The observer

My pleasure. You're totally deluded.

All these debates are pointless. When I see you enjoying being tortured, I will believe you. Philosophising about love does not mean shit. Reality is not love when you're in a Brazen Bull. Stop talking idealistic nonsense and be real. You're spiritually bypassing.

Most guys are creeps. Some of them have an anxious attachment style, some of them have a fearful attachment style, some of them have a disorganised attachment style, and some of them have some of each. We all have some of each in fractions, and very rarely you can find someone with little gaps in their security. I'm noticing this as I'm learning more. This is predominant throughout society. In college and everywhere. The last time I was attending the language lesson, I approached a girl lightly, made a couple of jokes and moved on. I wasn't interested in her to be honest. It wasn't even a challenge of putting myself out there in the field again. I was just being authentic. The truth is that I liked her girl friend. She was with her. I wanted to talk to her but she shied away and remained silent, it was like she was trying to hide. That turned me off. They were both walking down the corridor, and I heard them talking, so I interrupted with a friendly joke directed at the one I didn't like initially. I have a history of eye contact with the one I like. The other one I barely notice. The one I like started walking slower than her friend and me. Her friend started engaging with my conversation. She clearly has a good deal of self-esteem. I like that. I actually now am more attracted to her than her friend. Looks are deceiving. I don't like a slim tall girl. If tall, I like her fat. And if short, I like her curvy. The one I liked initially was short and curvy, actually a little close to fat, and she has a beautiful face and a good dressing taste. All that didn't matter after the approach. I was turned off. Afterwards, I walked out of the building, and I noticed the curvy girl stalking behind me. I only noticed that after I crossed the street. I looked back and I saw her. She immediately turned her face away. That turned me off even more. Noob. I really don't like her anymore. Personality is way, way more important to me than looks, but I would take the most I could have. The more the better. The problem here in my culture is that we can't have sex casually. Only after marriage. That explains why everyone acts weird. Everyone is horny and wants to have sex, but they can't. So, they unconsciously distort their sex desire into manipulation and silly ego games. I can see right through all that. It's ridiculous. It's like I'm God amongst humans. Can't blame them though. I was even worse and I had to work through it to get here. Religion also has a lot to do with this. Even if you're not serious about it, the predominant beliefs will affect you. Unless you're completely out of the effects of these silly things, you'll still be under the spell. You'll still be an ego that requires a certain process to hook. Silly. Being authentic is effortless and effective. It always works. I don't date girls who I know the relationship is doomed with from beginning. My basic standards must be met. If not, no second chances, no dating. I prefer being single and alone. I don't wanna waste my time. So, until next time...

Love is not infinite, but you're infinitely corrupt, and you need infinite healing. You have a history of manipulation; the latter wasn't your first, and it won't be the last. I am not a fool. I have tangible proof of your manipulation this time. You thought you were clever but you talked too much, and it turned against you. You could have remained silent and avoided being exposed. Liar! The lie that you thought was okay, was not. You said something at first, and then said something different at last. Somehow, I succeeded in cornering you. You could never run away from truth. I have screenshots now too. Accusing me of gaslighting, yet being the one actually doing it. Devil! And you speak of infinite Love. Classic! I've consciously forgiven you the first couple of times, it wasn't that serious, but enough is enough. You betrayed me time and time again. You disappointed me time and time again. Grow up.

Death is like a reset button. You don't actually disappear. You only complete one other lap out of Infinity.

Trust is an illusion. Yet, we enjoy it from time to time. But once broken, it's broken forever. Now, I better understand the feminine perspective on trust. How can a woman ever love a man who she knows will let her down, and even worse, stab her in the back, instead of being the one to protect her? Love dies when fear arises.

@Serotoninluv ??

If my mind can deceive me, so can yours. You forgot to count that in.

I would, but I remember vividly that the post ended exactly where I last quoted. That would be better for everyone. I am getting accused of something I didn't do, and you had me doubting my senses. Learn to be a more effective witness the next time you testify. This is a serious matter.

So, you're witness is useless. Please don't be a part of this if you don't have proper information. I wasn't gaslighting. I would never do that.

When did you see it exactly? In the exact number of minutes if you can remember. I wasn't implying that he added it one or two hours later. I said that it was added while I was typing my reply. That could be 30 minutes.

No, it doesn't. Log out of your moderator account and see. No mod comments ever are marked as edited. There was no distrust on my part. I only stated what was the case for me. And I am responsible for everything I say. I didn't see that phrase when you first posted your comment. Your original post ended where I last quoted. The rest was added later. If you deny that, then I have nothing more to say. Yes, me too. For me, it wasn't. I didn't perceive anything written beyond where I last quoted. Otherwise, I would have probably replied at least to some part of it, like I do usually with everything you say, especially that it has new information that can be talked about.

