RendHeaven

Member
  • Content count

    1,696
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RendHeaven

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    ๅƒใฎ้ขจ
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

6,449 profile views
  1. Interesting case of prioritizing survival over truth.
  2. Your algorithm-optimization is really noticeable on this one! Your success is inevitable if you keep strategizing in this way ๐Ÿ‘€
  3. that's like asking how a kale salad and a chocolate cake are different. "but they both go in your mouth so they're the same right?"
  4. the only thing you need imo is a pullup bar. Easy to find one at your local park
  5. I don't give a shit about this topic, I'm not even commenting with any of this in mind - But I just feel compelled to point out that "going by data" IS a personal bias. Contemplate this seriously. If you'd like me to say more, lmk and I'd be glad to. If you dismiss this, you're the one losing potential growth.
  6. Unironically based. Nailed it bro you pulled out a fucking graph ๐Ÿ’€๐Ÿ’€๐Ÿ’€
  7. Quick piece I wrote yesterday~ Evanescent_Ending_Theme.mp3 Evanescent_Ending_Theme.pdf
  8. At 4:50 he brings up the eraser, and in a deafening FLASH it was instantaneously clear to me how there is Absolutely no difference between lowercase-c creation and destruction, such that everything is capital-C Construction. I'd like to just take a second to jot down some of this insight before finishing the video. Of course, I fully expect Leo to reiterate this back to my face. But in case he doesn't... It's as simple as this: When using an eraser on a pencil mark, our biased sense-making interprets that activity as one of destruction, since we presume that the pencil line was "created" and "locked in," so to speak, such that when we see the pencil line being un-done it's easy to see this as un-creating, undoing the locked-in status of the pencil line. And yet, if the entire page was encased entirely in a uniform pencil shading (such that it was black), and we started taking an eraser to this, our biases can be tricked - suddenly we see that we can start DRAWING with the eraser (utilizing what artists would call negative space). How is this possible? In one case, the eraser seemed objectively destructive, but by shifting the starting point of our inquiry, the eraser seemed to become objectively creative. Where's the "dividing line" between these two eraser functions? At what point is the eraser destructive, and at what point is it constructive? Well clearly, in neither case is the adjective "objective," and there is no dividing line between the two eraser functions. In a certain sense, the eraser only really ever does one thing, and that is Creation with a capital C. The key is to notice that in example #1 we assumed that the pencil markings were "created" and "locked in," capable of being undone. In example #2 this wasn't so clear, since the pencil markings were so uniform, causing the whole page to be black, our biases didn't register how that was "created" or "locked in," rather we interpreted this as a blank canvas. Thus in example #1, we assumed a form to preserve, and as we watched it changing, we assumed destruction was happening. In example #2, we did not register any form to preserve, and so when we watched it changing, we assumed creation was happening. This is just the easy part, though. Nonetheless it is key in seeing how there is literally no difference between the duality of creation and destruction, and that furthermore all things whatsoever are Creative. To see the shockwave ramifications of this simple eraser thought-experiment, extend the objects outwards to your real experience: The bomb, for example. We think dropping a nuke on Japan is "objectively" destructive, but who's to say? We only assume this destructive nature, because we presume much like the pencil and eraser, that the city-structure with its human inhabitants are "creative," locked-in, and hence capable of being un-created or un-done. But what if we saw the city-structure with its human inhabitants as a canvas? Blank, waiting for creativity to make its mark, not capable of being "un-done" in any way? Well then, flattening the city would actually be like making a "negative space" art piece with an eraser! Of course! This is so obvious. But do you dare to see it? Your mind won't let you see this if you're attached to human survival. Let's go more esoteric - the destruction of a relationship for example (hah, fitting for this journal dontcha think ) When to lovers decide to part ways, we humans tend to assume, through sheer myopia, that this is a destructive act - for once again, it seems like "what once was there no longer is there" - i.e. being together seemed to be creative, locked-in, and hence capable of being un-created or un-done. ... But what if we saw the union of two people as a canvas? Blank, waiting for creativity to make its mark, not capable of being "un-done" in any way? Well then, splitting two people apart would actually be like making a "negative space" art piece with an eraser! Of course! This is so obvious. But do you dare to see it? Your mind won't let you see this if you're attached to the lopsided narrative that coming together is the only way to create. Conversely, can you see something like pottery as destructive (in a relative sense - since nothing is Absolutely destructive)? From a certain biased POV (which most of us don't hold), the unmolded clay could've been said to be a creative formed whole, but molding it into a teacup would be destroying that "pure" mound. But this is hard to see because teacups provide us with utility and familiarity while a mound of mush seems useless. So actually, any creative act can be recontextualized as destructive, and any destructive act can be recontextualized as creative... and Ultimately, this whole process is simply Infinite Creation. There is no destruction, it's just one State after another spawning back-to-back by sheer Magic.
  9. You have a cute face ๐Ÿ’€ I fiercely want to give you a fresh cut though. One of my favorite emotions ๐Ÿ‘€ Don't sleep on it!
