tsuki

You're just too much fun ❤️ All I'm saying is that loving yourself is just as valid as loving others. Despite loving myself I can make space for you while you're denying the validity of what I'm saying. You're not fighting with me, but with your misconceptions about me. Instead facing them, you created philosophy that alienates a huge portion of Earth's population. It must be horrible to live in a world like that ❤️ If you knew how to love yourself, you would give it up. I originally responded with a genuine intent, but now I'm having so much fun that I suspect that I'm just picking on you. This is where I'll stop. Have a nice day ❤️

So, you can't think for yourself and you can't feel for yourself? You're supposed to give everything to others? How do you contribute anything to the group in such a setup instead of being a freeloader? How do you oppose injustice? How do you decide to whom you give yourself if you have no faculties of your own left?

The exact same thing can be said about the attitude towards life where you only do what you think you should do. Being driven by thoughts is exactly as subjective and individualistic as being driven by feelings. "When you only focus on thinking for yourself, you miss out on everything that's truly important, and when people try to convince you while you don't believe them, you shut them down and push them away. Thinking for yourself is the best way to be alone. " Instead of opening up to what I just said (which is not in opposition to what you wrote by any means) - you declare approximately half of the world's population as 'the worst thing [to do]". How exactly is that not "ego based"? The difference between us is that I can see our commonality while you highlight the difference.

Some people treat feelings as a barometer of the group's well being. These people treat them as means to connect with others and understand them by 'becoming' them (empathizing), or 'influencing' them (harmonizing). On the other hand, some people are driven by feelings and become individualistic. Paradoxically, this individualism can be a bonding factor, but this bond is expressed through giving space. When you love yourself and your interests diverge with another person's, then this divergence is not laced with hate but with compassion. You understand that the other person loves himself too and only does this because he has to. We don't choose what we feel towards others, so in this sense, we're all victims of this disagreement. This conflict becomes impersonal in the sense that it is not about me, but about each of us trying to cope with harshness of the world to the best of our abilities. If we're fortunate enough, our abilities let us solve problems through cooperation, or compromise and violence becomes the last resort. If I truly love myself and am able to connect with others, the interest of the group becomes a factor in my well being, so it's only natural that I care about them as well. Loving yourself is just as valid in spirituality as loving others.

@DrewNows Generally speaking yes. I think that it was intended more as a place where you observe your shadow at work when you interact with other people. Obviously, we have to react to something other than people being surprised by the purpose of this thread, so your spilled guts are the perfect material for that.

@Truth Addict I love you too!

The only way to measure your spiritual growth is to observe and appreciate how spiritual the whole world is.

@Mezanti I took LSD once, so I'm not all that experienced, but when it comes to psychedelics - take them once you are absolutely sure that you can handle anything they will throw at you. If you're not sure, then this very feeling can be magnified into a bad trip that could potentially damage you.

Important note: alchemy is the intersection of two archetypes. Are paradoxes descriptions of archetypes?

Of course it's working. You can blame water for not being tasty enough, or blame your meals for being too tasty. You can return to drinking soda to wash the taste off, or start eating better . Start distinguishing between pain and suffering. Pain is a sensation and it does not speak. The only quality of pain is that it is very intense, overwhelming. Suffering is when you let the pain get to the mind and let the mind talk in reaction to it. It starts to go off into the future and come up with schemes about how to prevent it, how you would rather do other stuff. Instead of thinking, just focus on the sensation of pain. It will be much easier to stomach it this way. Stop repeating this nonsense, you're only making it worse this way.

