PepperBlossoms

@IlanDevilish seems to be a tricky one. Some of the stuff that felt devilish for me, I greatly regretted and felt hurt by. Other times, I felt like I was stepping out of my shell and trying to find my own way. Regarding falling - The universe seems weird because there appears to be no up, down, left, or right other than from one's perspective ad so falling appears to be relative to some sort of imagined high spot. It can be interesting to lie on the ground outside and look at the sky upside down and then see that what we may tend to see as "up" may just be relative to how we typically stand. When the sky is viewed from upside down relative to the typical human direction, it feels like you could fall into the sky. Regarding opposite direction - Part of me feels that the whole time travel back in time doesn't really work unless we got to keep our memories. If we are actually going back, we may not have the memories and hence may not be aware that we were ever in the "future" and it may feel like we are just in a now experiencing a now. But then it is also seems like time is a constructed made up thing and we made up the idea of months, days, years or that we are in "year 2021." Birthdays and holidays too. Loops of thoughts can feel overwhelming and sometimes I just want to get out of that and move on to something else. Haha on just reading the first page. I do that a lot too - or I just go to a random page. I have that book "the power of now" but just read like a page or 2. Um emptiness seems weird in that if we have no ears, eyes, nose, mouth, hands, brain, etc., would we experience anything? And then what is we? I sometimes think of myself as an empty vessel. Uh the universe seems weird in that stuff feels like it is here but everything seems to have voids and nothing seems completely solid. I don't know..! "Soft" people can be nice and pleasant in contrast with hard and aggressive. All in moderation and balance. @BipolarGrowthCould also look at it like considering that that "one being" could be yourself and if you have helped yourself, it has been worth it. In terms of non-duality, all the others may be you too so you could be helping yourself then regardless of if it seems as you you or as other separate you's. The notion of "help" is a tricky one as I see that when I do one thing it helps in one regard and hurts in another.. but yes I understand help in how it tends to be usually meant. What kind of help are you trying to provide? I am sorry you are having suffering.

@Gesundheit2 Can you elaborate some more on the "been there" and "seeing through the mind"? What was crazy and exhausting about it?

@Johnny GaltThanks. One could also divide up a human body by the number of hairs on the body as those stick out as well, or the number of moles, or number of openings. haha There appears to be many ways to do a division. It is weird how the human seems like a donut in that it does not appear to be fully sealed off and there are openings and even the skin itself is not solid - - it is as if stuff that is super super super tiny could pass through us between all the voids. Yeah I can see that we don't have to have a dogma handed to us to observe stuff and make conclusions. We could utilize other people's dogma or we could make up our own "dogma" or understandings, which to a degree, we probably do with varying levels of awareness that we are doing it - and that may be how dogma is made in the first place. The geometry patterns such as fractals that permeate reality seem fascinating and it is like, why do these seem to appear? But if stuff didn't have some sort of form/shape/pattern, we may not be able to identify it and distinguish it from anything else. I tend to change my mind and forget stuff so I could totally say one thing in one thread and then say something else somewhere else. Exploring reality and questioning nature is one of my favorite things to do.

hmm is this a trick question? hehe Yes it could be in the sense of the dogma that we tend to use to separate/divide subjects into their own isolated countable parts, what the dogma tends to say that the numbers represent and are defined as, as well the dogma of how the numbers tend to be used and integrated?? Or yes in terms of number is dogma is everything in terms of the nonduality dogma and everything appearing as one so could say XXX is YYY in regards to anything. Or I could say no. A number is just a number and dogma is just dogma and a number is only dogma if I say it is and project the notion of dogma onto the number. @Johnny GaltIs a yes or no question dogma? What do you think about "is number dogma?"

We may do whatever it takes to keep a relationship going, to stay in the same city, to eat the same food, to keep a habit, to keep a perspective, to keep a mood, to keep a dogma, etc. because we are so attracted to what we are used to/like/become. Someone who sees the negative side to everything may tend to stay that way and vice versa with a positive person. One is so accustomed and familiar with seeing the negative that they choose to continue to do so even when seeing the positive is an option too (same goes with dogma or whatever). The longer someone goes with seeing something one way, the harder it may be to change their mind as they may have more and more connections to seeing it that one way that the "gravity" is strong. One may choose to pay for the more expensive item because they are so used to that even if a cheaper option exists. We may stay at a company for so many years even if it is toxic and doesn't pay well as we are so used to the repetition. There has to be a notice of great division (whatever that may be, value system, goals, situation, perspective) that makes us feel more different and hence want to leave the status quo/current condition.

