Reciprocality

Funny thread, the past is not. The past was. The word "was" indicates an existent property in something which itself can not contain nor be contained in. Therefore the word does not satisfy itself, and is ultimately ideal. If you think it satisfy itself for there can be no other thing satisfying it and some entity MUST do it then you think it is real. Both are absurd, and amounts to the very silly assumptions our minds are not 'meant' to surpass, as belief in the one can only be negated by the other and only as such followed by the other whereby the first once more can be believed meaning you will only truly grasp one at present though believing you synthesized them by holding both at independent times. If there were a pandemic going on in certain circles, well that would be it. The only thing there is is now, does not mean the past weren't neither does it mean the past were. Uncertainty, deal with it. The idea is that there is a higher truth, a metaphysics which accounts for the past. You can not know there is such a thing, you can believe in "it". I would suggest focusing on what can be known and what can be inferred from there by faculties concerning necessity as opposed to conclusions on assumed premises. It is actually possible to tear away most if not all of these assumptions, detoxication. Focus on stripping yourself of what is harmful before you listen to content after content reflecting NOTHING MORE then what you assume to be valuable. edit: And don't assume this either, if the maxim is not immediately present or contingent on necessity alone, it is assumed.

She spins 180 degrees with her right foot grounded then when her shoulders are perpendicular to the camera angle she switches to spinning 180 degrees standing on her left foot. In a perpetual cycle, then if i focus at her GENERAL torso as opposed to the legs she sometimes gets a full 360 standing on one foot in either direction.

@CameronsExploring Its funny how some dreams contains messages so explicit you may end up more dumbfounded then before it simply contemplating how it essentially amounts to a dialogue with a living person that you don't even experience as yourself. What may steer you away from concluding it is a person in itself is the integrity and necessity by which the truth within it strikes you. For me at least i will immediately when i wake up understand the meaning of these dreams, this may even be circular in that i defined that set as explicit already. But i do without trying understand the meaning of some of these dreams in a way i can't when listening to some other person. x) We have all limits, in so far as we experience anything at all. Thus to say we are without limits is to negate any meaning that infers the opposite. Therefore to claim to have no limits is only epistemically grounded to the extent you know all limits to be illusory and consequently also each expression of the set idea as well. (as i read this myself it is almost like the expression is the only thing keeping what is true alive, and consequently how it fails at last) In this sense there are no difference to what is real and what is limit, this is a big problem for it means either that there is an entity outside what is known which limits us or that what is known limits itself. We can by necessity not know which of these is correct by the very nature of the problem, to the extent of course the nature is correctly diagnosed as i will maintain for now the logic is solid. y) At the same time you can only understand limits from faculties of discernment between things, in this way a moment must be contrasted with another without identical properties, and because such moments can not be true for they are imagined you have literally created limits for yourself. At this point it should be obvious how the very word 'limit' is amorphous with regards to the total of its application in this text, entailing a need to define at least its two divergent use cases. And can you believe it? It amounts to idealism/realism. Run it backwards and one may analyse you as one or the other. (the latter), perhaps these limits can be transcended by the very awakening to the possibility of the other, i would claim the generality of Leos videos must help with that part) The first clause of y will be understood by most academics as a reason to why one may mistake non-dual experiences as the infinity of existence. And likewise why it is so easy not to take spirituality any more seriously then they have done. As to your specific limits be them of whatever nature: you can only have any grasp of them to the extent you have done your best, and you probably have not. At the same time you are not gonna be the new Magnus Carlson even if you have no reason to say that you have tried your best at chess. Thus i will deem the very problem as complex, in that only time will tell and that it is better you continue trying then regretting not to.

