RendHeaven

Woah. That's really cool

I'm fully vaccinated Shifting the bell curve rightwards one by one

@VagosRespectfully, I feel like you missed the point of my earlier tirade I'm glad that you've made the relative-absolute distinction, but I can feel that you're still bound tightly to your conception of the relative, which I'm trying to loosen! Since I can tell that you care about truth, let's go deep. THIS DEPENDS ON YOUR FRAME OF REFERENCE. To some extent, I agree with you. But even then, you must in good faith ask yourself, "what are the boundaries of this so-called relative perspective?" Consider the possibility that what YOU consider to be a self-evident relative perspective shared by humanity is a projection. A total myth, in fact. Maybe from your frame of reference, in YOUR partial relative perspective, some claims are "more true" than other claims. But don't make the leap that YOUR partial relative perspective is somehow universal or absolute. You see this? You're implicitly claiming some things to be absolute under the guise/label of calling it "relative." You admit yourself that the Pythagorean theorem falls apart entirely if you step outside of Euclid's frame of reference, but I don't think you realize how easily you can throw aside Euclid's frame. There is nothing solid about his frame. More on this later. Please notice that my critique is going for the jugular. I'm not randomly stabbing in the dark. I see no epistemic blunders with your personal conclusions under your own perspective. The blunder I am seeing is the projection of these personal conclusions onto ALL relative perspectives. Let's go back to the silly argument example I posted earlier. Notice that to reach the wider conclusion of: "The statement was simultaneously innocent and hurtful" we had to step outside of both frames of Person A and Person B. If we locked into either individual frame, the conclusion would've been more narrow: "The statement was innocent" or "The statement was hurtful." Yes, from within the frame of Person A, "The statement was innocent, full stop" is true. Nobody is disputing that. But I'm showing you that you can literally throw aside the frame of Person A, and the conclusion changes. THIS IS THE CASE FOR ALL RELATIVE CONCLUSIONS - YES, INCLUDING SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS. It's actually the other way around. Absolute Truth is Certain and more or less Monolithic. It has no frame of reference, and so there is nothing to "step outside of." In many ways, it's more definitive than the partial. You know when you Know. Partial truths are ALWAYS uncertain and multi-faceted. These can NEVER be cemented as permanent structures other than by a fiercely imaginative mind that refuses to step outside of its own self-limitation. Again, yes. But then your mind makes the unfounded leap that all humans live inside of the partial bubble of Euclidean structures. And then you're tempted to prescribe geometry as ABSOLUTELY true "for all humans." And you'll concede that on some mythical cosmological level that Euclidean geometry is partial, but you'll adamantly defend that it still retains a nugget of truth for human purposes. Such defense is false! People live outside of Euclidean structures all the time. For example while you're having sex, feeling various warmth and moisture sensations all over your body, you have no conception of the Pythagorean theorem whatsoever. These structures literally cease to exist. You're in a whole new dimension of interfacing with reality. "But shapes still continue to be shapes even while I'm having sex and I'm not thinking about Euclid! As long as shapes are present, Euclidean geometry is running in the background!" Lol nope. For Euclidean geometry to function, you have to consciously imagine yourself stepping into the bubble of Euclid - i.e. suspending all of his axioms and each proposition one after another in the mind's eye and sincerely believing in their relative truth. Only then does Euclid become true in any sense. "But I haven't even read Euclid's Elements, and the Pythagorean Theorem is still true for me! Look, I can show you the squares on the triangle adding up right now, hand me a pen." See, but now you're dragging a whole slew of symbolic reasoning into this inquiry. You'll triumphantly draw the symbols "3, 4, 5" on the sides of a (symbolic) right triangle and show that 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 as though you've cemented a universality of humankind... and yet I ask you, to a man who has no conception of symbol, what "truth" is there in your scribbles? Such people do exist, by the way. The trap would be to insist that "oh those people are uneducated/mentally abnormal" or some excuse to that extent. The epistemically honest thing to do would be to admit that - "My system of understanding is specific to myself and those who share my axioms." Or in other words, if you really embodied the above realization in bold - when someone who doesn't share your axioms disputes you, you're able to laugh and embrace the novelty and distinct truth of their perspective. Lol Of course not. I'm advocating for you to develop a profound deconstruction OF YOUR OWN MIND AND YOUR OWN VALUES. Not of other people's minds. In fact, it's precisely the guy who hasn't fully deconstructed his own mind who would stop everyone and cause a commotion about "who should defuse the bomb." The guy who has fully deconstructed his own mind would just allow events to unfold. Agree. But please acknowledge that the value of opinions are arbitrary. These values come from you and your culture, and they are constantly prone to flux. There is nothing solid about them, as a matter of fact. All solidity is imagined within pre-accepted values, but the values themselves are LIQUID. I have a feeling that you might want to contend with some things I've said, so please lay them out if you have time! Remember, I'm explaining to this extent because I feel like you're on the precipice of letting go of knowledge structures - and trust me, the freedom, well-being, joy, and even TRUTH you experience afterwards are unspeakable. To be clear, "letting go" of knowledge structures does not mean you become dumb and mute and unopinionated. As you can tell, I am clearly opinionated. The difference between a soul that has and has not let go is that the soul which HAS "let go" sees through himself and all things he holds dear, and thus surrenders his arsenal of intellectual weaponry spontaneously and even willingly. And with nothing left to cling to or defend, this soul is free to receive anything and everything. I recognize in my own life when people are deluded and self-deceived and frankly "wrong." But I take great care to listen to, support, and even bear the perspective of these people. Typically, it's not worth my time. As Leo says, there are much better things that you could be doing. But nonetheless this is an area of maturity to master, because the alternative is to continue to be in argumentative "debate mode" until the day you drop dead. Which is an EVEN WORSE use of time!

