tsuki

@now is forever You also get 'quite' and 'quiet' mixed up quiet often...

Then I guess that we're having an 'odd argument'.

Are "we" having a conversation?

@Preetom I don't actually think that it is. I have a hunch that you are judging the dual perspective from within the non-dual. The catch is that there is no duality between duality and non-duality.

I know what you're saying. Things, statements, don't feel intuitive until you can visualize them. But you must be able to see that our visualization is so very limited that it cannot possibly be a test of what is legitimate what is not. For example, can you visualize a 4 dimensional sphere? I sure cant. But can i calculate and hence make statements about its surface areas and its volume? I sure can. Physics is mathematics. Rest are just stories, mnemonics if you will, to aid to or to shorten the mathematical calculations. @Serotoninluv @graded24 As a mechanical engineer, I'd say that science's value lies in its predictive power and I wouldn't be as quick to dismiss the use of imagining interpretations. After all, where does the science's funding come from other than people implementing your ideas? How would the inventors do it if there were no tangible results in the material/classical world? Inventors and investors cannot be expected to learn mathematics of quantum mechanics. From my point of view, asking about the meaning of interactions between particles in a theory is similar to asking about what is the emptiness of a cup. There is nothing about the cup that makes it empty - and yet - it is! That is how the intelligence enters the domain of mathematics: through our intervention that describes something that is not there.

@Serotoninluv There is no duality between duality and non-duality. Even when it comes to language.

Why do you think that? Orange is the one that chases after the gross definition of wealth.

It is. Arguing about perspectives in terms of logical reasoning is ultimately pointless because in order to do so, you have 'put' one perspective 'inside' another. This creates paradoxes like you just pointed out and the logical mind gets stuck at the absurdity of the situation. What you have to do instead is to inhabit your opponent's perspective and from its inside show its obfuscated paradoxes (without relying on the perspective you're arguing for). Only then, after a person is open (and mindfucked) enough - you get to show them where you are coming from and how this perspective 'cures'/incorporates the paradoxes you just pointed out in their reasoning. Practically, in order to do that - you have to be higher on the spiral.

One way is to find your way back to the light and the other is to wait until your pupils adjust to the darkness.

Thinking about ultimate rules for life is ultimately misguided. Reality is non-linear. Today's solutions are tomorrow's problems if we stick to them mindlessly. This is what all rules boil down to: the mind finds thinking exhausting, so it tries to solve itself by inventing guidelines.

Does this sentence come from a place of love, or does it come from the place of hate? If it is the latter, then it is the predator biting itself. I think that it does a great job keeping itself stuck in the corner.

I recently came to understand the saying that we can only love others as much as we can love ourselves. The only normal people are those that we're yet to get close to - and there is no person closer to me than... I. I know my ever single little fuck-up, every single thought and emotion. I know my all evils and can I really love that? Well, guess what - the more you get closer to another person, the more you learn about them as well. The more open they become and talk about their inner lives, the more darkness you have to stomach. Is love a projection? In a sense - yes. It is a projection of our relationship to our inner darkness. Without the ability to stay alone, there can be no bond. However, once you let yourself be alone - is there a reason to look for love? Perhaps, this is why it is said that love is not a matter of reason.

@now is forever Your predator's job is to keep dangers at bay. If, however, you call this predator dangerous - it will fight itself so that it will not harm others. To be harmless towards others, you have to be ruthless towards yourself. Cynicism was once a form of strength, but today it is nothing else but whining. I'd much rather listen to whining of others than to whine about it.

“Only time can heal what reason cannot.” ― Seneca

@now is forever Trinity is a three-legged stool. Remove a leg and it becomes a useless teapot.

@How to be wise What is so frightening about death to you? Even the materialist paradigm says that you have experienced death already. There was no you before you were born. Were you suffering back then?

@now is forever ?

I tend to think of it in terms of artistry of life. We are who we are because of who we are. We all get some materials to work with, come to a certain family, in a certain country with a certain body and a certain temperament. We may think that some things are useful and some are a burden, but ultimately - they are the raw materials for your artistry. Every artist needs raw materials, even if, at the moment, your art is digging a hole on a construction site.

I thought that we were talking about victim mentality and being a predator.

@now is forever If you're hurt, hurting others retrospecively won't help you. It is better to cry your eyes out in this case. However, if you feel hurt when somebody hurts you - this is the time to stand up for yourself. Retaliation is never helpful.

Oh, that's true for me as well. Predators don't plan. They just do, in the moment.

lol Typical victim mentality.

Ugh, so many posts, so little time to respond . My wife's therapist told her once: every masochist finds his/her own sadist .

You're welcome. The question that bugs me is: aren't we, adults, imposing our wishes onto children by bringing them into existence? (assuming that we have control). Having children to satisfy my urge to be a father is not about the unborn child at all. Or is it? I could say that this urge is the child speaking through me and me having it is simply letting go. hmm... This is why I tend to steer towards thinking about family in terms of taking care of everyday life. To me, a partner is a person that helps me with challenges of everyday life, like taking care of the household and taking care of each other. This is the foundation that cannot be questioned and must be met. Everything else is a (welcome!) bonus. If she's interested in what I do with my days (and she is) - great. But I can't expect her to do that. She has her own stuff. My problem is that I see solutions to her problems and she won't apply them, even if she agrees that it's the right thing to do. I guess my problem is not letting her solve her problems her own way . What I've learned over the past three years is that relationships are as much about being close together, as they are about being distant.

Hmm, humility is not humiliation. Humiliation is closer to shame - a social phenomenon in relation to other people. Not meeting expectations. Ostracization. Humility is more in lines of surrender to what is. Closer to letting go. Not trying to do things my way, but let myself be something done by 'things' outside of me. It is a form of strength though - a willing, unyielding submissiveness to existence. Humbleness is close to humility. To me, humbleness is also about other people, how we present ourselves to them. Humility is an inner state. To me, it is the most private thing there is. Would you like to talk about your dream with me? I'm considering having children myself in the future, but I still haven't decided yet. Why is it so important to you?