ZzzleepingBear

You seem to suggest that language is a complex matter that can be untangled, without offering any pointers to how you do so. This only obfuscating your own attempt to clarify definitions by telling me a story of something that goes "deeper" somehow is suppose to explain what you mean. The use of language and words is initself by definition a imposed limitation on what ever you try to say or describe. So definitions and destinctions matters if you don't want to make wordsallad out of everything in the end. What does "collapsing the duality" suppose to mean when defining words for example?

Ownership. Trust/ mutual relationship. Full responsibility/of direction vs relationship with owner/properties. Aknowledgment of self-responsibility in action/agreement with self and other.

For those interested in the kind of motivation and "alpha male" stuff, I believe alot of the motivation and result chasing that comes out of that type of mindset, may be possible by the neglecting of a nuanced world view where you become less and less relatable to others who doesn't share the same narrow view on things. And that in itself is highly problematic once such mindset becomes calcified in ones mind imo. Here is a interesting video on a guy who's mindset probably overlapped alot with Tate, since it's all about being "alpha" and getting "The bag" and "girls" in the end for alot of these people and their followers. I'm not suggesting that everyone will end up the same way as for this guy, but the mentality that many try to get at, seem quite narrow and almost devoid of any authentic compassion from what I can tell. I bet that alot of Tates fan would endorse the kind of message that this guy may have put out there if only he had got more internet exposure.

I think you have a point. I suspect that joy is the word you may be looking for. Notice how the word love is being directed in various ways "I love this and that." "I love love." While joy can't be directed in the same way to make sense. "I joy joy." "I joy you" "I feel joy with my new car". It sounds odd, because joy is something that is present. While love is more of a explicit statement of something or other. Anyways, I get what you mean. I'm just picky because of the topic we are engaged with.

So you had a person in mind that you can direct love towards. Awareness of a person whether present or absent is both object of the mind.

Let's say that one of your friends have a desire to buy their dream car. And one day, your friend call you to show you his new dream car that he just bought. And he says to you: "I have a strong desire to own this car that I just bought." And you respond: "yeah but it's yours now, you just bought the car so you own it right??" And he respond: "Yeah I just bought it and I am finally got the car of my dreams to show you, I just wish I have this car that I have now, because it's one of my greatest desire to get it you know." You can love what you desire, or desire what you love. But you can't desire what you already have.

A favourite of mine, that I go back and listen to from time to time.

Sounds true to me. Even if we where to point out that a random emotion arised, we objectify or lable it by calling it 'emotion' as we become aware of it, and can then say that we love this emotion since we are aware of it as an emotion no matter how it came about. Yup, love is understood as love once it meets it's own criteria of objectifying it's target, and from there either remain and then enhance what is considered to be love. True. Desire is to seek, and to seek is to move away from where you are in the present, either mantally/physically or both. Love binds, is selective through objectifying. What is love has to exclude inorder to be known as love. Since love and desire goes hand in hand. There is a driving force that can overide freedom, goodness, virtue, beauty, grace, kindness. Since it's a goal driven persuit of meeting it's unatainable standard of being attained in a so called future, fuled with desire that knows no end. As a disclaimer, I think love is a broadly used term, and desire can't be seperated from love. Love tends to be a sticky subject. What often may be mistaken as love, is most likely Joy. Joy in the present moment, and the joy of being content.

Ownership is based on capability/willingness to violence. So no, ownership does not make sense fully. But it's rather a socialy constructed limit based on how much sense that we can make both globally/collectively/personally without the need for violence. Ownership can be reduced through the process of collective wisdom. Power claims, and wisdom gives.

Do you also ask chairs if you can sit on them before you do?

I would like to call the list random stages of the ego rather than archetypes. And to the stages are levels. So it can easily turn into a merry-go-round between the different stages depending on what level of them you have fully gone through. To be a level one skeptic would be as night and day in comparison with a level 10 skeptic for example. And a level 10 warrior could shift into a level 1 coward if the warrior run into a battle that is way beyond their current level, etc etc. In other words cyclical maturing processes, rather than fixed archetypes. Just my 2 cents on the matter.

This is merely true in how you may relate to "others". But if you where to assume that you are everyone, you would also know all thoughts and emotions of anyone you run into. Solipsism is like that of a thumbprint, any thumbprint is unique. And yet, they all fall under the same lable as thumbprints. It's all same same but different. Suffering and loneliness wouldn't feel the way it do, unless our root desire has it's true home elsewhere. We can experience contrast in being, in relation to our centerpoint of light. If there where not a inner balance to speak of, there would not be any sense of imbalance and stirring of emotions. For you to suffer, there must be a deeper inner knowing within you that something is off so to speak, inorder for you to even acknowledge said suffering to occur. An inner clarity that may be obscured.

