Gesundheit

If he said 'for not loving _____' instead of 'to stop loving _____' your interpretation would be correct. But he said 'to stop loving _____', which suggests that he means something else. Or maybe he's being too deep that he's implying that loving everything is the original state?

Does relative = not actual?

Ummm but what about the blank?

I don't love anything, therefore I'm awake?

Leo said: Only if it was that simple. The highest salaries here for people without a business are very, very poor. On average about 40$ a month and at max about 90$. You can barely survive with that amount of money. No job will produce the money required to move out, not even in 10 years of labor, and yes, to earn the 90$ you'd have to work in labor. It gets worse, the economy is still not at rock bottom. It's getting worse every single day. So gimme a break.

??

I thought at least you'd add something of value.

Only thing is that it doesn't seem like a made-up distinction to me right now. It feels absolutely true.

Sure, I never claimed otherwise. Language cannot capture the essence of the absolute truth. It's just a pointer towards it. However, pointers differ in their validity. Thus, some certain pointers are absolutely true, and all others are false. The purpose of language is not to capture the essence of the absolute truth. It's rather a medium for sharing/transferring it between different povs, whether of the same observer or of different observers. Language creates points of reference out of the absolute truth. These points of reference are all necessarily true. And whatever points of reference that don't belong to that certain group are necessarily false.

That's just the other way around of saying you are everything. Here it's saying you are nothing, which is the same thing as everything.

Because if you don't you're gonna go to hell

Yep and that means it's not absolutely true. What? Yes that's the paradigm you subscribe to. My paradigm concludes that this paradigm is BS and that there's one set of absolutely true thoughts. Go and experience the absolute truth? What the hell?!

It depends on whether or not you want to find the true map. If you're fine without it, then sure, collapse everything and rest in not-knowing. And P.S. it's not about value, it's about validity. It's one thing to be looking to extract some value out of something, yet it's another thing to just see if that thing is actually true or not.

I said it multiple times above. You can get technical however and as much as you want about language and about how we use it. If you want to be a perfectionist about language then go on, but don't include me in that. When I say apple, it's clear to you that I don't mean a banana. End of discussion.

Any. The essence that they point to is the same, therefore they're both of the true map. But to say "gyifr" for example, that is not of the true map because it's not of the territory, because it's an empty word that doesn't point to anything in reality unless the it's a label for something, whether that essence/meaning exists for you only or for me only or for the both of us. But unless it has that essence, it's empty and therefore false and not of the map. Of course, the one true map is relative to the one true territory.

The point is that there's only one true map for the one true territory.

Except it is and it can. Otherwise, if we say that your statement right here true, it automatically becomes BS and therefore it becomes incorrect that the absolute truth cannot be represented. Yeah, but that obviously does not exclude thought. Relativity and being relevant or not are two different things. They're irrelevant to each other. A thing can be relative and either relevant or irrelevant. And it can be absolute and either relevant or irrelevant. Thoughts and language are relative, but that has nothing to do with their validity. A relative thought can either be true which would make it absolute, or false which would make it invalid. Says who? Need I go and dissect that statement?

Abstract things are abstract. Defining what a river is will only be an abstract definition no matter how much we try to define it, but the actual river you and I and everyone know does not need the abstract definition for it to be a river or for us to recognize what it is. I said twice that we can get technical about stuff however we want, I'll add now that that process can be done to infinity. Dissecting language is easy. It eats itself up eventually. But the absolute truth is not bound by language. Language is an abstract thing. The absolute truth is not. It's not me who decides whether or not it's true. If it's absolutely true, then it's absolutely true regardless of my or your opinions. We can be deluded, but the truth is unaffected by that. That's missing the point entirely. It's clear that the other person has to understand what I'm saying. I don't understand this. If you are imagining an apple, then you are imagining an apple. And since I don't have access to your imagination, I would have no idea what you're experiencing. But let's say we're sitting together and you told me that you are imagining an apple. In this case, whatever the thing that I have learned to be an apple will jump immediately into my imagination, whether it matches your imagination or not. The mistake here is one of mistaking the actual for the abstract. The actuality of your example is true, but the abstract is not. The things that would be true are that you're imagining something and giving it the label apple, and then saying that outloud to me and then me imagining what the word apple means to me. That would be the absolute of the matter. Notice that whether or not I consider your imagination descriptive of the actual thing is irrelevant here.

No. Relativity is a child's play. What I'm saying goes deeper. I'm claiming that there's only one true set of thoughts that describe the absolute truth and therefore are true. And all other sets of thoughts are false, wrong, and delusional. One set is absolutely true because it emulates the absolute truth. The remaining sets don't represent the truth, and therefore they're not true, not absolutely nor relatively. They're necessarily false. The actual bank robbery event is absolute truth. The thoughts describing it can be either true or false depending on whether they actually represent what happened or not. An apple is not a banana. An apple is an apple and not anything else. Again, you can get technical and dissect that statement however and as much as you want. The actual truth of the actual thing remains untouched regardless. It's just a statement that describes the truth, even if it does not capture the whole of it. Just because language and thoughts are limited does not make them irrelevant. The difference between saying that an apple is not a banana and saying that an apple is a banana is that the former statement describes less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% of reality, while the latter does not describe reality at all. The latter is 0% true.

Can you link some videos to make the point clearer?

Yeah but this mode of thinking immediately stops working when you're talking to others and doing things in the world. It only feels correct in theory.

I told beforehand that you can get technical however you want about the actual thing that happened, which is me robbing a bank. The actual event is part of the absolute truth, non-mediated by language or by any filters, direct absolute truth. How we think or interpret or talk about it is another thing, and it's under the mediated type of truth which you call relative.

Good.

Lol Oh no you didn't say that

??