Many lazy answers here, that circles around itself. If you want an answer with an actual foundation i can at least bring you the question which will be prior to it. To ridicule another is no different on the core of emotion then to greet or respect another, to enjoy or appreciate another. It has no wider essence then what is emergent by the mere value one project unto the other, you ridicule another proportionately to the extent you value their existence. (not to say you value someones existence only so much as you ridicule them) And because you were socialized to certain extents you value the reflection they omits thereafter back on you (the only alternative), be it anger or sorrow. In this regard you have given them a certain power over you. The question i don't have a definitive philosophical answer to is WHY we so passionately value other peoples existence, you can say it's because without their many flavors we would not be able to form an identity of our-self (in which case the power we have given them truly is massive). This answer would entail the question of why identity is so important, in its core we may find evolutionary and sociological associations, but at the phenomenal level I really don't know more then to say it is an automatic passion hidden in the subconscious. This identity and its basic meaning should be familiar to everyone on this forum, but what may be a more unusual connection is that of how fundamentally other people are deacons to any and all our sense of self. The answer can be mistaken for a circle-logic itself, but be aware not confusing positive feedback loops for invalid deduction, we are after all traveling from causes to consequent effects. (some of which consists of cycles as opposed to evolution, and indeed we are retarded by our cycles) Some people feel better immediately after they spew their shit unto others, other people imitate a like behavior never to be satisfied even for a second. It is also possible tho almost not to be so distant to your own shit that you sincerely don't mean no harm and consequently don't value the target. It is for a second time impossible to not value the target whereby the action of ridicule is prolonging any meaningful sense of identity.

If you find yourself constantly having to simplify to obscurity to be understood public speaking may not be for you, if you hate doing so then it definitly would be a steep mountain to climb. By public speaking in this sense it must be meant a 'monologue' to an audience you have not chosen, JP speaks to an audience which is an extention of himself and can therefore speak with ease to them. He can know where to draw the lines of abstraction by also listening to himself in the act by having a great deal of accumulated sub-conscious predictions on those he speak to beforehand. When on stage he pays close attention to peoples facial expressions, drawing on them to make even better prediction as he goes along. This gives room for creativity, the subtle information he gathers from the audience that is; makes him far more engaging to listen to. He have spoken about it himself, that he usully only have a general idea of where he may end up at the end of the talk, sometimes even being a little baffled by the progression made from the beginning. The less of a general apprehension of the audience he have the more simple he begins his speak. If you have a good friend of your own chosing which can understand a fair bit of what you say when you are streching yourself to the immidiate limits, and value those conversations believing public speaking would be anything like that then that must be the finest delusion. I'm sure you do not. To whichever extent it can be said that the delusion would not be apparent the audience is no longer "public" but an extention of your own choise, in which case there would be a far lesser difference to speaking with this friend. And if it isn't then it is because of 1. the lack of dialogue itself (x being lost in 'translation') or 2. the anciety of crowds. If you are ancious of how you will perform i believe that is healthy by itself, but if it ruins the quality then that is always where to first improve.

The scary part is when you realize the only reason we are not this super exotic looking species is because there are none to inform us about their opinion on us. What is scarier is that you can in the window of a few seconds look at your fellow humans trough a lens which takes away your predisposed aesthetics. It feels weird to do, but i'm sure it only takes honest belief in how truth are a sum wider then immediate attachment. It helped me realizing it as true what i had only to that point believed.

It can not be believed in, if by it we mean its real and not ideal entity.

@OneIntoOne Lets talk of it? I brought the potential of it into the thread, do you have any thoughts on it? What would it mean that your gurus speaks on behalf of their own intellectual insights to say that those are the same as necessary insights to enlightenment and the enlightenment itself? I have my thoughts on it, but given that hypnosis is here the hypothesis i rather let you yourself reflect on me bringing it forth. Then me from the get-go corrupting it for you.

There is really nothing to question about it if in its essence in lies solely the perception of the perceiver of thoughts, but just like you we can all confuse this insight with the implications it has on forms thereafter. (philosophy) This is a distinction i see very seldom expressed in the forum, Leo himself seem to even express them as synonymous at times.