Yes, I know what it's like for my male-ness to melt away; for my fierce desire for women to be replaced by a fierce desire for men. As long as there is identification with "my ego," I am straight and hetero as fuck. The moment "my ego" becomes see-through, there are no more boundaries or rules.

Oh man... A flat-out no is always NO! Not just for her sake, but also for your own. Don't you want a girl to actively and enthusiastically desire you? You wouldn't want someone to fake wanting you because you coerced them into it. Now to be fair, there are times when girls will playfully fake a "no" to play a cute back-and-forth game of tug of war with you. But usually when this happens, it's exceedingly obvious, and you're both "in" on it together - the air between you two is electric, her hands are on your body, and there's no doubt in your mind that she wants you. These are the times when you "push through." But don't mix this former example with a flat, disinterested "no." Unfortunately, men tend to assume that the situation is the former, when really it's the latter. So honestly I would advise you to assume that 100% of "no" means no while you're still learning to read the room.

There's a strong fragmentation in this statement - you are mentally splitting reality into two halves, identifying with & upholding one half (the "solid," the "structural," etc.) while dis-identifying with & shitting on the other half. Do you agree or disagree with my observation? If you admit that I might have a point, are you further willing to admit that maybe you haven't fully explored reality in an unbiased way, or will you insist that your contemplation work is a completed project? If you are truly a student of epistemology, you ought to be familiar with two central realizations: not-knowing, and relativity. I suggest you double down on your inquiries with not-knowing and relativity on the forefront of your mind. I suggest this precisely because I sense in all of your posts that you actually believe that you know [a thing], and you actually believe that your position on [the thing] is non-relative. Huge pitfall. If you truly understood not-knowing and relativity, you would actually smile and apologize when accused of 'mansplaining' instead of getting overheated and excessively expository, because you would realize that you don't even know what 'mansplaining' really is: Has it personally happened to you? How many times? Just once, or hundreds? Some women claim to experience it hundreds of times. Perhaps you have logic and dictionary definitions on your side, but even you must concede that women understand more than you on the level of personal experience. Do you know the string of complicated emotions that arise when you are the target of mansplaining? Many women do, intimately. What if the mansplainer doesn't actually realize that he is mansplaining, and this ignorance is a key feature of the phenomenon which women are trying to bring attention to? If this were the case, then your denial of mansplaining would actually be in favor of mansplaining. Are ya gonna deny that? What if it only seems unfalsifiable because you're looking at the phenomenon from within? e.g. - what if appeals to logic, argumentation, dictionary definitions, and narrative control (e.g. "being right," "being objective") are themselves components of mansplaining? Maybe to see mansplaining in full view, you need to literally stop arguing entirely, maybe you need to let go of the need to be right, and then the phenomenon reveals itself to you. I mean clearly many people see it happening, but you don't. So is everyone stupid and wrong, or are you just looking in the wrong places? And this is just a taste of what it's like to admit your not-knowing. Furthermore, notice that your standards of what a thing is are particular to YOU or your school of thought. Even if you appeal to what "the dictionary says," the contents of the dictionary must be interpreted, and your interpretation will be different than someone else's interpretation, and are you really arrogant enough to assert that your interpretation is the right one objectively? After all, by what criteria do you assert that you have "the right" interpretation? After honest reflection, you must admit that your criteria for right interpretation is particular/relative to YOUR frame of reference. This is a taste of relativity. Let's go one more step. Beyond the level of semantics and word games, there is the realization that the feminine lived reality literally sees the world differently from your masculine lived reality, and you actually have no "solid grounds" upon which to insist that your lived reality ought to be prioritized and upheld as true over theirs'. Take this example: maybe from your perspective, you nonchalantly say something condescending without realizing that you were hurtful, but to you it's really not a big deal. Meanwhile, to the person you were talking to, what you said was seriously hurtful. To you, it seems like they should just be less sensitive, I mean fuck it's really not a big deal dude it's literally just words! Get over yourself! But to the other person, it really feels like wow this guy has no regards for my emotional world at all - they're completely blind to their impact on others, they have no self-awareness beyond their own skin, and now they're blaming me for something they did, how the hell is this fair?? So I ask you now, who is "right?" Who has the objectively correct worldview? Before you try to get out a measuring tape where you try to discern how "objectively" hurtful a statement is, lemme just spoil for you that there is no such thing. In fact, both interpretations that we found above are valid when we realize the role of relativity in the way that reality unfolds. The statement was simultaneously innocent and hurtful. When you finally accept this paradox, you lose the will to "fight" over "being right," because no such thing exists anymore. And that's where your body-mind begins to taste freedom.