@diamondpenguinyeah sure some other bs I came up with just now - (it can be fun to come up with bs to explain the universe and then come up with themes) everything appears to be wanting everything to have the best time and so we tend to want everything to be where it wants to be with what it loves... with what it tends to be attracted to.. with what it tends to be similar to... so it automatically moves to whatever it tends to be the closest to which then lets it get out of the way of other stuff that wants to be close to other stuff it tends to be hard to break tradition because we are attracted to what we are used to, to what we see; when we change our identity/self, it changes what we are attracted to and what is attracted to us. but then there may always something that seems different that can't help itself from being different and the group tends to reject it so it tends to get separated but then more stuff may come along that seems to be different too and the rejects join because they are similar in that they were rejected and we get evolution we don't want to die because we tend to be attracted to survival because we appear to be more like life than a dead body in our current state.. we don't want a moment of rejection because we tend to be so accustomed to acceptance of every moment

I had an idea about gravity during the come up of a psychedelic trip lol. Can't say it is right but it sounded cool. Stuff seems to be attracted to stuff similar to itself both in the material sense and in the abstract sense. Material sense - Mass appears to be attracted to like mass. Stuff with lots of mass tends to go to other stuff of similar mass and stuff with less mass than that tends to go to the other stuff with less mass and the stuff with even less mass tends to go to the other stuff with less mass. For the masses to be able to go to the "partners" that they want to go to, everyone has to be able to redistribute themselves so that everyone is happy. Hence the most maseous stuff tends to be in a "center" and around that is the next maseous and then around that is the least maseous - hence everyone is happy and where they want to be. If one is not happy, hence not with the right mass group, it will very quickly rearrange via gravity till it is. Abstract sense - We tend to be attracted to people who look like us, talk like us, think like us, has similar values, problems, experiences, backgrounds, goals, geographical location, work, work styles, ideology, age, gender, ego development, spiral dynamics stage, activities, religions, body weight, perspectives, species, etc. You will see that the cliques act and dress the same. The people in the religions tend to think the same. Couples tend to be similar in some way. There tends to be some commonality that creates some binding. Ants hangout with ants, birds hangout with birds, people hangout with people. You don't really ever see people hanging out with cockroaches for instance as they look and act quite differently from each other. A 20 year old girl tends to not hangout with a 70 year old man because the age, gender, and life circumstances create much difference. We may feel turned off when there is too much perceived difference/disconnect and want to leave - hence moving away from each other, hence demagnetized. When we get angry at each other, we may tend to not be seeing the situation "the same" and we push apart. When we are in agreement, we tend to be closer and see the situation "similarly". We could even make ourselves look more like something else so that we "fit in better" and are magnetized better (and hence have less difference) with whatever it is we are trying to fit in with - whether that means making our business look like all the other businesses of that type, getting our knowledge to catch up to the knowledge of the people we admire, getting our sports skills to be of similar level to those we want to compete with, etc. If we look at distinctions, we may create some imaginary walls and say that that stuff is all the same and fits within that distinction. Well all the stuff within that distinction tend to be "like" each other. Again, this could all be total bs but meh. Could also just look up the physics explanation.. https://web.fscj.edu/Milczanowski/psc/lect/Ch2/sl13.htm#:~:text=Gravitational force -an attractive force,distance between the two objects.

Yeah haha um I guess like if we have no eyes, there is no eye to register color; if we have no ears, there's no ear to register sound. Waves, arrangements, and forms require some sort of touch, smell, sight, whatever to register. Then its like nothingness or who even knows ha. Sounds kinda sad but then there may be no mind to register emotions/feelings or it may not remember what it lost. Ahh. I have no idea. It seems nice having eyes, ears, noses, hands, legs, thoughts, etc. for the time being. If we are all one universal consciousness, then the me's that are still operating with eyes and ears will still get to keep on doing that and I guess this thing just keeps on going and evolving forever. If this reality is like the matrix then that's a whole other thing. If there are all these rabbit holes, uh I guess that's cool too. If this is all a dream within a dream within a dream, well then I guess that would be another thing too. The notion of no longer being the form as a human perspective self feels kinda like the last day of school where you had a good time and things are about to change and you feel sad that what you were experiencing is over but also curious about the future.

