RendHeaven

That's a little redundant and circular

Holy shit that's golden What a lovely distraction

Your question already assumes "people." That is an imaginary boundary. God won't be found in your imaginary boundaries.

Are you kidding?? The sunset is one of the most amazing forms you can witness in nature! I agree that it has a sense of finality, ending, or even decay. But I find that flawlessly beautiful. It makes me want to cry happy tears when in the right mood. It reminds me that all of my hustle and goal setting is a myopic game. Isn't it interesting how we attribute the same meanings to the sunset, except that I find it tranquil whereas you do not? I think it's hilarious that you could be DEPRESSED about it, but hey. That's just my perspective

@LastThursday It could be said that everything is fantasy, and therefore to measure it is redundant and circular. Working within a framework of relativity however, you could also choose to measure "amount of fantasy" by how many stories are ignorantly layered on top of one another. Anyway, if we are working with the latter premise, I would say that yes, sexual relationships on average involve more ignorant stories than friendships. Ignorant stories are woven to preserve identities and avoid loss. Culturally and individually, we choose to place a lot more significance in sexual relationships over friendships for various reasons. (Too many reasons to go over in one post!) Bottom line is, it's VERY easy to create an identity out of sexual relationships. Almost impossible not to, actually. Once you do that, you've got a lot of defending and preserving to do. And many stories must be told to avoid loss: "baby we're meant for each other!" "I love you!" Friendships tend to lack this particular flavor of delusion.

@Pouya Read my responses in this thread whenever you have time. It might take a little effort on your part because I wrote quite a bit, but part of asking questions is sifting through large answers

You're thinking about reincarnation the wrong way. You can't really think about it either, by the way, because the mind will start to pick out "individual people" and imagine that there is something tucked away within each individual that will find itself in another body given time. That is all misconception. Your question is fundamentally unanswerable because you have too many assumptions about the way reincarnation works, none of which are True.

HAHAHA If you absolutely insist on nailing every single word of your script as well as showing your face (and eye contact), then yes perhaps look into the technology. But as Leo says, showing your face in a rehearsed video tends to become unrelatable... we can tell you're raking your mind for the next word! That's not engaging. We want expressiveness and emotion! Fuck up for once and say "whoops." I'm more likely to subscribe to you for that than if you were to deliver a flawless robotic speech

Aw cummon give us a link! To answer your question: it totally depends on how articulate you are when free-associating. If you suck at having a focused point without the aid of a script, don't shoot yourself in the foot. Play to your strengths. A good place to start might be to strike a compromise. Have the script in your head, but give yourself leeway so that you are not strict about nailing every single word.

@LastThursday @Uncover The game of relationships is pure fantasy. Since the whole point of this fantasy is that you play your respective roles for their benefits, you must then go ahead and reinforce it (for example, with quirky compliments) - that is, if it's in your interest to have the fantasy flourish. You really have no place to say to your woman: "Hey! Stop wanting fantasy!" You both chose fantasy the moment the relationship was conceived. In many ways the whole charade is unsettling if you fancy yourself a Truth-seeker. To partake in the relationship, you must delude yourself into thinking she's special. There's no Truth to be found in such a thought. Nevertheless, many who seek Truth (such as I) opt to dip their toes into this arena of fantasy, fully conscious of its imaginary nature. I find it rather silly sometimes when I start telling my woman about how special she is - whenever I say such a thing (and I do it a lot ), I am simultaneously 100% truthful and 100% lying. It's not my place to shatter the fantasy in the name of "Truth," or to insist that she become realistic. That would kill the game and there's no fun in that.

@Salvijus I don't think that's quite True. These practices and states are not mutually exclusive, and the line between them is arbitrary. They dovetail in many ways, and to call one practice or state superior (in your words, "higher") is ironically only tenable in the realm of relativity. And even then, I could technically rebut you by saying that ranking "pure awareness" above "no-self realization" on the basis that the former involves NO desires while the latter DOES involve desire is only true insofar as you believe that desires should not be had. But that would be a silly debate, really. My only point here is that there's no Truth in rankings.

@whoareyou Would you say that romantic love is "real?"

What's your frame of reference?