Its only route to a mainstream acceptance is for it to take back the word religion, not to preach with the atheists about religion being all-destructive. For it to do the latter it would need to deceive, in so doing it becomes the part of religion it supposedly were against. It is necessary that it organizes, it does already.

It is already, and very few does their homework, fewer still brings it about. To make it also strict and more organized could go both ways, given the nature of this work it may preclude itself from rules set by another. But it may as well help with dedication.

You assume metaphysical properties and speak on behalf of them at the time while simultaneously saying you do not, almost each sentence of yours throughout is like this. No wonder you go mad.

@Someone here I did respond once, and i will do so once more. "Never has really happened", this is like saying "something is eternal" and "anyonce is plausible", is this what you mean? You say "Nothing needs to happen" a. do you take necessity out of all emergence and being (either present or continual)? Or b. do you say that there must once be nothing happening whereby 1. no other thing can ever happen again? or 2. something may occur once more? If the former (a) then do you not think there must be another thing then necessity which made due for existence? Is it will, is it love or what is it? Whatever it is, do you not think it is emergent confined to the nothingness you refer to as death?

The seeming paradox ofcourse is that the same entity which created existence is reached when creating TRUE values (selflessness), entailing the idea that the universe has intrinsic values aswell. For it were the cause to both, and whether or not the universe has its non-valued property entangled with beings within it or not they both are equaly without intrinsic values from the discovery of the absurd. So why would there be anything at all? Well without it god does not know his power fully, and without it he can never be qurious for its conclusion. quriosity thus will ofcourse is a prerequisite for creativity and creation. This conclusion can be the discovery of truth trough the material which were only to be effected from the truth. Only some gobbledygook, but do entertain it. : )

The expectation of intrinsic meaning is met with the knowing of its non-real properties, it seems you speak of Camus "Absurd". Funny thing is, that we will manifest actions inbedded in our values to the day we die anyway, in this sense you can become trapped in a mind and body which you following your post do not identify with. Question now is whether the realization of non-real properties of meaning comes from that very same body or if it is deeper then the body and mind, if it is deeper then it is continual, and can not be removed and neither will it expect the material world nor the mind to construct real meaning, and this is where i believe our truest nature can express the very same love which made due for anything at all by material conception. I have not reached this place, but i believe it is the only TRUE ethic, the one intrinsic meaning, that of selflessness. It can be validified as deeper then the mind and body if it acts selflessly, by definition. Because action is only possible from values it has values, and because it can not be divided those values are true.

@fopylo Yes that is a fair representation, and if my assessment is right then what seems rather paradoxical at first is only causes to their effects. Although these things comes in spectrums i think that what were somewhat a bell'curve at age 2 will trough development tilt more like a M shape, in which the distribution have two chunks of bodies. I would claim that almost all distributions which have a non-bellcurve shape are artificial, and that all artificial distributions are inefficient relative to ideals and that the ideal would constitute a curve back to the shape at age 2. Very much in harmony with ideals of authenticity and the return from the hero's journey, a return 'home' and a return to childhood. I would hesitate to call the people you describe and i analysed as mindful, but to the extent they act easy-going and calm they do not nor have much discovered reason to second guess their algorithm thereto seem as tranquil as anyone. At high school i hung with the 'popular ones' (something i fright back upon) and what were so very curious is that the more self-conscious and second guessing they were speaking to me alone the more calm they were speaking with whichever quantity of many others. This despite how judgmental i never were, they seemingly weren't programmed with an algorithm for questions and answers like mine. Exterior stimuli, lets say a conflicts like rumor and slander can disturb this group of people very much, and it is in like scenarios they can easily be discerned as mindless.