The thoughts say "there is a problem" but the thoughts also say "there is no problem and the thoughts are just thoughts". The battle with the self. When we are no longer operating from the perspective of a human, we may not care about survival from a human's perspective anymore. It's all colors, sounds, waves, arrangement, form.

It appears to be all colors, sounds, and imagination anyway. So we may totter between it appears real and problematic versus it appears imagined and doesn't matter.

We may hate oil and gas but we still use it. We may hate bomber jets but our kids work on designing them and flying them. We may hate Christian religions but yet we let our friends continue their religion and our governors continuing to govern with Christian politics. We may hate that people eat animals but yet we keep on letting the grocery stores and restaurants sell it. We may hate pesticides but let people buy it and let the neighbors use it. We hate it but yet we also don't care. We see the forests getting burned, we see the oceans getting filled with plastics, we see kids getting shot by the police, and yet we do nothing. We say, well, what am I supposed to do? We then convince ourselves that everything is okay and will be okay regardless of all of this and then we do nothing. We see the animals getting put in grinders alive and we do nothing. It feels conflicting. We notice that we won't live forever and feel glad but also sad. We are very confused. We noticed that we have imagined and projected all of these ideas as problems. We noticed that we as humanity have created them and are continuing to propagate them. We want something to fight for but then, what is there to fight for? Does the universe go on forever? So then, so what? Will this human life thing ever happen again? Does it even matter if it does or doesn't? We see there is no one to ask. Are we to fix but what and why?

Is there a cycle that the stable to unstableness tends to have? Mine has been like: lack of sleep -> not able to focus -> eat unhealthy food -> feel stressed/anxiety -> focus on something to get away from the stress -> feel excited -> can't sleep -> see performance at work/school go down the drain -> not able to get stuff done like usual -> feel upset -> lack empathy/ability to consider long term -> interact poorly with others (or do some dumb stuff that involves adrenaline/spending money) -> feel embarrassed -> get away from work/school/people -> have alone time -> meditate/sleep/spend time alone -> feel calm -> feel alright again -> want to go back to seeing people/work/school again ... and then the cycle eventually repeats again... yours may be different but I have had cycles that were like that - just being able to be aware of the cycle(s) and draw it out on a piece of paper has helped greatly. Can draw cycles for lots of stuff such as when arguments happen and why, etc. Changing my diet has helped quite a bit. It can be interesting to have conversations with others of different views and see their reasoning process What's your thirsty psychopathy expressions like? (if you want to share, if not, you don't have to) Yeah ego stuff is weird- oh I need to help myself to oh I need to help others to oh I don't have to do anything to oh I don't want to feel pain or I don't want others to feel pain to everything seems to futile. It's like, bugs eat bugs, animals eat animals, people kill bugs and eat/kill animals and kill people. The futility of always seeing everything the way we see it as "right" and yet everyone sees "right" as something different (or notions of "good"). The futility that bugs need to eat so they have to eat other bugs and you can't tell them to stop as they don't use the same language. I feel like maybe the ego, which is us, we can decide what we want to do.. maybe.. like we can decide where our thoughts go. (or not - that gets into the question of how much control we have vs don't have) What part about Eckart Tolle do you not want to become? When you say hesitating, can you elaborate some more? Hesitating on what? What about the hesitation?

I am to blame for not looking at enough scientists' papers first and making an assumption. I can imagine that those that are most aware of the imagined aspects of science may tend to have an easier time formulating and imagining more parts of science to explore. Money, language, time, distance, colors, tastes, feelings, etc. are all seemingly "imaginary" notions that we appear to have created but there seems to be great utility and so we tend to keep them. History and science appear to have flaws too but they also tend to provide great utility as well and so it makes sense to keep them too. Hence we don't need to "throw them away" but may rather just continue to evolve with them. (It can take great effort to add tend, seems, appears, etc. to text as well and can be faster to not do so). It seems to have taken me great effort to get to the point of exploring the meta part of life but I do question if schools could do a bit more - - but yes I am not educated in that topic of how well the kids could grasp it and how that could impact their studies. If we tell them that everything is not certain and may be inaccurate, will they still be willing to read the textbook? The grading system can seem fuzzy as who is to say what the "right" answer actually is aside from some imaginary hierarchy that is agreed to - but yet imaginary hierarchies can be helpful for moving in some sort of direction. If we don't establish some walls (dogmas/structures), there can be so much stuff to see (or not see) that it can feel overwhelming. Distinctions can create little shortcuts for messing with reality - like pre-constructed units instead of having to create it from scratch.

