SOUL

I completely missed this message from you because of the way the notifications lumped two from two different together. I can truly say truth is not a requirement for well being. The rest of what you said is that very same ego archetypal thinking you imagine that is so often simply the ego referencing about the past just like you self professed in your recalling about your past. You initially came to me this time, you are begging for my attention and gleefully celebrating in it...like I'm playing fetch with a dogma.

Thank you for appearing when I needed evidence of my example....your synchronicity in the universe is amazing.

I'm living rent free and playing with your dogma.

Please quote yourself asking me to clarify what I meant I honestly never saw you ask anything like that. Clarify what though? My first comment about happy feeling social media influencers? I'm going to guess you think maybe I picked that example on purpose to slight women? No? Or maybe you are suggesting I have some unconscious bias because I picked the feelings example? I genuinely chose that example for brevity in an already lengthy message but I guess I'm not afraid of words so am I a secret sexist? hm Well, I have another example with the intellectual mumbo jumbo merchants. It may be tougher to sniff out because they appear intelligent but they have been peddling the same handful of simple archaic concepts that have been regurgitated mindlessly for millennia. That story would have required more meandering to finally get back home with the point but maybe not, who knows, apparently I don't. Actually, intellectualizing seems less genuine than feelings, at least feelings have a useful purpose in human socialization but that esoteric bullshitting is just self glorifying story telling acting like some enlightened guru wisdom. Hey, that kinda sounds like....nah, I couldn't mean him....or could I? hmmm So, if that isn't what you wanted clarity on my meaning then just indicate what it is and I'll do what I can.

Most aren't greedy but yea, everyone is a little selfish. Yet tribes lived cooperatively for hundreds of thousands of years before capitalism ever came along so greed was kept in check through close personal interactions. What really is the problem is that there are a small percentage of people that really are greedy, not just selfish actually do anything even at the expense of others greed. That is a trait which could be viewed as toxic to community and intolerant of it. That small percentage pollute the social interactions enough it inflames others that would be just casual selfish before the instigation happens then in turn empower the greed mindset in themselves after. One might consider it a viral impulse. Although, capitalism is the perfect environment for this to happen then just add in a unhealthy dose of influential media and the sense of community is toast. Capitalist greed feeds the sense of egoself more than community does, sure.

All I have done is attack? Ok, well pardon me for whatever it is you think I have done I intend no ill will. Peace

The rage that rises from out of nowhere spontaneously is only a suggestion from the past to believe and behave that one is angry about something....anything....everything. It wants us to believe it and if we do we are feeding the kindling of present being into the fire of past rage. I aint got time fo dat... Ghost the past

"Love is like oxygen You get too much you get too high Not enough and you're gonna die Love gets you high." Sweet!

Don't confuse the relative experience of mind with the absolute experience of mind. Transcend the relative experience of mind to expand awareness to the absolute and it will be aware of the moon existing when the relative doesn't.

@Matthew85 Yep, we could say that to the perspective of the relative things appear and disappear in awareness through attention directed but through the absolute attention is everywhere, all the time. Which is why expanding our awareness beyond the relative, transcending the limited relative perspective allows one to be aware of that absolute awareness, of the infinite perspective so to say.

One can believe it's absolute truth that the fast approaching train won't hurt even though they are standing on the tracks but I guess the train's belief that it will splatterfy the soft, fleshy creature in front of it is truer? Ah...ok, you are the train and the train is you so it's simply an exercise in the absolute unity of all one can experience in the relative....nevermind. This. The notion that things don't exist when not observing them is an inconsistency of this solipsistic ideology as expressed currently. How can the relative be in control of the manifest when it is a product of the absolute? This is why it would be more accurate to suggest that everything exists even though the relative isn't observing it because the absolute is always observing. The relative just may not be aware of the omnipresent absolute observation. I fully expect this reasoning to be adopted by the solipsists because it actually addresses a main criticism of the ideology.

After reading this top post I took a moment to contemplate the nature of group think and sought to break from the preconceived notions I may have about it. I had an insight that we may have an underlying acknowledgment of our oneness and since we are social animals that this oneness could be expressed in a collectivizing around ideas, concepts and beliefs. So in a way the sense of 'social self' is created from our intuitive knowing of oneness and is formed through the social nature of humans playing out in groups or in a previous incarnation of human socialization, in tribes. Although, as we are well aware the stronger the crystallization of self, even a social self, the more it forms an identity that will block the light-enment and cast a shadow. The shadow of social self can manifest all sorts of limited perspectives and unhealthy behavior. Ideally it would be preferable to cultivate the connected sense of oneness without it materializing as a social self that casts a shadow on the consciousness of those involved so creates a separation from others that may not aligned with the group of thinkers. Just a thought, not sure how helpful it is.