  10. These quotes are chillingly accurate to how my ex gf felt when we broke up over a year ago (I know because she and I talked about it). "What happened?" is exactly how I feel. In my case, my instinct was to take the "fault," to assume that I just wasn't good enough. And last year, that is how I reacted (you can still see all that in my actualized public journal lmao). e.g. I could've been more honest in my communication, encouraging more mutual independence so that we weren't just codependent blobs; I could've been more playful and leading in all endeavors, whisking her away on adventures, playful in the sense of never taking her for granted (I find that unplayfulness happens when I assume a sort of complacent expectancy about her existing in my life); or even further, sometimes I'd attempt a sort of playfulness but it was only to get a sort of validating/affirming reaction out of her to make myself feel good, i.e. in those moments I was thinking more about leeching love off of her than sharing the love that I am; going even deeper/darker, I noticed that I was the "daddy" mostly in-name - I had the social role of "provider" and the role of dominant in bed, and yet there were (in hindsight really shocking) moments of me treating her like she was "mommy." And maybe if we communicated clearly about this and if she expressed that this was to her liking, that wouldn't have been a problem, but unfortunately it seems that her soul wanted me to be her emotional "rock," (and for the most part I wanted this too!) and I spent about 90% of our time together "being there for her," but then that would eventually overwhelm me and I would no longer be able to act like a "rock," but more like play-dough. And when I was like play-dough, I would come crawling to her like a child. And then she would see me being play-dough 10% of the time, and that would seriously damage her trust in me; "why are you using me for emotional support? don't you see that I need support?" - and from that position I'm basically in check-mate. If I fake emotional stability "for her sake," she detects my fakery and feels unloved; if I say that I need emotional support more than her (honestly), she still feels unloved because I'm choosing my needs over her and she feels used; and if I explain to her in detail that "I need this time for my own healing because I've spent 90% of my energy supporting you until now" now she feels blamed/guilty and starts spiraling into lack of love, not to mention how one-sided my explanation is, and the more I talk (mansplain, really) the more disconnected she feels. And of course, if I just "let her be, to solve her own issues," this still leads to her feeling unloved even if I try to frame it lovingly and ~spiritually~. I've tried "just listening" as well, but usually in this checkmate situation she remains closed off and uncommunicative. She wants me to open her heart for her (and I don't blame her for this, usually I would gladly do this!) but I can only do that as a rock, as "daddy," not as a slimy glob of play-dough, not as a starving child. And when she sees me utterly checkmated like that (very unsexy - I mean frankly, how dare I act like her dominant after being psychologically dismantled by her so effortlessly!), from there onwards it seems that she would doubt that I was ever a rock. She didn't trust any face I put on, even my honest face. (I hope that made sense haha - a little dramatic, but true to my past experience. It might seem strange that I'm suggesting men and women in love are in a psychic DUEL as though it were a game of chess, but doesn't that seem right somehow? Pretty sure David Deida said something like: women test men hoping that the men will overcome these tests. This way y'all feel like you can trust us. But when we men crumble against the psychological test, you women begins to feel unsafe, unloved, and the spark dies) and on and on. To this day I think my reflections are still valid, and I have worked (and am still working) to be "a bigger man" (psychologically/spiritually). But certainly I'm realizing now that she was no angel: that she had a sort of black hole in her soul which lured me into codependency so hypnotically (and keep in mind she was a psychologically/spiritually "advanced" soul. Easily SD stage yellow, had the innate compassion of a goddess. Yet even she was susceptible to being an emotional black-hole) I'm still unable to answer the full picture of "what happened?" because there are so many small factors stacking up over time, and though I've spelled out most of my personal shortcomings, it's clear to me now that we both played a part; it wasn't just one or the other of us. Lemme know if you ever figure out the esoteric mystery of "what happened." If not, maybe in 200 years a team of scientists will have a breakthrough discovery LOL All of this to say, you're not alone - not in any human sense at least
  11. I understand this so well. I suspect ALL egos encounter this sort of haunting loneliness out of self-neglect, it's just that the neglect runs so deep that most of us don't even realize that this is happening. Some of us are just fortunate enough to be forced to drop the self-neglect by painful circumstance. It's a fundamentally inexpressible experience, to realize you've been turned away from yourself this whole time, and to finally reorient. The catharsis of realizing that I'm allowed to direct love at... myself!! Oh man! Unlocking this valve is like hacking life. It makes any previous external validation/affirmation/love-seeking goal look so silly (and yet you have perfect compassion for these past behaviors as well). It seems that this experience is inexpressible because talking about it to "others" subtly shifts you off-orientation once again, from Whole Singularity to fragmented duality. Though you could argue from a nondual standpoint that there is no distinction between sound and silence, I find for myself (at least for now) that Self-Love is dozens, if not hundreds of times stronger when it is allowed to be implicitly (as opposed to explicitly). Self-Love is a non-flashy phenomenon. From the outside it looks like nothing. As you actualize Self-Love, nobody will really "get" what's happening to you, even if they catch a whiff of it intuitively. This makes us all the more lonely in a fleshly sense. But paradoxically this is the most Whole and Fulfilled we will ever be. To be so lonely to the point that we're infinitely connected, together, and happy. Such a Noble, Intelligent, and Beautiful endgame.
  12. Yeah you can really feel this energy when you go to one of their events. There's a sort of collective implicit idol worship that just feels so greasy. The way Owen gets you to eagerly and enthusiastically throw money at him as though it was your idea and free will (hah) is pitiful.
  13. go out and find out