with you. But I would say that my intuitive logic abilities are unhoned or untrusted, I don't know which. A lot depends on speed. If I need to decide and react quickly then it's mostly intuition, more slowly and it's regular logical thinking. Given space I tend to fall back on logical thinking. But even logical thinking has to have a foundation somewhere, and I would say that foundation is mostly made of emotions. I wouldn't say that all intuitive sense making is emotional though, a lot of it is neutral in character - but there's a definite intelligence to it. @Leo Nordin I'd disagree that what I'm experiencing or doing is feverish activity of the brain. It's more born out of curiosity and learning about the world. To swim with your analogy, I like to think of myself as more of a graceful swan, gliding along, with his webbed feet kicking feverishly away in the water. At some point I'll hit the grassy bank to freedom. In any case, I'm nothing like the picture you paint of me, but I can't blame you for that because that is what I present myself as in this journal - slapdash, haphazard, with my fingers in many pies. You'd be surprised at how "unfeverish" I am IRL, quite the opposite in fact.

@Gianna in terms of psychology, it's simple, you've moved on but he hasn't. He's lost in his imagination and probably not deliberately trying to abuse you. But there's no need to understand his psychology, just do what's been said: zero contact, involve police if necessary. Don't be friends with him or friendly towards him, it doesn't make you a bad person.

An analogy. Does the Sun go around the Earth, the Earth around the Sun or do they go around each other? How deep is that self evident experience? Is it finite?

YouTube thinks it knows me, but I'm constantly trying to outwit it:

One more

You're never going to understand...

The whole point of an ego is that it doesn't collapse, a collapsed ego is no ego at all. What you are natively is already collapsed, it's just that your ego is a self-sustaining entity inside of that "collapsed perspectives". In a sense Leo is doing nothing special, except (temporarily) removing the impediments to "seeing clearly" what he really is. Those impediments (his ego etc.) are natural but illusory, as is everything. Whatever 5-MeO-DMT does, it reveals the illusory nature of things for what they are, and what's left behind is absoluteness. Bear in mind that Leo is actually part of you. What happens to him affects you too. Consciousness is infinitely subtle. We only have the impression that we are stranded on islands of consciousness. We can reveal ourselves by talking to each other, or with body language, but there's always infinitely subtle communication between us at all times (perhaps chemical, telepathy, some unknown force). This is the only way to reconcile the problem of whether we are "the only consciousness" or if there are "many consciousnesses". Solipsism is both true and false at the same time. We are all infinitely connected as if we were one - which we are.

@Huz snap. I can't imagine showering outdoors in the UK, people everywhere (maybe Scotland?), and effing freezing in the winter.

@Huz I want that van now! I might need to move countries first though.

I'm fascinated by how other people live. When watching documentaries like this, you realise how homogenised Western culture is.

Being authentic is not just impulsiveness, there are other things that come into it. But impulsiveness is purely authentic. Impulsiveness is just spontaneity by a different name, it's no different. Would you agree that spontaneity is authentic? To me authenticity is an ideal you hold yourself up to. That ideal is to express yourself in a natural way that aligns with your emotions. Impulsiveness is just a simple expression of your emotions without logic and thought behind it - it's authentic.

@Alysssa It's worth noting that values are also based in emotion:

Does it? If you switch on a torch light, what is your subjective experience of that?

Except there's a lot of stuff that isn't smooth. Lot's of things appear from nowhere and go back to nowhere (e.g. thoughts). Even if you just look somewhere else, new stuff suddenly appears and old stuff disappears. Discontinuity is everywhere. How about this analogy? Take a big cheese. You can cut the cheese with a knife into any shapes you want. But whatever shapes you cut it into, all the parts always fit together. Universe=cheese (non-duality), knife=awareness, shapes=forms and appearances (duality), fit together=no glitches or gaps (perfection).

Thanks @Mu_ I have an intuition about what I was trying to get across, but something is lost in translation to text. But let's see if I can get to the gist of it for fun. Some disconnected points: 1. Assume the that contents of existence is the same as existence itself. It's like a car is made up of wheels, engine, chassis (all content); but isn't the wheels, engine, chassis just the car itself? So is the car one thing or many? There doesn't seem to be much commonality between a wheel and an engine. Maybe there's many types of existence: wheel existence and engine existence and chassis existence and they're all different? 2. Do we define existence to be prime, or is existence self-evident, or is existence just a word pointing to something indescribable? If existence is self-evident, then the "self" in "self evident" must also be in existence. Does existence define itself? Weird. 3. When you say "existence" I think I know what it means. How is that possible? I don't think someone has ever sat me down and given me an explanation for the word. Is my "existence" really what you're talking about? I don't know I'm more talking to myself here. Maybe one for the journal. Thanks!

@Mu_ what hit me is, is existence plural or singular? If singular then what is it that is existing, it must be one unindividuated whole? If plural then how can one part of existence be compared to another part of existence, what is the commonality? In other words, we look around and see existence everywhere, despite seeing lots of different things. What is common between a chair and a bear? What is "knowing" existence?

Quitting can be liberating, but it's your survival on the line. Depending on the sort of person you are, either you will be motivated by it, or demotivated by it - there's only one way to find out. Personally, the times I've done it, I eventually got demotivated and burned through my money. Quit. Have a little break and/or holiday for a few weeks, then treat your time after that like going to work, have a routine and stick to it, concentrate on that portfolio. Then make a deadline after which you will start looking for work again, maybe after six months.

This is a duality in language only, which you are pointing out. You could say "non" or "not" anything you like, like non-nothingness, it is fiction. Most dualities come out of language use. Illusion is only recognised retrospectively. So before illusion is recognised for what it is, it is real. But consciousness is self-referential, so it has the ability to recognise stuff - an observer isn't necessary. To itself, i.e. it wasn't an illusion before it was recognised to be one. Maybe I see the shadow of a man in a dark alley at night (real), and then I realise it was just a cat walking along a wall throwing a shadow (illusion). Yeah moment is the wrong word, because it has a connotation of "snapshot" or "slice" in time. It's no such thing, moments are a fiction of language. But I was talking within a paradigm of "moments". For something to stop existing, a comparison has to be made between two things: existence and non-existence. For a comparison to be made, we need to remember the state of something before it changed. So we are reliant on memory (possibly a fiction) to say that "moments" go into oblivion. That presupposes that "moments" exist, which they don't, but we can discuss things as if they do exist. The appearance of movement, space and time are all real, they are the content of experience, the illusory nature of them is only recognised after you have experienced them. They are real and unreal. Agreed, both are the case simultaneously. There is a static (persistent) quality to experience as well as a fluid one. There is a subtle interplay of the two: energy (movement) is conserved (static).

Agreed. To re-iterate, existence and non-existence are the same. Unfortunately I have to use language to get my points over. I would say that content is experience, there is nothing outside of content. That sensation of pure being or pure existence, is still content.

Existence and non-existence are a duality. Every moment you've ever experienced no longer exists. We're sat on a knife edge between existence and non-existence. You could even say the two are synonymous. The sensation of existence is an illusion.

I think, sometimes, blaming or hating our exes gives our egos an escape from having to look at themselves and say "I messed up". But it's also important to recognise there can be a grieving process with relationship breakup, and that process can make you angry or resentful. I don't necessarily think that grieving process can or should be bypassed by being "spiritual". Hate your ex for a while and then get over it and love them for what they gave you.