charlie cho

God is never alone. God is alone, however, in relation to relationship. If there is such a thing as being alone, then there should be the opposite of aloneness. What would that be? Just like we say if there is black, there is white. If there is good, there is evil. If there is aloneness, there should be a relationship. So, in those terms, God is alone with its opposite, relationship. Two sides to God exist. One is his relational nature, and the other his lonesome nature. God is so relational that the two opposites become one, therefore, alone. God has woman and man so deeply in relationship that woman and man merge into one, therefore becoming alone into oneness. So that aloneness in itself is a relationship to God. And that relationship is so deep that is becomes one, therefore alone. God is "alone", but not quite that simply "alone". It's alone with its relationship. God is in relationship, but not quite that simply in "relationship". It's in relationship with oneness, aloneness.

@AtheisticNonduality what is the knowledge I have to acquire to understand him?

@Carl-Richard I'm just saying, there are many things that logical reasoning can help you 'DO' and 'PRACTICE'. For example, the computer you are typing in. That computer wasn't built by just "doing" things. They were "thinking" things logically to come up with making first computer ever made.

About the "gamey" part of your texts. You know, how you write things online, text, or show in pictures show how you are in real life. I think you got to see the girl as a person, not as a girl you wanna fuck. You know, if you see that girl as a girl you wanna fuck, it kinda objectifies that person. Even if she felt attracted to you, the way you look at her (objectifying) will make you not so attractive. Your gamey way of talking, I'm trying to explain... I mean 99% of guys, like myself too, objectify women, so not just saying you are at fault. But, you know, to look attractive to the girl, you got to do everything you can, including what 99% of men struggle to do, which is "look at the girl as a person, not as a girl you wanna fuck."

@Razard86 Yeah. But intuition is basically the intelligence of the heart and gut. Intuition can't be trained though, does it. So all I have that I CAN train is logic. And I don't see how logic can delude oneself if it is used in the service of intuition. You know, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Logic having nothing to support is dangerous, but as long as it serves intuition, it is the best ally. And as long as intuition has logic as its ally, why not develop logic at its best? I say this because my logical skills isn't the best, so I want to develop it as much as I can so it can be a cause for good fortune. You know, the question shouldn't why shouldn't we develop our logical skills. The question ought to be, why not develop our logical skills to an elite level, as long as it serves intuition?

dude, "wanna fuck?"..... haha I had one friend who said that. Freaked the woman out.

I was just having a dialogue with a historian in South Korea (specializes in Nations/Late medieval Korean dynasty, researches in depth about war and national security because of his specialty) and I saw in his speech in a dialogue between me and him how bitter he was about the academic system. He's famous in this country, possibly the most famous as a "celebrity"? historian, and I was surprised how a person who got a doctorate degree in the top 3 best universities here, was a university professor in history would say such a thing about where he essentially came from, academia. Yes, I always knew the education system was corrupt, but hearing this from a person from the inside, coming from the best schools, coming from a highly respected professor, hearing him on first-hand truly angry about the whole thing really imprinted in me how mushed up must the education system be for him to complain like this? Is there a history book, an in depth research paper about how the current education system came about? I want to see how it turned out to be quite dehumanizing and how education made children into cogs in machines. What is your opinion about the education system? Why is it good? And why is it so ugly? Maybe, I've only experienced bad ones,

I'm reading some of Regis McKenna's ideas on marketing. I've read somewhere Jobs really learnt most of his marketing ideas from him. Jobs have been quoted to have saying (while arguing and shouting with a bunch of singers, doctors, and artists organizing a non-profit charity meeting): "If you're going to learn from someone, you should learn from the best. And he's Regis McKenna. I can call him in if you want!" But I have to admit these sources are quite old. Do they even work now? Or should I work on something else. Anyone have any ideas about him? This is some of his ideas, reading from Harvard business review: https://hbr.org/1991/01/marketing-is-everything This is one of his books https://www.amazon.com/Relationship-Marketing-Successful-Strategies-Customer/dp/0201622408/ref=sr_1_1?crid=5UGFH60FV4KP&keywords=relationship+marketing&qid=1653849145&sprefix=relationship+marketin%2Caps%2C282&sr=8-1

