UnbornTao

The results I was getting were about 'intense pulse light.' Good to know, but I clearly don't watch it. Football (soccer) is more my thing.

With my mouth. Vegetables stir-fried, generally, and usually as a side dish. Soups, salads, purées, too. I used to add a handful of spinach to a blueberry smoothie, but it's been a while since I've done that. I often get precooked legumes (except lentils) and in a separate pan or pot add some spices, salt, and garlic, stir-fry some veggies (usually carrots, bell peppers, and onions), tomato sauce, chilli sauce, and mix it all in. Meat, mostly fried. Chicken, pork, beef. And lately with a chopped bell pepper or onions, too.

What's that?

flameshot f.lux (Linux version no longer maintained).

Watched that yesterday. The song's not bad.

That might be. On the other hand, it can just be an emotion. Notice that we aren't talking about severity but about its source. We're not even dealing with the side effects and other accompanying factors attached to the feeling. Try to get depressed now. See what occurs in your experience. Boom. Magic. You got depressed. Now what? What's going on? How do you think you get depressed? Or angry? It's not out of nowhere but out of you. Do you think an external event has to occur to justify the existence of the emotion? An example I like to use is actors. Good actors know how to bring about the necessary feeling states to their performance. Excellent actors don't just fake their emotions but actually feel them. Sadness and apathy were brought up as different emotional states in the same category as depression. The point is that you can get depressed, happy, enthusiastic, loving, etc. To clarify what you said in your other reply: there's easily a lot of victimization around these things, where people may feel the need to give way more importance to their emotional states than they deserve - in the sense that they're taken as objectively true and real, and generated by 'the world.' This we agree on. What I'm saying is - everyone gets depressed from time to time, you included. It's not an esoteric thing. It can simply be a minor emotional upheaval, disturbance. It comes and it goes, like any other emotion. If you explore it you can get a sense of what the depression is and what it is doing - what purpose it is serving for you, since you're generating it to serve some purpose, whatever that is. Again, barring physiological malfunction of some kind.

Looking good.

If you are at a point where other family members are advising you to take them, then the wisest course of action is probably to listen to them - and to your doctor. Good luck.

I don't understand your question. Are you asking why we're having this exchange? Mostly for entertainment and interacting with others, I'd say, but hopefully it also opens some doors for people. If you mean it more generally, any activity or ability, really. We're essentially asking what skill is.

No! I'm talking about experiential understanding, not truth. And I used "not-you" as a tool to step out of one's mind to make a more fair, unbiased assessment relative to one's real understanding of some activity. It doesn't have to be a person or a group. That you're able to do it - and to the degree that you do - is the proof. Not to be confused necessarily with social validation. But if you're going to become a surgeon, say, of course that social element is an essential component in this regard.

Oh, didn't realize this had already been posted.

You can, and you do, just as you get angry. Perhaps. What does a negative future have to do with it? That's one key component. It can't occur without you imagining a future. It doesn't have to be constant. And I don't think having suicidal thoughts is necessary at all for it to exist - that's called being suicidal. It might be related to the depression but isn't necessarily the same thing. It's possible that it is a reaction to feeling depressed. And, despite what is said and thought about it, what is it for real? Some food for inquiry.

It's not necessarily about another person, or about seeking social validation, although sometimes that can be incredibly useful, and oftentimes it is required, even demanded. This discussion deals mostly within the context of abilities or fields where knowledge can be easily verified, just for the sake of the conversation. As a more abstract field, think of math, for example. If I can't drive, no amount of claiming that I directly experience and understand the activity is going to change the fact that I'm essentially lying to myself. When it comes to existential matters, boy, we can all be exceptionally good liars (mainly to ourselves) because, unless you somehow create it for yourself, there is not the same kind of feedback that tells us that we're lying to ourselves, overlooking and assuming stuff, etc. What criteria or factor 'decides' whether one is able to perform or not, and how well? One thing is clear: you are not that deciding factor. In the case of physical activities, this point shouldn't be hard to see. That's why they're used as examples to bring up a deeper principle.

The emotion itself is one thing, and the consequences or side effects of it are another. You get sad, enthusiastic, bored, and interested just as you get depressed, lonely, jealous, or apathetic. It doesn't have to be this huge dramatic thing. Have you ever felt despair at the prospect of your life, a sense that could be summarized as "What's the point? Where is my life headed?" That feeling state could loosely be called 'being depressed'. It's based on a relationship to an imagined future that is seen as negative or hopeless.

It wasn't a precise analogy. What I meant to say is that it is akin to an objective measure or tool - outside of yourself and your agenda - that demonstrates and proves the understanding. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. The gist of it is that the knowledge is demonstrable in specific ways. And the one who gets to make that final assessment of understanding is something that is not-you - speaking metaphorically again. It's true, real, and grounded if or because it is the case, not because one thinks or claims it is. Crucial difference that can easily go over one's head.

It can be as simple and commonplace as a feeling of hopelessness or despair - in that ballpark. PTSD is a more serious condition. Depression is a feeling or emotional state.

Press X to doubt.

Yep.

Ask yourself: Why isn't soccer taught through books? Why can't you learn to actually play by reading or watching videos? This is a simplistic and extremely specific example but go beyond the example and try to discern the underlying principle.

Everyone's lonely. So that's that. Look into the depression. Focus on what it is and not just the perceived or imagined consequences that it has on you and your life. What is it? We might think we know what it is because we can identify it - this may not be true. Look into this for yourself.

When it comes to abilities, the question is rather straightforward in my view: Can you perform? How well? When you get down to it, are you able to carry out the action or process effectively, or is it just assumptions you have about the workings of something? The criterion for whether you understand something or not is not dependent on yourself and your little bubble but on something true. We might metaphorically call this a 'third-person.' Just as a useful placeholder or analogy.

Sure. "On paper" and "experienced" are the key words here. The latter is what's being referred to as real understanding - the experiential kind. In the former case, you can't do it, so the conceptual understanding is rather secondary, or extraneous. It's just ideas you have about some skill and ability. And you can see that your failure to apply it or make it real suggests the conceptual understanding is wrong in many ways, or inaccurate, or incomplete. Ideas that you can't actualize. Why is that? Look at this disparity. I'm pointing out the existence of another domain of understanding. And if the subject is existential, intellectual understanding of something is lame. It's the first step, and isn't that profound. I guess it's very tempting to engage in this domain because, contrasted to having to experience the truth, it is much easier and more comfortable for the mind to do.

It's also true that they're able to do it, and don't really need to 'understand' it conceptually.

Mastery is mastery. You understand driving (because you can do it reasonably well) but haven't necessarily mastered it yet. Mastery is just being able to perform the activity excellently and non-randomly. This is the "doing" part, done proficiently. In this case one might say you thoroughly 'understand' the activity - since you're able to carry it out while actively producing superb results. You've actualized (made real, not just abstracted) the ability. It can be proven and shown objectively, as opposed to just sniffing one's farts, thinking one understands something in their own mind, with no real confrontation or feedback. In this context, if you can't perform the activity, then it doesn't matter how much you think you understand relative to it. So we can see that we have two domains here: thinking about something - imagining one understands - and a completely different domain that demands something real, beyond one's imagination and assumptions.

That's why I brought up bike riding, and why you mentioned driving above. We're not talking about existential matters. Even then, this principle can be applied similarly in such a context by operating from objective criteria, not just based on one's concepts. Understanding here would require "direct experience" and not merely adopting some conclusions, beliefs, or notions that one likes. The "value" here would be the realness of the apprehension. And it can't be faked, intellectual or superficial, otherwise this kind of 'knowledge' is a moot point.