haha I guess the consensus then may be rather that, schools, news stations, books, lecturers, newspapers etc. could do a better job at pointing out that statements are all limited opinions, perspectives, and ideas instead of as fact/absolute truth. Students could be taught to use more "seem, appears, could be, may be" statements in addition to the typical "is, are, be, am" statements as well as some more of, "from my opinion, I think, I wonder, I see, I imagine" instead of just "I know, I am right, I am correct". School format has what seems to have been commonly presented as a religion/dogma and may do better if presented as open to debate, change, evolution. The kids may get confused but may take more exploratory methodologies and get more involved/curious with their own learning at a younger age. (Some schools may already do this to varying degrees - mine did not appear to).

It seems that we all have our own dogma. What we see seems to be the case and until we get enough info to see something new and it will still then be what seems to be the case (someone on the forum said). The difference then it seems is one's attitude. One can be arrogant and not wanting to go into discussion about what seems to be the case or one can be gentle and interactive about it. One can be unwavering or one can be more open. It seems that we can't escape our dogma and will just go from one form of it to another. We can be open to discussing any idea or we can not - but our dogma may impact how we respond, what we are open to considering and discussing, etc. Wow interesting points. I also contemplated trying to do research in physics because it seemed super cool - like with magnetism and motion and stuff. Physics seems to be helpful for the material world. Psychedelics seem to be helpful for noticing the imaginary, constructed world. Haha interesting point on the measurement. I had the realization all time was made up and there is really no way to guarantee that a second that appears to last a second is actually lasting the same as another second because if stuff slows down the second may just take longer to happen.. And how this measurement is an imagined structure that we put onto another imagined thing. I don't think the teachers tend to study metaphysics so they aren't as aware of all the made up stuff of reality?? Yeah the scientific/education community could do more to bring up metaphysics and delusions. It is basically the same as someone spouting dogma - which many teachers of science and religion tend to do. It works like this, it happened like this, ... no discussion that there could be other interpretations or that that could be wrong I think a lot of educators may be married to the religion of dogma instead of skepticism, delusion, imagination. It can be hard to imagine what one has not seen. If/when psychedelics get more legalized, that could change more easily. It also seems to be based on the education norm of how stuff is typically taught and presented and changing how that is done.

I feel super confused yes. There is so much futility. Like yes we want to learn but yet there are so many holes that we won't meet but yet is all this existence imagined but yet if imaginary and real is the same thing... okay so who cares that we can't prove it - it works good enough right? but yet, wait - can we even go along with this.. is this dogma? but who cares if it is dogma, it works pretty good, right? even the English language - - that works pretty good so we use it even though we could misunderstand what each other are saying so with equations - we use them even if they may have some flaws and may not be be considering everything Non duality is dogma but we use it anyway as it works pretty good observation and study and writing about those in reports works pretty good for sharing perspectives I guess the thing is that scientists/teachers need to be aware that every equation, statement, "fact", "history", "science", etc. will have flaws/holes in it and that it is a dogma too. I guess the concern is that when the information is presented in school, there isn't really discussion that it is all dogma and just what we have right now.. We get tested on how well we can memorize the dogma and are wrong if we interpret it differently from the teacher So the concern is that there needs to be more awareness about that as many students may be misinterpreting that what they are being told is truth instead of opinion/perspective/assumption. "Scientist X discovered gravity. Or discovered that the Earth is round." Statements like that make it seem as if it is absolutely known instead of that it is something to consider, ponder, explore.

