aurum

Interesting. I've never heard him say that.

I wouldn't go that far. You should be able to describe. It just usually won't satisfy others.

Nothing will seem like a satisfying description without an awakening.

Speculating, but I wonder if Ralston has gotten trapped in his own survival paradigm. If you regard everything as survival or ego-agenda, it's easy to conclude love is just a human feeling. If that was the case, Ralston would be right to dismiss it as not Truth or ontological. The problem is that's not the case. It turns out love is not just human feelings.

It's all good, no insult taken.

You can find a ton of SD Green communities in Sedona.

I'm genuinely not trying to sass you though. When I have a conversation with people, I do not think about any step-by-step framework.

Okay, so use that framework.

Such nonsense.

This has been answered so many times before. The problem is fundamentally that you're looking at it from a human POV that is trying to avoid suffering.

#SolipsismJokes

You didn’t ask for it, but it needs to be said. Because the premise of what you’re asking for is questionable at best. The assumption is that better conversation can be had by outlining more linear steps. But conversation is non-linear and open looped. Steps are beneficial when you have a specific outcome in mind. Like making a sale. When you’re talking with your girlfriend or family during dinner, you don’t need steps. Steps would just get in the way and make it feel forced.

The point of good conversation is you don't know where it's going to go.

I can only imagine

It's not stereotypically feminine.