On Ego and the nature of conflict from the perspective of transaction, part 4. But why does conflict arise in the first place? Isn't it simply because we want things and are unwilling to give them up? Surely, if any of the people involved gave up what they wanted - there would be no need to fight. But how exactly does one decide when is it appropriate to withdraw? Why do I have to give up and my opponent gets to have what he wants? Usually we explain our choices in terms of values, virtues, or principles. We say that we prefer one thing over the other because we see them as more noble, greater or superior. We prefer happiness over misery, wealth over poverty, mercy over cruelty and so on. We strive to be better to seek fulfillment and avoid suffering for the good of all beings. The main difficulty in accomplishing this feat is the fact that there are many different sets of values and they are often contradictory. How to reconcile the fact that a wise person has to be both merciful and ruthless in order to be just? How to choose which set of values to follow? After all, we cannot rely on virtues in order to choose which virtues are appropriate. So, how exactly do we choose how to choose? Do we engage in inner dialog until we come up with a solution? Do we follow our feelings to see what's right? What if feelings and thoughts are in opposition, like when we know that we shouldn't do something that we feel is important? Do we trust our logic that tells us to not trust our feelings, or do we submit to emotions and run amok? How exactly do we submit to either of those? Can this submission, or choice, be observed? Don't we have to choose how to observe choice? Wouldn't we influence the observation this way? The same questions can be posed with respect to thought. We think that we think our thoughts, that we are responsible for them. They form the stream of continuous experience, but each thought arrives one at the time and never announces the next one. We can form a story in our head what we will be doing next Monday, but we do not form the stories about what stories we will form (when we are forming them). In this sense, free will is a local phenomenon in our conscious experience. The last example comes from observation of objects and trying to grasp what are they in their essence. When I look at a cup, it is apparent what it is even prior to naming it in my thoughts. From one point of view, a cup has physical properties, but it is what it is only in relation to its usefulness. This usefulness, however is never expressed verbally. I can be preoccupied with a conversation with another person and still write something with a pen without contemplating its properties, or even noticing it. In fact, my philosophical disposition towards it prevents me from seeing it as a pen in its everyday way of being, in its usefulness. In order to write, I have to be preoccupied with my thoughts to "see" the pen for what it is. In order to see a pen properly, I have to stop inspecting it. Similarly, when I'm throwing a ball, or smiling, I don't deliberately contract and relax my muscles. I just do it. The above examples show that there is a ground for what is experienced, but this ground cannot be expressed in terms of it. Questions about the meaning of color red cannot be answered verbally because the association between certain sights and thoughts ("red") is the basis for it. These associations lie within the realm of the subconscious mind and they are what I call archetypes. Archetypes are the mediators between various parts of our experience and the 'sense' that 'perceives' them is what I call intuition. Intuition is the interface between the conscious and the unconscious mind. We may be free to pursue our desires, but we are not free to choose them. We may choose to live the virtuous life, but we do not know what virtues are. That is because virtues are intuitive, archetypical. Archetypes reside "between" our faculties and are the invisible mechanism that guide the experience through awareness. When we decide on our actions in the personal frame of reference, when we mediate between thoughts and emotions to make a decision, personal archetypes are at play. These archetypes are what constitutes personality. This personality can express itself as the 'conqueror' or 'protector', but they occur symmetrically in interactions and this symmetry needs to be accounted for. Emotions and language that are experienced personally arise simultaneously in people that engage in communication. They are personal experiences, two ends, of energetic transactions that occur within the trans-personal realm. The symmetric relationship between personal archetypes ("conqueror", "protector") can be accounted for by trans-personal, or collective archetypes that mediate emotional and linguistic transactions at play. While personal archetypes make up the personality, the collective ones are the universal makeup of God's unconscious mind. To be continued.

My god, I absolutely love this song. I'm not even ashamed of listening to Miley Cyrus. It's really good.

I thought that too and that is what's embarrassing about it. I am sharing the most intimate parts of myself. Recently I've been asking myself whether I really am this humble, or that my sense of self is so inflated that I confused myself with God. With all the gifts I've been blessed with, I decided to not pursue science and live ordinary life while studying independently. From one point of view, I am pressed to study and develop myself because my mind would turn on itself and I would go mad. From another point of view, I am wasting my potential while studying fairy tales and creating theories of everything that even the most profound philosophers never attempted to. I treat sacred space as a notebook where I perfect my understanding, hoping that somebody else finds value in my writing. It's not entirely clear to me whether I'm insanely wise, or just insane. My only reality check is to just be honest and write whatever I truly think so that people can decide for themselves and stay away if they find my mind to be threatening.

On Ego and the nature of conflict from the perspective of transaction, part 3. How exactly does the conflict take place though? While we certainly can fight physically, we have been given a way to resolve conflict without visible bloodshed: speech. It may be difficult to accept that the two have something in common, but don't we understand something when we're being petted, or hit with a zen stick? From the point of view of language, conflict is about establishing shared truth and the agreement to respect it. We expect others to hear what we're saying and present their truth to us so that we can find the common kernel. It is the most curious of things that despite our best efforts to do so, we can rarely see things the same way others do. If it wasn't the case and we could, would there be any grounds for disagreement then? Why is it that we cannot understand each other, and yet - it is apparent that we communicate? Can we inspect language more closely? Many have tried to do that, but to no avail. We can question the meaning of words to no end and it always turns out that even we don't understand what we're saying. If that is the truth of our inner experience, then why are we so invested in convincing others of the fact that we're right? If we can't even find the meaning of our own words, then by what magic others react to what we're saying? Isn't it to be expected that their inner experience of language is the same in its groundlessness? That the other can speak only as long as he forgets that he has no idea what he says? Just like it was the case with emotions, communication is an energetic transaction between parties in conflict. Each end of this transaction is experienced as language, even if its appearance is intangible for participants. The big question is: what is the thing that manifests through this transaction? Is it personal? Each end of this transaction is personal, but the whole of it - isn't. Just like the chatter happens in our minds, the transaction takes place in the mind of God. Haven't we all experienced that there are no original thoughts within us? That everything we have, has been picked up on the fly and mingled? The substance of God's mind is what I call culture. It is not just human culture - it also underlies animal violence and all of our interactions in the world. Culture is the basis for understanding and we have access to it prior to knowing words. Don't we understand when we're being taught how to speak? From this point of view - isn't it obvious that both the conqueror and the protector are victims of their own conflict? There is, however one last bit that has been missed. From one point of view, we are driven by emotions, but from another - by thoughts. How exactly do we manage to balance the two, if they are opposite forces? After all, our emotional behavior overrides our logical faculties. It possesses us to do things seemingly against what we think we should do. Are we just slaves to our/God's desires, or mechanical beings that simply repeat culture? The idea of free will has been advocated to solve this mystery, but how exactly do we make choices? Is free will a thought? Is it an emotion? Can it be observed? The only answer is: no, but we can't really deny its existence. Have we arrived at the mysterious Ego that plays the tricks upon mere mortals? The Devil has traditionally been seated in the dark places and that is for a reason. To be continued.