We can't ever know anything fully but yet we chase after knowing anyway. Logically - one can't ever prove anything Emotionally - we enjoy seeking, exploring, experiencing, and the delusion of learning I know I can't know but I want to know ANYWAY. It's like a kid that wants candy even after it's mom says no you can't have any. Science claims to seek knowledge but it is deluded in that it seeks delusion and adds more to the delusion with its discoveries. But yet - I see a triangle and say, yes a triangle has for sides. I feel like I understand/know a triangle. But yet a triangle may be different to every person. The delusion to science may be that there may be no proof and everything is imagined. Understanding may = delusion. I want to experience eating cake, I say I know what cake is.. What we see seems to be what seems to be the case. Just because we can't prove or know something, we enjoy the experience of familiarity, similarity - so science seeks that and creates equations of familiarity. We seem to want to know/experience ourselves (which is familiarity to self). Science appears to be chasing a knowing that it won't ever get.

Nice choice of words. I hope you are doing okay. What's the highest good to the world look like in your eyes? I am sorry you are still hurt. I am currently juggling with the idea - "everything is already okay" but yet we are making changes anyway to make things more okay from our perspective but then when we do things to help us it has an impact on others and ahh its hard.

I had this topic in another discussion. Because we can't ever prove anything fully, there is no way to tell the difference between real and imaginary. Real is imaginary. Real = imaginary = unknown = known. We are all seemingly part of a dream/reality and we just try to make the best of it (or not). We tend to keep on wanting to analyze stuff (and have curiosity) (and survive) despite the idea that nothing could ever be absolutely known. We know nothing and yet we keep on trying to know everything. Nothing = everything. But within the dream we see stuff and play around with that.

I realized I should probably provide the following as maybe that is more of what you were looking for and I was looking at it differently initially: When you say women are afraid of you (men), if that is what you are sensing, there could be many reasons such as: they are not interested in dating you, you are verbally or physically aggressive, you are maybe very attractive and intimidating to talk to, they may feel like they are not good enough (not in your league) to talk to you, you do or say dumb stuff, you have a reputation for going from girl to girl and they don't want to be another girl on your list that gets short term attention but not long term attention, they think you will rape/kidnap/steal from them, you are not being comforting/silly enough, they do not understand you and you need to be more descriptive and elaborative and work with them until they do, they have other things they would rather focus on/do, they feel bored around you, they don't feel attracted to you, you meet a stereotype that they are not used to or are uncomfortable around, you emit red flags based on whatever they have been conditioned or assumed to think is a red flag regardless of whether it actually is something to be concerned about, they see how you act/what you are wearing/your friends and feel cautious, etc. When you say women love you (men), there could be many reasons such as: they find you attractive, they want to be your partner, they think you can provide them with stability, love, economic and emotional support, they want to spend time with you, they think you are funny, they admire xyz about you, they think you could be a good father, etc. When you say that you signal something, do you have any guesses as to what that could be?

I hope I wasn't took harsh with my last post. Look at the assumptions: "Women can't understand me" and "women fear and love men". Question these. What part of my post was contradictory so I can better understand you if I am misinterpreting you? On the "women fear and love men" concept, question why you want an answer to that as well as question if the statement is even valid. It may very well be. But yet I am pondering whether there are going to be some women that have a different opinion and won't fit that category. Do you wish for women to fear and love men? Otherwise, why is it hard to consider that women may not all feel that way and some for instance may want nothing to do with men? Some women are lesbians and love women more so than men.

@BenG Can you elaborate on this? I'd be interested in hearing what you have experienced. @BenG Many of us can be guilty of the memorization to a degree. We may hear something that we like and then we may add it to our book of things that we may utilize and then tell others. We both have seemingly memorized the abc's and language. One could say that Art has whatever meaning we come up with and there could be so many different ways to think about it. There may be utility in both learning suggestions about how to make art as well as suggestions for how to define/think about art. @Johnny Galt If teachers spent the whole lecture giving suggestions on how to question the dogma in lieu of suggestions for memorizing the dogma - that could be interesting. One could say that it seems all knowledge is consumed with dogma and to a degree, it seems that the dogma can be helpful in terms of having some things to go off of - like yes we will say this is yellow and this is red - and then when I say yellow, you have a general idea of what I am referring to. The dogma seems to create some tips and rules that otherwise, there may be a blank slate and we may not be able to do all that we can do as easily. It seems that we are wanting to deconstruct science, tear it down, reject it before seeing how we want to accept it. It may be the unquestioning dogma that we are wanting to tear down and the utility of science exploration that we are seeking to accept (and not truths). For institutions to go deeper, they may need to integrate the questioning with the acceptance of not fully accepting anything. @BenGSome may not misunderstand as much - - there will be some that may greatly appreciate your opinion. But many may as can be seen by their avoidance/disinterest of the topic or the answer that does not align with a response that would have otherwise seemed more like had they understood. It could be that they have no interest or that they are not aware of the questioning of epistemology of information and are just so used to social norm topics based on whatever they are accustomed to that they may have no idea that this range of vision of reality exploration exists.