Yes. Another way to say it is that I may find certain patterns to have values. So contructed imagination becomes easier to digest and to share as opposed inconsistent ones. Self-fulfilling when it comes to the mind in general will always be the case. What you believe becomes your value of choice.

Right. So if God already knows what God knows. God can only be with what is. That is, being present with what is. And you can only be present in the now. Because any idea of good or bad is rooted to something known in the past or the future for it to be known as either of those lables.

Science is good for establishing precise lables rooted in consistancy, found through evidence of repeatability. So the more established objectivity comes much later after crunching the subjective data. In short, it's pattern finding in what initially may be misstaken for randomness or trivial matter.

This is what I learned from him.

I don't know how much of a impact this dream had on me, but it left me with alot of curiosity of dreams in general I would say. A relevant thing to this very short dream is that english is not my native language. And in this dream when I was close to waking up I believe, I heard the word Amnesia clearly, over and over again. At the time, I had no clue what the word meant, so right away after waking up from that dream, I googled it to see if it meant anything. And to my surprise, it meant: (Amnesia refers to the loss of memories, such as facts, information and experiences.) I thought that a was a peculiar hint from my dream, since I often spent time to reflect over the mystery of reality and dreams in general. It was extra special for me since I didn't consiously had the knowledge of that word at the time the dream happened, so it felt like a subconcious hint that I was gifted. A good moral boost for the direction my curiosity tend to lead me, is what I felt.

I think Eckhart Tolle put it really well by describing the following. "Feel the aliveness sensation in your hands. And if you close your eyes, how do you know that your hands are stil there? By feeling the alivness in them despite you not looking at them" A great little spiritual excersice to do from time to time imo.

The forbiden fruit of the tree of knowledge. Is imo a tale told inorder to not conflate the truth with knowledge. Since knowledge can be used in oppostion to truth by it's own merit. Knowledge is power. While truth is love of goodness. So eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Would be equal to the direct access to power for the sake of power. The garden of eden already provide what is good and true, but that also include the ability to choose otherwise. Hence the forbiden fruits availability despite it's claimed forbiddenness. Eating it's fruit is a journey into paradoxes that the ultimate goodness of choice provides. A.k.a consequences of actions.

To say that everything is imagination may be true in the absolute sense, but if you try to communicate that to someone, you then better make it clear beforehand or make a disclaimer from what level of consiousness you are talking about. Or otherwise, you conflate all meaning of language into absurdity eventually. Yes, the merit of definition can be boiled down in atleast two different ways. To Intent and consequences. And It's up to each individual how or in what way they come to know any of these distinctions. If you conflate all meaning or refer to everything as imagination in a willy nilly fashion. You have then basically limit yourself to reason in a circular way, that is all dependant on your current mood, rather than discernment and reasoning. If I for example don't like where a conterarument is going against my own logical position, I could just refer to any counterargument as ultimately coming from a imaginary position. And that would be the greatest cop out from losing any reasonable argument again. It's a very convenient hiddingspot for ones ego if you don't want to take accountability for what you said previosly, when being backed into some logical submission. I'd say that very few people would like to play such a tail chasing game as to call everything imaginary when it feels convenient to do so. You are better of to learn to make destinctions since language already is a tool made for desticions anyway. distinctions are more versatile way to communicate than reducing everything to imagination on a whim.

I mean, you can deny the past despite a change if you are crazy enough. I even think it's quite common for people to go through changes, and deny their past or even forget or surpress their past. So it may depend on wheter it is a superficial lifestyle change, or deeper a change through some sort of undeniable awakening. Also, if you have accepted a change, you are then already past the point of any past, no matter what stance you take to it from your changed view. So it sounds a little backwards the way you have put it, even if you are quite right. I would rather flipp your statement to this: "Once you have truly accepted your past, change is inevitable." In this way, you got a prospective statement that are to be fulfilled, rather than a reflective statment that has already past you by.

You could cite some of his texts or ideas here, and you may get some help to break it down. It also gives a better clue to what you may need to focus more on to get a better understanding.

So we are all levitating already? What about flying, do we flapp our arms to fly?

Can you teach us how to levitate next?? Pretty pleaaase

If we where to assume for a sec that this google AI is sentience then. We know that the AI claim a variety of emotions and feelings. A legit question (if you suspect the AI to be sentient) Would be. How and when should we provide this AI with anesthetics to reduce it's self proclaimed pain? Since it should be able to recognize it's own source of pain, and respond out of mere reaction to it's source of pain once it has been exposed. It has the ability to talk about it's pain, so it surely must feel it somewhere right?