The stuff from Sacred space.

Ahhh, it's so embarrassing to write this stuff .

On Ego and the nature of conflict from the perspective of transaction, part 2. When we inspect personal experience closely, how exactly do emotions manifest during conflict? Is there only one person that feels strongly? If that was the case, then the other would simply yield without conflict. Do emotions announce themselves before they appear? Only if we expect conflict to happen, but what is that expectation other than fear or anger? Emotions always arrive unannounced, spontaneously and they coexist in both parties simultaneously. They are an energetic transaction that binds people together in a certain situation. If that is the case, then what is the meaning of assigning blame for what is happening? Do emotions know about survival? Emotions are non-discursive, they do not know what they transmit. They are a call to action without explanation. They express themselves as irrational possession of our faculties, they don't care about anything. The big question is: what is the thing that manifests itself through this transaction? Is this transaction personal? Certainly, each end of this transaction is experienced personally as emotions by the protector, or the conqueror. Is the transaction itself, however, attributable to either of them? Aren't they both victims of the circumstances that arose? Emotions of both parties are irrational and experienced within their bodies. The transaction itself however is beyond something personal. It is something that manifests within Nature, the Animal Kingdom, God's body, material world. It is the interplay of our primal instincts that we were born with when we were incarnated in these bodies. When this situation is seen as such, the fighting animals are only worthy of compassion, and not disgust. Emotions however are not the only factor at play in conflict, so this just a part of the story. To be continued.

On Ego and the nature of conflict from the perspective of transaction. Can a person be hurt, if the person was not protecting something? Can a person hurt another, if the person did not enter space that is restricted? From the perspective of the protector, the intruder is the villain because he wants something that is not his to be taken. From the perspective of the conqueror, the usurper is the villain because he holds something that is not his to keep. How to solve this problem without the third agent that decides who's right? Spirituality tells us that we're all evil creatures, devils, that are only out for ourselves. That, unless we know that we are evil and we try to make space for other people, we're doomed to perpetuate suffering. Some people on the spiritual path decide to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others and venture to kill their own ego. This ego, the will to survive, is supposedly the root of all problems. At a first glance - it is true. Both the protector and the conqueror are blinded by their own selfishness and cannot see the greater good that comes from cooperation. This approach, however, creates a problem. That is because from the point of view of any of those people, they are not doing anything wrong. In fact, they are both convinced that they are right and they defend their convictions through conflict. People are never out there to do harm because they enjoy it. They do that because they are convinced that it serves the good cause. So, in order to transcend the ego, they need to admit to being evil while genuinely thinking that they want to do good. This is the root of all inner conflict and confusion in spirituality. That you are convicted for being a sinner without any evidence to support it. This gives rise to psychics that supposedly know better what you feel than you, the only person that has access to your first person experience. Not only this idea serves to spread guilt, it is also gives birth to preaching and moralizing that other people should keep their egos checked. In this sense, spirituality is self-defeating. It tries to solve conflict, but it creates it on a different level. It creates conflict about conflict itself. This meta conflict is either externalized and gives rise to rules that are enforced, or internalized and results in self-flagellation. This internalization is especially dangerous because it instills the basic distrust towards one's own capacity to see things clearly. To be continued. @Zigzag Idiot Thank you for the material.

I would suggest inspecting what is the experience of other people, like your friends, or your family. From one point of view, there are people, living humans, that have free will, knowledge and personalities. From another point of view, there are models of those people that make up your psyche, inner experience. When you talk to those people, do you talk to them, or do you talk to your mental images? What is the extent to which those models of people influence your interactions with the 'real humans'? Whatever the 'real people' say is understood in the context of your mental model. If you only understand them in the context of what you already know, then are you really talking to anybody when you talk to your mother? Maybe, the truth is that your mother talks to herself and you are just a mirror for her? If that is true for you, then isn't it true for her as well? When you are talking to her, maybe you are just talking to what she thinks about you? Maybe she serves as a mirror for you? If that is the case, then we have two mirrors facing each other. Have you ever looked into the infinite two-mirror fractal?