Totally normal.

I wonder what kind of things you were saying/doing (subtly or otherwise) that would get someone to accuse you of mansplaining? I appear strongly opinionated around my peers, but I am never accused of mansplaining.

@Logan you gonna be that role model one day?

lol

@soos_mite_ah Ok seriously you gotta stop being my twin ? Yes, yes, and yes. Material ownership + structural inflexibility in general just doesn't do it for me. A house is so obviously not something to want (for someone like me). No.

@Emerald Oh my god Emerald ? I'm so sorry. And thank you for taking the time to paint the picture so vividly.

???

Hey I just read your comment on soosmiteah's journal, and wanted to casually respond without derailing her journal... I hope it's ok if I post here? I think that this is the biggest issue that anybody with any great idea will face... Streaming/Video does not erase this problem in the slightest - even on twitch you'd be competing for eyeballs day in and out. I have a buddy who's been streaming his video game playthroughs on twitch for years now and only gets like 3 viewers per stream lol (now to be fair he's doing a lot of things unoptimally, but my point is that the struggle for eyeballs is universal and inescapable). This is fucked up but 100% valid lol. I've noticed a really interesting phenomenon (at least on this forum) where female members on average gain nearly double the followers as their male counterparts -per post count (ESPECIALLY if they have a face-shot in their profile image). I can only theorize, because the "facts" of this matter are vague, but I am guessing that female members effortlessly follow each other out of a sense of empathy and shared perspective, while male members will also follow female members because of pretty profile face shots. I mean there are girls on here with content post counts in the low 100s that already have almost 10 (majority male) followers, like dwarniel, barbara, jessichell, etc. They all have extremely high post-to-follower ratios! On the contrary, I find that women don't follow men as often due to a disconnect of perspective (not to mention that there are many many more men here, so if a woman is to follow a man it's more likely that they'd go for someone established like Nahm rather than a nobody with only 100 posts). In other words, I don't think it's possible for a new male here with no prior clout to replicate the high post-to-follower ratio of a semiattractive girl after just 100 posts, (unless each post was somehow GODLY in quality a la TJReeves or BeingFrankYang) and I think we can reasonably attribute this disparity in attention to visual appearance... All in all leads me to the half-baked conclusion that "looks," especially if you're a woman, is definitely a valid way to get your message more heard. That's not good or bad or right or wrong, it just is what it is...

Dear God this entire post speaks to my soul on a molecular level. My parents had the exact same parenting "strategy" as you're describing... and I've dealt with the same personality shadow that that produces. I'm determined to end the generational ignorance here and now: I'm prioritizing trust, acceptance, and love over "correct action" with any children I ever have responsibility for.

Smile with your eyes. Words come and go

@Flowerfaeiry yeah pretty much

I'm so relieved that you're gay lmao

Interesting... can you elaborate? This goes against conventional wisdom, do you think you can anticipate counterarguments and articulate why "emotions = logic" nonetheless?

I felt this especially with Leo's newest episode. His words mean nothing to those without Direct Experience. On the other hand, those with Direct Experience do not need Love to be "logically explained" to them Mm. Yes. Please chill though, I'm still mildly attached to my heterosexuality

Lol there just happens to be a new episode addressing this exact question... But long story short: Love = Acceptance. Acceptance = To Embrace. To Embrace (in the Highest sense), is to Contain Wholly. To Contain Wholly is to exclude nothing. God, as All Things, excludes nothing, and thereby Contains Wholly (All Things). Therefore, through simple substitution, we arrive at the insight that God (as All Things) literally equals (The Highest) Love.

~~imagination~~

lol

@MatteO22 You seem to have a giant shadow against submission. Consider that submission (coming from a pure heart) IS ultimate feminine empowerment, but I don't believe you recognize this since you work so hard to denounce and disown it. Not to mention that you made the connection between submissiveness and inferiority, to which I say, "says who?" Be careful of conflating the full scope of submissiveness with our stupid cultural notions of submissiveness. At the highest level, all finitude submits and surrenders to Infinity, and such an act of submission is Greater than any petty human domination. Likewise, all degrees and gradations of human submissiveness mimic this Divine Process (some degrees and gradations more pure than others). When one realizes this, there is no room left to ascribe "inferiority."

To "come to [any] conclusions" IS to define. Without first defining (explicitly or otherwise), there is no thing of which to make a conclusion out of. So you can't really separate definition from conclusion, which you seem to want to do. It's like you're saying: "better to draw a square that isn't a quadrilateral." --- But maybe I'm being overly technical, I feel I understand what you mean to say