For a response to your question, well, I was only quoting you. I didn't say it, it's said right here

I have no problem with teachers making their students apply their insights and knowledge into the outside world. No problem at all. Learn something, apply it. Learn Japanese phrases, go and speak to that Japanese person over there. I don't care if you suck, just go speak to him. Learn music composition, you force that student to write lyrics and chords that somewhat resembles a song. I don't care if he's good or not, I just want him to apply it. If he learns some python, I'll force the student to make a keylogging software out of scratch, make a simple program just to apply any knowledge he's learnt from books and videos. However, I've seen a clip from Krishnamurti questioning why schools make "grades" of students. I initially did not agree with Krishnamurti's assumption that grades "hurt" children. But he had a point. Krishnamurti asked this professor, "are grades and tests there to help educate the child? or to judge him then exploit him to work in some company?!" (I'm roughly paraphrasing here, I'm sorry) edit: this is what Krishnamurti says about testing I'm not against testing. I'm against the "way" in which students are being tested. Also, I'm against the "people" who are testing the children. I'm very much against incompetent people "testing" anybody. They don't have the right to test, and usually, the one in power aren't the elites, the one in power is the government, not the people who truly care to educate or learn themselves. The government doesn't care about education, do they. Constant assessment is key for the teacher to see the reality of his or her students, and constantly adapt to that reality. But is it truly to assess the student? Or is it to use him, exploit him, eventually experiment on a human being?

BTW, the two men's conversation is amazing, I agree.

@Bobby_2021 I am in no way saying competition is bad. I'm a competitive fellow myself. I love fighting. I practice jiujitsu, I coached basketball for teens. I'm a shell of myself when there is no competition and strategy. But, I'm totally against authority trying to exploit the children. Horrible way of coaching, and you should never even do that as a military general. One of the reasons the Nazi army were geniuses in their exploits of Europe was because of their philosophy of military strategy. Total responsibility is given to the leader. All is according to the situation, and the only one who can judge right from wrong (right being victory and wrong being loss) will be the leader of the subdivisions that exist on that front. Mission statements are given to each and every German soldiers to assess their situation and do what is important according to their mission statement. Auftragstaktik Of course, since the responsibility is given 100% to each and every soldier to do the right thing, when critical moments come by, at such clutch moments, if they happen to waver, they will indefinitely fail because they have full responsibility. And did the Germans fail? Yes. Their exploits were too fast. They've scared France with a terrifying image Blitzkrieg, having each of their tanks move individualistically without orders from the high end command. Therefore, Blitzkrieg is fast, penetrating, terrifying to the opposition seeing their weakest point completely obliterated with speed, force, and sheer numbers on that one end. No wonder France surrendered in a few weeks. However, when Americans chimed in to attack Germany with England, what then? Courage is needed. But they wavered in the end. Blitzkrieg was effective, but in essence it was a strategy that required the soldiers to be able to assess the situation well and clear. France wasn't so much armed and ready. Of course the Germans can think clearly with easier forces like France. But with Americans, Russians, and the English? Now that is their real task and to prove their fortitude. Have they succeeded? No. Imagine Japanese planes attacking American fortresses in Hawaii. The Japanese air force was reputed to be the best of the best in skill. But once they arrive on the beach with their planes, they waver and perform only 20% of what they are capable of. Responsibility is tremendously humanizing. And this is why I believe Napoleon, Genghis Khan, and General Rommel were such effective generals. They gave full responsibility to their divisions. And of course, their failure and their success will be all of their responsibility. I'm no military expert myself, but we have to admit these generals understood strategy, and their tactics were tremendously liberal and free flowing for their times, which was what made them legendary strategists, competitors. Even in competition, even in war, when the leader exploits his followers, they are bound to be defeated. Tremendous trust must be given to the soldiers in order to win the war. If the leader and follower is divided and not one, they will indefinitely fail against an enemy whose leader and follower is one and trusting each other. I don't believe in exploitation through testing. If tests are given to exploit or create comparison, it only divides the leader and his followers, and this is just what makes failure in any army. Ironically, it only teaches the students how to be a bad soldier, a bad strategist! Every competent General or coach will know this.