Think about it in its egocentric function, we are all centered around something, this something seems varying to some extent but everyone calls it the self and the ego. When most people, your typical person think about themself they do so regarding how other people percieve them and that becomes their identity. In doing so they seem easygoing and appears calm, sincere and authentic when socializing, now this identity of theirs are already settled and thus their actions can reflect without thought the very past with which their identity at first were designated. This requires very little thinking, it requires very little self-awareness and quriosity. Other again, think about themselves trough introspection, they value and judge for themselves trough which habit they can have minimal understanding of how other people think of them, and although they do not assign other people with the authoirty of being their judge they can not help thinking how they are percieved and understood. And although the latter group must regulate their actions to fit within they grouping they are themselves diachronicaly opposed to the set behaviour as already elaborated on, whether or not they are metacognizant of that or not. To be egocentric/selfcentric is a mode of both groups, its just that they vary so deeply in their constitution. The people you describe are NOT egocentric when socializing (in the act), you are, i am, most people here are. This if because we are thinking and introspecting, we are lesser of a pre-arranged algorithms. And it overwhelms us sometimes, so we self actualize while they're coping silently (now some are not even that). To the latter point, pre-arranged behaviour likely numbed them down, in which sense we can assume they must chase some cheese.

One could almost say: there are reasons these people do not find the self actualization work neccesary, and a reason that you do.

That reality is confined to/as the merging of [form and being] is the very idea which does NOT make people capable of anything, if you by anything speak past the merging of form and willing. If everything emerging is an illusion of consciousness then one is a, yes bear with me: realist, i should even say materialist and reductionist, now i know these things are at odds with some or many written documents on the matter if looked only at the surface (and many times deeper), this is a linguistic problem more than conceptual. (in that we assume so absurdly the meaning of those very words we by the nature of the discussion are supposed to define) Now most of these isms are partially true, but fundamentaly wrong and hillariously absurd, you would be better of thinking by unlearning most of them aleady. The fact that they are (in the context of their history) given credit to academicaly is amusing, in this sense there is no wonder the sciences are eating philosophers alive. Synthesize instead for yourself the implications of there being material form causing being with the "absurdity" of being causing the real world existence. See how i decide not to call it the real world, although that would easily be a suitible description? It is because of the asumptions you make of the set of words which will be rooted right back to 'the material world' AS AN IDEAL.

I'm no big memer so i must ask why does it say "Left" ?

I would not conflate circomstances and placement for compassion, (objects associated with its occurance) with the actual thing itself. In this way i do NOT think compassion is something to be polished, only a growing desire which in its growth do not only have a causal relationship with objects it passes by. Now in the sense that compassion is an act, an occurent energetic transaction it can be polished ofcourse. But these things can even be unrelated to the desire itself. I am sure that compassion CAN, and many times will be growing paralelled with the 'polishing' of actions, but even there i hesitate to point out a cause. Well, i am not so sure how to respond to this but can not deny i enjoy your energy and specificaly the way you understand arrogance, although you seem incredibly self-centric. It does not need to be such an awful thing, and can indeed sort away fragile egos. : )

I (67%) N (90%) F (52%) P (100%) a (72%) INFP-A, i consider myself rather crippled empatheticaly, so it is curious it would place me in the Feeling section. As great as its questions are they definitly do not always scale well, apparently.

@King Merk I think that if one has sufficient reason to be arrogant there is no time left in the day for thoughts so readily obsessed with being the one for which such reasons are subjected. By which logic arrogance could very much be primarily a mask of insecurity as already alluded to by@EddieEddie1995. You forsee humbleness as a potential remedy, but i think also this is silly as a goal in itself. If you are not already humble where it is due, then do not try to micromanage it as though painting a same picture a hundred times, never to be satisfied. Question rather the foundation for the desire for such managing at all, in this i think we can in the power of us being human change the picture from KNOWING its colors. However: maybe the behaviour of yours is not arrogant, that rather it is this idea which comes from fear from being judged. And maybe arrogance is to be desired, and if not neccesaily accepted?

"Those like buttons are a curse upon thinking people", now that is something for the history books

It wont get much better : )