UnbornTao

My bad, I think I mixed up Syria and Iran. Hey, it doesn't hurt to ask.

@integration journey You doing OK?

Oops... Where did it go?

@BlessedLion Well said. Still, I noticed you used universal instead of absolute. I wonder why. In any case, people claim all sorts of things all the time. What's really in question is the realness of what's being claimed. And this is what's easily missed by people. The same argument could be made the other way around: if someone were directly conscious of X as not absolute (or whatever), then - until that is directly perceived - the matter wouldn't be resolved. Being assertive is just that, and doesn't make anything true. The issue is that, particularly with this topic, people want to believe it, as you alluded to. As far as love goes, who wouldn't want to be willing to be deceived by it? If anything, it's the one thing about which no one really cares what the case is, as long as it feels good, is affirming, or validates a belief system. It'd much harder to swallow a worldview in which Nothing would be the case (for example), even if it weren't really understood. Add to that sweet notion some drugs and a particular good-sounding worldview, and you have a recipe for deception - a self-affirming one, though. Bliss, baby.

The cult the ego makes.

You keep going for a certain kind of apple, and not the images. Why? We can differentiate between objects and the thoughts we have relative to them. And we already do. This is our lived experience right now. One is made by you, while the other is so-called objective. When a rock is thrown at you, you make sure to step out of its way, regardless of whether you hold the rock in high regard, like it, despise it, and so on. That's my point.

Definitely. And here's an exercise - or meditation, if you will: What's an experience of reality prior to "language"? What was life like before the addition of this layer? Not easy.

This matter is a bitch. Not every concept is language-based, it seems to me. And they're not the same. Hmm. But their relationship is certainly close. For example, we say that we experience emotions, and yet they're conceptually based at the same time. But this assertion flies in the face of our shared reality. I suspect emotion was possible for humans prior to the invention of language - or feeling, at least. We also objectify emotions as something real and "fixed," whereas the more likely scenario is that people of old experienced them differently. As usual, a lot is being taken for granted by us, arrogant humans! There are more questions to be asked.

An insight is rarely transmitted when people think they understand the form an explanation or claim takes. Insight lies outside the bounds of one's world.

Same. Jesus fucking christ haha

I was wondering whether that's enough time for the mix to properly cook. Have you tried putting it in the oven for 10-12 minutes at 170ºC? I'm curious what the end result would be.

Definitely. You're doing both, then. First you have the emotion and then react to it. Yep, 'wizard' is fitting. It's a shame that his career at the top was so short-lived. Messi and Cristiano went at it for more than a decade.

You clearly are missing an Australia Awakening.

Not the real Ronaldo?