@Bobby_2021 Do you have high IQ?

Neo, you speak the truth

texting that doesn't mean she seeks attention, you've got it backwards. Her even recognizing that and texting that to you means she realizes her problem. Awareness itself is curative.

@BlueOak Emotional intelligence and social intelligence, I agree they are important. But I don't know how they can really be taught? Social intelligence is basically about studying relationships. My God, if anyone in this world has solved this problem of "relationships" then he would get the Nobel prize. Seems like no one ever avoids conflicts with their wives, friends, husbands, and families. And anyone who claims to teach us about "relationships" don't do well themselves usually. "How to win friends and Influence people" is a form of teaching for business and personal relationships, but it hardly amounts to true friendship with authentic interaction. Emotional intelligence is basically being aware of the heart and utilizing the heart or (emotions) to its utmost potential. And anybody claiming to solve that problem are usually called cults, heretics, and spiritual scammers. Isn't religion basically about that? If you understand me. I understand why school systems avoid teaching social intelligence and emotional intelligence. However, even in the sciences, linguistics, and history I don't see the education system teaching these subjects in the right way either.... emotional intelligence is out of question, social intelligence, and now, simply the intellectual things too. What is it good at anyway?

We keep going deeper and deeper into atoms. However, with just our technology now, we can't even see the shape of an atom too clearly, (only the large molecules), and we barely see with our microscopes the film or a moving picture of an atom. With our logical proofs, and the more deeper we go, is it a holon? The whole universe is a holon? Did anybody prove this?

@Leo Gura Is that supposed to mean atoms are holons? I thought holons meant that every part is an infinity itself.

@Leo Gura I completely understand what you mean. Well, I know this question may be too philosophical... Why is it then that the college professors, who are largely employed to research their own field, are also the ones who are responsible for teaching in universities? And also, would you say Buddha is a researcher of Truth or the teacher of Truth? Although you say teaching and playing is a totally different field, in actuality I see too many examples of researchers being teachers.

I never understood this dynamic. Yes, Michael Jordan was never and will never be a good coach or GM of a basketball team even though he may have been the greatest player to ever play the game. Yet, we see Phil Jackson and Steve Kerr, two of the most mediocre players in the NBA, become the greatest coaches of all time. But I can't understand this dynamic... It's obvious, if you don't understand a concept, you can never teach it. If you don't know something, you can't teach that something. For example, only Buddha Siddhartha can teach about enlightenment. I can't teach it, because I've never been enlightened. I can't teach soccer because I never played it before. Messi would obviously teach it better than me. It aches my brain....

@zurew ah If I elaborate what you are saying, just like medical doctors will conceptually understand about the body, and he may as well perform surgery to save his clients, cure them from debilitating diseases, but that does not mean the doctor himself will live a long healthy life. We see that many times, and we see many elders who have no conceptual understanding of the body, have no skill to diagnose or perform surgery on a patient, but knows how to live a perfectly healthy life himself. So for the person helping, conceptual understanding is enough. Just because an elderly man intuitively knows how to live a healthy life himself, does not mean he can make others healthy. But an unhealthy doctor who has no intuitive understanding of how to make himself healthy, is very able to help other than himself be healthy.

If you think a degree or a PhD will make you effective at your work or business, you're mistaken. It may as well help, and with no doubt it may give you a lot of help, but it's not the conclusion to your creating quality work. I might also had, no great man, quality worker, or a hero ever thought he needed a "PhD" or a "qualification" to make him a great man. With that kind of thinking, you simply cannot create anything meaningful.