I think there can be some reasons for why one would do that, ranging from having no curiosity or desire to further explore things, to the inability to see the limitations of the detached/depersonalised belief system and therefore taking it for granted as the best one. I believe I could brainstorm a few reasons within that range if I wanted to. Not saying anything about you, just putting my thoughts out there. And to further clarify your point, I will say that limitation of exploration isn't a problem in and of itself, but it can be in the context we're interested in and talking about. If that doesn't prove to you that I am aware of my constructs, I don't know what will. I believe we're on the same level regarding this point. Yes, I am aware of all that. Ownership and attachment are completely two different things. This allows a feature. I can take ownership of a thought, like any other human being, without being attached to it, like most other human beings. "The mind" didn't filter this out. It simply wasn't in the original script. You probably added it later while I was typing my reply. There's no need to jump to conclusions while you know this. Of course, you were crossing my boundaries. I don't and won't tolerate that. I had to draw boundaries between 'you' and 'me' because you were lacking them. Not that it's a bad thing, but that it carried some claims and assumptions that weren't true about me. I told you that once before, but you didn't believe me and you were too much involved in my direct experience and insisted that you know me better than I know myself. I had to put an end to that. Well, again, I don't think that Leo's view is wrong. I think it's partial. If you read through my posts where I explained my pov, you will see that I see the validity of his pov, yet I think it's limited since it's just a state. I don't want to explain my pov all over again, partially because I'm bored with it. I like always moving to something new. Like I said, I can hold these two different views together at the same time. I don't need to choose either one, that would be a limitation for me. And I certainly wouldn't be talking to you if I know it's a dead end. No matter the discussion, I find that you always have something to offer, and that's why I'm still responding to you. Otherwise, I would have probably dismissed your points from the very beginning or said something sarcastic and moved on. I have people that I deliberately dismiss. You're on the opposite side of that. I wanted you to come in and have this discussion from the beginning, but you said that I am trying to figure out what love is through logic, and I didn't want to upset you, so I told you that I'll keep an open mind. Sure. The way I perceive myself is that I have some degree of skill regarding this, perhaps at an intermediate level. ??

Don't hold this idea tightly. What you call "snags" appear and they don't care about other people's assessments/judgements. They don't actually indicate anything. That's simply a judgement/construct you've created, and you're contracted inside of it. Personality dynamics has nothing to do with the discussion. I hope you won't bring it up anymore. And here's why: "Part of attachment/identification is creating “a fluid mind” and “an attached mind”. As well as creating things like “expansion vs. contraction”. Such depersonalization can lead to interpretations such as “your mind is identified”, “you don't have enough detachment”, “you have belief systems”, etc. This appears in my mind at times as well. . . These are reflections of attachment/identification to depersonalised dynamics that relate to belief systems. In a fluid mind that holds ideas lightly, these snags don’t appear." See. You can't see these blindspots in your belief system, and you use it to devalue other systems since you believe yours is superior or truer or more expansive. But according to whom? You didn't say that you are wrong before, only now. You said something that indicates my inferiority since it was "obvious to you that I cannot speak Chinese fluently". I'm quite sure I haven't missed anything there. There's nothing personal between me and Leo or you or anyone. If I see truth anywhere, I will adopt it. And it's not you who decides what truth is. Language is just a medium for sharing ideas, I don't necessarily have to use a depersonalised language to have a conversation. Don't get too hung up on that. But you're allowed to believe that reality is love. Your beliefs don't cause contraction, but mine do, because they don't agree with yours? So nice! Exactly! Right back at ya. Don't be a slick. I'm not going to deconstruct your views for you. That's your work, not mine. You're here trying to point out that Leo is right and I am wrong, in your own words; "you would be able to see and understand how you are wrong and Leo is right". Blah blah blah... This 1st grade example only shows that you don't understand what I'm saying. It doesn't represent what's happening at all but rather how you perceive things to be. You confuse your perception with the actual reality, and you still insist that I have a contracted mindset. I'll say it again: arrogant and offensive. P.S. whatever impression my style might give you is not what is actually happening. I am actually extremely enjoying the discussion. So, thank you for your time. It is appreciated beyond description.

@Serotoninluv Please make sure you do get your PhD in speaking out of context. You don't know. You're just saying these things without a clue about me or my direct experience. That's extremely arrogant of you, let alone offensive to me. I told you that I'm aware and you insist that I'm not. I can see that you mean well with that, but please don't take on the responsibility of waking me up. That's absolutely my business to mind, not yours. *Repeat the reply above* + Your relative/subjective assessment of the fluency of others is silly. It clearly demonstrates that you're the one who's identified with his construct, and yet ironically calling out other constructs as not fluent enough. For all I know, eloquence/rhetoric is completely relative and any judgement made must be based on a construct. Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Not necessarily. That dynamic does not exist for me. I am not unaware of it, it does not exist. So, let's skip that in the next reply. Of course, that's silly. But I didn't conclude which view is the more expansive. I said that I think mine is more expansive. That's my personal opinion at the moment, which might change at any other moment. Yeah, so what? Everyone does that. We're humans, we have sophisticated brains that can do that in the blink of an eye. However, I didn't mean that our ideas are contradictory. I meant that my explanation/understanding is more inclusive than the love theory. But you can't see that because you think the love theory is more inclusive than mine. How would you solve this problem? I have no idea. Maybe we should just agree to disagree for a now until either of us has some more clarity. Yes, exactly! But like I said, we both perceive each other's views as such, so...