The notion that everything is only imaginary...is only imaginary. Our interaction with everything including our own self takes place in the field of awareness in the mind, we have no direct access to it other than it's appearance in our mind. People have used this to suggest that means everything is only imaginary. I myself have suggested that imaginary and imagination aren't the same thing for a lack of a more suitable word for the dynamic of our interaction with everything happening in the field of awareness. It seems to me that there is confusion created with the use of the words imaginary and imagination for what mystics and spiritualists use it for the our perception of the physical manifest. Materialists won't accept consciousness as anything more than a byproduct of physical matter no matter what word is used while many mystics view physical matter as a byproduct of consciousness. I don't know if this philosophical rift can ever be resolved so I would suggest just be at peace with whichever way you view it and try to avoid stirring conflict with those who view it differently.

As I understand it now I made some comments, the point of my comments were about society as a whole and with nothing to do about sex or gender. You interpreted one piece of my comments as sexist in some way lumping it in with other people's comments. I clarified my comment had nothing to do with sex or gender and your reply to it was about having a softer touch with a masculine mind....on a comment that was misinterpreted in a way I didn't intend it to be and it had no indications it even implied it to be that way. So I feel like you are continuing to engage me in a discussion about something I still don't quite understand what it is we are discussing and because I don't understand, you think I've been sexist, overly dismissive and avoiding 'service to well being'. I have made repeated efforts to ask for clarification and explanation so I can better understand and yes, serve well being but all I get is accusations of being disingenuous...my word not yours but that's what it seems like. It certainly is an eye opener. Genuinely, my apologies if I have offended.

I'm trying to understand what you meant by saying "Sometimes the softer touch is needed in conjunction with the masculine mind to have a fully well-rounded sense of "wellbeing" that you always talk about." and not having much success in connecting it to what I originally said that you have taken offense to. Maybe if you could explain this a little bit to help me understand instead of just continuing to accuse me of sexist behavior. I would appreciate a little help in understanding what it is you think I said and how your response applies to it because the short sentence towards it isn't enough for me to get it, I apologize for this.

Can you please explain it to me because for me to respond to the merits I would have to understand what you meant. I don't understand what you are talking about so please pardon me for being so dense, have patience with me.

I'm still not sure what you are talking about.

Actually Albert Einstein is quantum...he's only matter when you are looking at him but when you aren't he's in wave form.

I hope you aren't referring to me because I did happen to use that phrase in my reply but I made no mention of sex, gender or anything of the sort. If you interpreted it that way it's not something I said or intended to say.

Something I have noticed, at least in the U.S., the past 20 years or so there has been a growing disinterest in the general population for uplifting each other. Sure, we have the artificial sweetener happy feeling types across social media but it's rarely encouraging people to well being and more about posting quotes and just feelings. Much of the 'improvement' and 'actualizing' centers around materialist pursuits like career, money, stuff and appearances. It's an obsession with the trophy life. Not to mention this so often is accompanied with being 'better' through comparison where the in group is good and the out group is bad. Though, it's so obvious how people are self suffering and seeking relief from the misery with so many flocking to the growing self help field and interest in spirituality. Yet even much of that seems to be focused more on materialist solutions and becoming an acolyte of a belief system, therapeutic process, group or person. While the dumbing down of every aspect of socialization to the lowest common denominator has always been an issue of human interactions it seems especially prevalent currently.

I appreciate you sharing yours as well, it's quite revealing.

An exchange of words, concepts.....of stories.... Why are you distracting from the question? If you believe everything is story then you exhibit belief in the ego when it tells you that everything is the story because to the ego, there isn't anything but the story since that is all it has and it wants justification for it's story, it wants your belief in it's story. Who is it that would believe in the story? This is (psyche)logical proof that there is more than the story in our experience of consciousness otherwise one agent of consciousness wouldn't seeking something, belief, from another agent of consciousness. This is the description of how one 'frees' the will....it's not limited to just the story the ego tells. We can choose to believe any story, even one we create or even not to believe in a story. We can just accept what is as it is and allow stories to be guides, not our identity.

...but can you tell the difference between 'what is' and the story about it? Can you tell the distinction in consciousness between the ego, the story teller, and awareness, the observer to which the ego is telling it's story to? You haven't demonstrated in our exchange that you do.

Is it predetermined whether there will popcorn for the movie?

The 'happening of existence' is just isness unfolding, it just is, but me telling you about it is the story. Happening is manifest being but a story isn't actually happening, it's being told. The happening of a story is the telling of the story. The ego uses symbols and meanings for the interpretations it makes in telling it's story but for whom is the story being told in our consciousness? It is awareness that observes the story telling in our consciousness. Our perception in awareness can be aware of more than just what the interpretations of ego in the mind. The teller is adding it's commentary based on past experience yet awareness observes the happening as it unfolds including the story telling in it. Sure, the story of all existence may be in the story being told by the ego in god's mind yet again for whom is the story being told in god's consciousness? Which prompts my ego to reminds the mind of that story about how it's turtles all the way down. Does god believe the stories being told in it's own mind? Who is it that believes the story in god's own mind? Hah God is just being I am just being. The irony is not lost on me that all I have written here is story...I like turtles.