@zurew Is there a difference between conceptual understanding and embodiment of the concept? I understand what you are saying, but I've always thought embodiment = learning, not otherwise. Therefore, the one who has embodied the concept a step further in his conceptual understanding than the one who had just "understood" the concept. In other words: embodiment of concept > knowing (or how many say "understanding") of the concept I talk about this because people say we don't need embodiment to understand or strategize the concept, but it's hard to agree to this statement. What is the difference between understanding and embodiment? There is none, to me.

@Carl-Richard that's what I've been thinking recently. So, theory/strategy and the mental aspect of it has to be understood by the coach, no? Just because someone has great coaching skills (I mean: skill of teaching and coaching in itself contrary to having any expertise on any discipline) this does not mean he has the right or any competence to teach any subject. Great coach (of the said discipline) = coaching skills (for any discipline) + thorough understanding of strategy/theory (of the said discipline) Great coach (of the said discipline) =/= coaching skills (for any discipline) Great coach (of the said discipline =/= thorough understanding of strategy/theory (of the said discipline) What do you think of this?

I've been interested in Churchill lately. A military nut. An imperialist. Autodidactic. Adventurer. Maybe a racist? A great politician? (He was most likely) I heard he was strongly opposed to Indian Independence. He hated Gandhi and said of him that he should die in jail. That was all I knew of him. But if we look at the grand scope of things relating to the Nazi invasion on the Western Front, when Europe was totally dominated by them and Russia was simply on-looking from afar letting Hitler cause havoc, the only country to resist them was England. Russia wasn't the only by-stander but America and Canada, too, passed the neutral act and in the beginning of the Second World War Roosevelt and they wouldn't even give warships or any financial aid to England. Halifax and Chamberlain who were then the prime minister and leader of England wanted to make peace with Germany but the only person to shout out war not peace was Churchill from the conservative party. We might think Halifax and Chamberlain were cowards, betrayers of their country, looking at them from this era, but if we think more deeply, they were simply rational about the state of things. France surrendered immediately. Russia and America was neutral, not attending the war. It was hard to resist Germany's tactics in war, Blitzkrieg, and whatever they did... Churchill made huge political blunders when he was in his late 30s, causing a many thousands of English soldiers dead in sea, which was his tactical mistake in the war England was fighting at that time. People didn't like Churchill and he exiled himself from the parliament after the incident. But he was the one to realize the dangers of the Nazis 7 years before their first invasion. For those 7 years, Churchill would write as a journalist the dangers of the Nazis. He himself fought with Islamic Fundamentalists when he was in his 20s, so he wasn't thinking from an inexperienced place. He liked to tell everybody he was uneducated and when he did go to school, he was a troubled student, but I don't find anyone more articulate and well-read and at the same time experienced in war and politics than Churchill has. Many believed his speeches, his writing were just play of words without substance. It did sound like that, but looking closely into his life, his words weren't coming from an inexperienced, uneducated space. Anyway, when the second world war came about, most people were against him not making peace with Germany. Yes, he was inspirational and boosted morale tremendously, but the state of things WERE grim. Not only was America, Russia, and France weren't going to help Churchill win the war, the English politicians were mostly vying for peace. The state of England's military power wasn't helping Churchill in the slightest. Against all of them, Churchill said no to Hitler. He convinced Stalin and Roosevelt to go against Germany. Think if England were to perish from Germany, would Russia have the power to go against Hitler? Would Russia convince America to ally with them? And after Russia fails, would America have the morale to go against Germany and Japan by itself? England had nothing, not even its country's confidence to win, but only Churchill's confidence and emotional irrational will to win. And that gave leverage to America and Russia to help against Germany. I'm not convinced if the allies would have won the war against the Fascists if it wasn't for Churchill. Would democracy have won against the fascist if it weren't for Churchill's politics? How would the state of things be today if Germany won that war? I'm not sure myself. One thing I'm sure of though is Churchill's immense irrational confidence led the Fascists to flee and succeeded democracy after it.