Carl-Richard

No.

Sensitivity is a gift.

Is this a surprise?

Then again, I will refer you to cyanide and other natural poisons. Do they produce epiphanies? There is no correlation there.

Weed

- Frank Zappa

The same you justify taking a natural drug: how dangerous is it?

Intrinsic health needs to be developed, and you develop it by enhancing your Being and Meaning. It's really too simple to make an image out of, but I just felt like making it anyway Np. Thank you very much!

Therein lies your problem. Emotions have a function which is to direct attention and energy outwards towards a task in the environment (in your case aggression towards a person). You're used to directing the energy inwards and into the mind where you create fantasies of revenge, which is not productive or healthy. When any emotion arises, grab the oppurtunity to solve the problem it is trying to address. Of course be civilized about it. I'm not advising you to commit violent acts.

You're stuck on normie solipsism.

If you don't have any of these traits, you're not human. It's about degrees.

@DocWatts I listened to a long conversation she had with Destiny, which is probably the most entertaining conservation I've ever heard. I had the same thoughts as you, but I'm not sure either way. Nevertheless, she was my inspiration for the topic about the relativity of meta-lenses

Good for you.

Yeah I don't like death.

When you get disrespected, do you voice your concerns to this person or do you say nothing?

"The relative self keeps existing but you're not identified with it" is an accurate statement, but it doesn't capture the seriousness of the situation. It makes it seem like it's something trivial that you can shrug off. No, from the perspective of the relative self who transitions into this state, it feels like absolute death, and the ramifications are obvious: you will be dead forever and you will never come back, or even more accurately, you will be perpetually dying. Of course the upshot to that means immense bliss and peace, but it's by no means a joke. You're framing it as a failure to communicate while it's more a difference of emphasis. Enlightenment is not a joke. When you're given the opportunity to surrender, the question of dating or not dating should've been decided a long time ago.

and I'm saying it literally stops you from dating. You can't date when you're dead.

The premise of "doing" itself doesn't make sense when you're in a state of non-doership. When you can't do anything, you can't date. Simple as that Even if you read 500 books on spirituality and you don't wake up, you will still ask questions. This is why Nahm's style of communication is unironically genius.

I just think it's impressive that Jan Esmann remembers several thousand years back

"Hey, can I tie you up and rape you if I massage you respectfully?"

Do you acknowledge that triggering a physiological defence mechanism in an animal is inherently stressful or is that just my Western evolutionism talking?

Your life is desire. Undesire is death.

Nothing wrong about it. It's just that if you want to be sure that you're going to fulfill your dating desires, you should do that before permanently checking out of your mind. Enlightenment is to exit that game altogether (of fulfilling stuff). If you try to check out without fulfilling or dropping your desires, you will recoil in fear and cause needless trauma. When you're living in a persistent state of immense ego dissolution, "should I date" or "should I not" isn't even possible.

I don't understand dogcentrism.