Natasha Tori Maru

This actually means you have zero overlap in cognitive functions. The cognitive functions are not N, F, T, S - they are Ni, Ne, Ti, Te, Fi, Fe, Si, Se I would share Ni & Se with you. I would share Fi & Te with Yetineti.

When I have to work extremely hard to separate the useful conceptual content from the performance I tend to lose all desire to interact. There is a lot of skill involved in effective communication. Much less so in stream of consciousness text output where we flirt with simile & metaphor in an increasingly recursive manner. Especially if we want to actually have others TRY to understand us. Instead of remain on our pedestal of "I am too above everyone to be understood".

Any sort of pursuit that puts us face-to-face with confronting our attachments can be a process of working on conditioning. The more you clarify and remove the obscurity of conditioning - the closer to truth we become. Sometimes we need to expose the conditioning for awareness to do the work, so we no longer operate on an unconscious level with our consumption patterns. Sometimes much more than awareness is needed to break reflexive habits. For many, food can be a coping mechanism. It can have a self soothing function. It also has a place in ritual. Coming together. Celebration. Deeply cultural. But it is also entangled with survival as a need. How spiritual it is depends on what sort of relationship we are working on with food. If it is in any way negative - I would argue, it is worth inspection.

That's valid. We don't know for sure. Hearsay (for now).

He has made claims he has autism. It may explain some of the messes he seems to get into.

Maybe we could term awakening as "realising ultimate truth" and enlightenment as "embodying" that truth, which would entail significant work accomplished on our individual conditioning. And residing in equanimity. Overall I am remarkably undecided! What do you think?

What do you mean by awake? Do you refer to siddhis? I think many people do not understand the markers for awakening. And expect all conditioning to be dissolved when it is seen. Integration and grounding. These might be markers of enlightenment, but not awakening. I struggle to even believe in some of our great teachers being enlightened by this definition. They have historically been just so derogatory to women (some of their quoted statements break my heart). We are less than. Awakening cannot transcend incentive structures or biology. Maybe enlightenment could. But what even IS that!

@oOo Thanks for the dialogue

It IS however, foundational at upper stages. In the example described - there is defence & justification in the interaction. No response or acknowledgement (non-engagement) as a boundary would be expected in higher stages of development - don't you think? Not a rhetorically loaded retaliation. Placing one further into disconnection.

@oOo I might make this simpler, if I may. If someone treats you poorly (in your perspective) - do you lower your standards of communication to a form that has the propensity to be interpreted as hurtful, attacking, sarcastic, negative or derogatory? I noticed this behaviour. It is antithetical to connection. Connection is top.

I try not lower myself to standards of interactional rhetoric that are emotionally catalytic if someone is less than charitable to me. And I certainly do not intentionally do so. Unless triggered and projecting. I tried to observe, sandwich in a question. Rather than attack your claim of Coral or deny it. Express what is seen so you may correct my interpretation. An invitation. I try not to explain a person or their behaviour. So I can see how my words of choice were poor "The intent with the sort of language there was "I am hurt, so I want you to feel this way also"." The cleaner version: "The language communicates as though you are hurt and attempting to transmit that hurt." I might brainstorm and propose that there is conditioning present and unintegrated parts of lower stages. But this does not deny the Coral claim. Is it a sound expectation that someone of Coral stage would have successfully worked through this conditioning? I would argue I see parts of Coral. But residing firmly IN the stage is a hard claim to transmit to others without circular reasoning like "you would not know it if you saw it".

By engaging in more relational dialogue to connect, be seen and reveal meaning. Diving into phenomenology, experience, meaning, feeling and thought type questions. To be seen and properly received - and have the person we are within dialogue with affirm this - gets us closer to understanding without projection. Cleanly observing free of judgement, but not divorced from discernment. Interesting question. The epistemology of a person. I ask - I state what I see. I report where things don't align. Asking more questions without expressing my own interpretation. I don't always get it right When I feel emotional charge arise through any sensation whatsoever (even positive), it is generally an indication of my own projections coming into play to cloud my discernment.

I can understand this. But you must have been aware of the inherent mode of your expression, correct? At your level. The intent with the sort of language there was "I am hurt, so I want you to feel this way also". Even if it was not intentional - it appears as unconscious leakage. Something unintegrated. Incongruent. It might not be that way. It just appears so on reading. It also appears very strange to lower our standards for some interactions in such a way.

He's had his day. 15 minutes of fame.