@Tim R @Harlen Kelly Ah thanks for pointing that out. Good points. Feel free to elaborate. There is the one side where we may not be able to fully prove, trust, or know anything and then there is the other side where even though we may not, we can try our best anyway but also have awareness of what we are using as evidence and assumptions and be more open to questioning past discoveries, methods, stuff we consider trustworthy, etc. Science can be cool in that it has seemingly aided in the evolution of many things for medicine, engineering, mechanics, biology, psychology, computers, models, equations, etc. I guess the part to be weary of is when people are not questioning the validity of the science at all and taking it as religion/dogma instead of as an ongoing, evolving, organic form. Instead of "this is how it is", it can be framed as "this is how it seems currently from x perspective with y data."

There are other combinations of views that women can have for men (and vice versa) that would involve: Love for, hatred for, angry at, scared of, don't care about, jealous of, idolize, feel sorry for, feel better than, befriend, feel bored of, don't have time for, don't have any interest in, enjoy, feel disgusted by, feel desperate for, etc. So to say that ALL women feel both FEAR AND LOVE towards ALL MEN can be off and making an assumption that everyone thinks and feels the same and has the same experience. It is seemingly creating a stereotype for half the population and not being nuanced enough to notice that there are so many different opinions, attitudes, views, factors, etc.

Good point. Everyone's yin yang combination can be different. Person A and B will be different together than Person A and C or B and C. The relationship will have a different taste with every person and it depends on what you are going for. We bring out different things in each other. I may be funny around person A and quiet around person B. A girl may show her flirty sexy side or may show her kind, soft side, or whatever side - - but we also could have many sides and moods. Some guys can be quite afraid to talk to girls or feel intimidated by them. Not all guys though. I think it will depend on many factors like personality, looks, past experience, social norms, etc. But past the stage of seeking a partner, it may be that guys do not feel fear other than a potential fear of losing one's partner or their partner doing things that they do not approve of. There could be a fear that the partner is going to do xyz wrong and have abc impact. People have bulldogs and have fear that the dog could bite them when the dog is angry but yet love the dog otherwise. People may fear the police for the sake of what the police could do to them but yet also love that the police provide more safety. I may fear the rain as it could drown me but also love to look at it and what it provides for the trees. I may fear rollercoasters of the idea that I could fall off or get hurt but yet love the thrill. It can be tough for women when they get rejected by men as well - and they can also sense the disconnection in contrast to obtaining the connection that they wanted and feel sad about that. Some level of femininity (not too much though) from a guy can be nice as girls may feel more playful around him and see him as having the potential to be playful around their potential children (in contrast with a guy with no femininity at all and being very aggressive as women may not want the husband to be nothing but aggressive to her and the potential children.) There can be a balance of not being too much of a pushover/feminine but yet having some. Some effort of trying to connect with one's partner and understand them can be helpful for both sides to do otherwise we may not be on the same page, not understand, not be willing to work it out, and it may create cycles of yelling, not talking to each other, breaking up, getting back together, then something happens but yet one or both parties are again still not considering trying to understand/connect and the cycle repeats. Hence so many people do not try to connect with their partner and they just end up getting a divorce/breaking up. Connection can be hard especially when one's ego doesn't want to admit that it is creating the problem by not trying to connect. Just because we understand each other better doesn't mean that the woman will turn into a man or vice versa. Exactly so you don't want to be misunderstood and so you want your partner to put in some effort to understand you which may be pretty rocky depending on how much the partner has tried before at understanding their partner. It is challenging when the male is being aggressive and so we have to be more patient and the need to understand is even greater so that the aggressiveness is as little as possible and can be avoided as much as possible. Yeah. No probs. Money, home, attention, food, love, inspiration We can just try our best if we are willing and interested in trying to understand and work through it. Part of me is upset reading the idea that men are better at "abstract/understand/use logic" but yet that is an emotional rather than logical response haha