ilja

var mymuscle = x var visionmuscle = get_muscle_size(vision) if mymuscle <= visionmuscle: mymuscle += mymuscle else: beatup(vision)

you are completely right there are people that are probably not worth of purity. but you expect something from them, which is what is causing you this pain. maybe you can find a way to live without having these expectations met by them? maybe you can find people that resonate with your level of honesty?

haahaa, this is not advice this is comedy

@Enlightenment i don't see why not.

@Enlightenment what part

@Enlightenment show us one critique there that was decent.

It's really unclear if the person who wrote that rartional wiki has autism or sociopathy to me. I don't know if you can qualify this as just stage orange at this point.

@Meditationdude coward. @TheDao where you involved in writing this rational wiki article? @Scholar i don't know what brain damage that person has who composed what you quoted, but that made no sense, like a pretentious bubble.

@TheDao ah, so to strawman aganist strawmans? like eating meat for veganism?

@TheDao Nice trashtalk, why are you here with your inauthentic ass?

So here is the deal with proof and why you cannot prove everything currently, What proof is, it is a method for you to verify something. And how do you verify something? It's a feeling. A feeling of acceptance of that particular method, but not necessarily all of the possible believes that you could construct using this method we call "proof" ( an example for this is quantum mechanical metaphysics for many scientists ). Now here is the limitation problem with any methodology that we would group under the name "proof". First of all, it relies on the subjective, limited understanding of a sentient creature. Meaning what you derive from that method and your ability conducting this method. Which I think is mostly intuited by spiritual people. And second (which coming from the first really) proof relies on what I could call here, just for the purpose, as "axioms of understanding". Meaning any methodology we would group as "proof" has a set of unquestioned rules that you need to accept for yourself, which defines the method itself, in order to work with this method (proof). And now any behaviour that you observe as "outside" which seems to you to behave according to some set of rules, that define a method, is considered proven. Also these unquestioned, just taken as granted, rules called "axioms" come from the understanding part of a sentient creature. So what is happening here is that, you accept some set of rules in order to accept some set of behaviour to then maybe accept a belief you derive from this behaviour. In essence, you accept some limitation, in order to accept something limited that follows according to it and then in therefore deny everything that does not follow according to it, viewed from that limitation. So what you are really after is just acceptance, or verification. And maybe by expanding the axioms or loosening on these axioms, opening up to new dimensions from which you can construct a set of axioms, for example include conscious emotional verification not just understanding wise, you are transcending your methodology to "prove" something and therefore may get a bigger hold of reality than before.

perceiving an object as real is not a thought based feature, but one of feeling i would say. you don't really need to think of a door to be hindered by it. people who deconstruct physical constracts as real do this on a feeling basis, i believe, which is where thoughts can point towards or come from.

realization of Self is the Validity according to itself, that feeling comes along.

I don't know, i guess the question is, could you enjoy being kissed and petted while someone shoves a fist up your ass, while being able to feel pain compared to not having the fist up your bottom? would you call the person who cannot enjoy the kissing while feeling pain of the fist close minded?

maybe i dived more into evidence here than proof hm, not necessarily.

Oh yeah right, you prove your methodology, since it is nothing but just an acceptance of a limited form that you allowed to yourself unquestioned in the first palce , in whatever finite form you see it expressed as verfication for it. So yeah, the loop. But it is not unbreakable so there is something off, which is probably even a slight notion for other aspects. Ah because it is not fully encompassing all of it, since it's that finite limited aspect. But how can you have a loop if it is just a finite methodology? You can't, you can only think you have a closing loop with a finite method, because your conceptualizing cannot go so far as to encompass it all, so when your conceptualizing goes slightly beyond by itself, you are able to break that loop already. But somehow you do not always want to break that loop and somehow you cannot conceptualize something fully through one initiating implication. But how? I guess because any initiating implication is already functioning from a finite methodology.. hm but now what? So getting out of that limitation of the starting (limited) implication must be a spontaneous process or eventually somewhen it could lead to an interconnectedness with another aspect you did not consider (?) or graps (?), so you deny this then. Assuming you did not grasp it in the first place, you should be able to have that finite loop closed, or what am i missing? yeah, if you don't grasp it you should be able to complete the finite loop (by denial ?). Ah, maybe thinking an implication through to the point where it intersects with another aspect of reality which the implication was not based on, enables you to grasp this aspect at this point on..but you deny it actively, if you don't want to accept it!

Oh, and then you observe these aspects in another form ( a way to strengthen the acceptance of the method ) and then you generalize and map it and look for holes in or you observe something that didn't quite behave according to it, then you become conscious of more aspects, and those may stand in conflict with the old ones and then you map that down, and you find more and then you find some in yourself and so on.

Well first, you limit yourself into incomplete forms, then you observe from a limited form another limited form and become conscious of some aspects ( if not all ) of that limited other form you observed..

also leo, you might have gone too hard into infinite love with that video. it will most likely deviate new comers rather than attract. they will have no idea what you are talking about, especially jp fans.

For example in this video about JP While explaining the model briefly, you could have included some graphics with the stages and some values mentioned for new comers to remember and familiarize with.

Sounds like you got a lot to work on.

This is a credible medical source: https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/nutrition-information/soy-and-health

@Topann Are you still alive?

@aurum saying that "eating animals and eating animals via factory farming is not remotely the same" is absolutely not the case, there are a lot of intersections those have. in fact "eating animals" encompasses all of "eating animals via factory farming". "eating animals via factory farming" is a subset of "eating animals", it takes the condition "eating animals" and narrows it down to livestock. But both lie on the same basis, which is "eating animals".

how has that been working out?