HAHAHA LOL

This is very very true. ~95% of girls (just a guess) have genuine crippling anxiety, and maybe over half of them also have a slew of other issues on top of that: body image issues, food issues, loneliness issues, acceptance issues, abandonment issues, sexual abuse trauma, sexuality complications, bipolar-esque behavior, poor family life, poor financial situation, addictions, etc. This is completely normal, and certainly not exclusive to women. Men have just as many issues on average, though they tend to experience depression more than anxiety (and numbness more than strong polarizing emotions). Nonbinary folks have a nice juicy blend of all of that with the added pressure of fitting in with the demands of society. And I haven't even mentioned distracting activities and thoughts. Ain't humanity lovely Now, the key insight though is that stable people (and thereby women) actually DO exist! Maybe like 5% of women actually have their shit together or are at least actively structuring their lives to eliminate dysfunction. So the real question is not whether or not they exist; but rather, are YOU someone who deserves to be with one of these high-functioning women?

Next step is self inquiry:

@Leo Gura What was your first psychedelic ever, LEO?

I don't question the idea that individually and collectively, it is most appropriate to ask the question “what action(s) are most likely to promote well-being and reduce suffering”? This seems rather correct, given that most people prefer not to suffer What I do question, though, are the many assertions you make about the nature of Reality. Specifically, the notions of "suffering," "experience/consciousness," and "I/me" seem underdeveloped. 1) You say this as if to say: "The ego identification is merely the one choosing to dislike the experience. The thing which actually does the suffering is the consciousness/experience! When suffering occurs, it is woven into the fabric of consciousness/experience." Really? You don't know that. That is an unchecked assumption. It's good that you acknowledge the possibility that with the elimination of identification, perhaps suffering entirely vanishes. If this possibility were True, that would mean that suffering is NOT woven into the fabric of consciousness/experience, for consciousness/experience is prior to identification. This whole conversation - and your entire proposal for moral realism - hinges on how suffering comes to be. Don't take your foot off this pedal. You must ask, "what IS suffering?" Here's a hint: "an experience of discomfort or stress" - or anything along those lines - is NOT what suffering is existentially. Such a definition describes suffering in terms of other words, which gets you no closer to its substance. All you have is alphabet soup. Here's a good starting point: for suffering to occur, there must be identification. No identification, no suffering. That is my claim. Now, THIS goes beyond alphabet soup! Don't just believe me... check for yourself. Of course, you must further ask, "what IS identification?" and then the hydra has suddenly grown another head. But you see, that's exactly right... because this hydra has been here the whole time. You've simply been ignoring it 2) Yeah no shit, PAIN still occurs! Enlightenment isn't a big Ibuprofen pill Make sure you grasp that suffering and pain are not the same thing. They have many overlaps, but it IS possible to experience one without the other. You can suffer without experiencing any pain. (Think: a breakup, the death of a loved one, or deep loss of any kind) You can also experience pain and not suffer. (Think: working out hard and getting in that last rep while lactic acid eats your limbs - painful as SHIT, but feels good!) If you were to torture the Buddha, he would scream in agony. But he would not suffer. Why? Because suffering is subjective. It is not etched in the bedrock of consciousness/experience. At least, that's my claim! Investigate this. 3) Here's the big-bad metaphysical slip! You imagine that you are an "I," trapped within a human meat-bag, looking out into the "physical world" from somewhere within the skull. You imagine that this "I" possesses an "experience" which can either be happiness-flavored, neutral-flavored, or suffering-flavored; and that's just the way Reality is designed. Well, if this were the case, you could clearly assign the suffering to an individual such that if I were to ask "who suffers?" you could easily point to your skull and say "I!" Totally not a projection or interpretation However, IF what you fundamentally are on an existential level turns out NOT to be some form of "I," trapped within a human meat-bag, looking out into the "physical world" from somewhere within the skull, we run into a problem. Who suffers? Notice that you cannot quite say that YOU suffer unless you are crystal clear as to who you ARE. Who even are you? "Body" is insufficient. "Brain" is insufficient. "Mind" is insufficient. "Soul" is insufficient. Even "Consciousness" and "Experience" are insufficient. These things are all alphabet soup. Again, this whole conversation hinges on how suffering comes to be. The problem is, we don't even know what suffering is. Furthermore, we don't even know who we are so we cannot say who suffers. To add insult to injury, what the hell is an experience anyway? You realize how much we take this thing for granted? Why is there phenomena at all? Close your eyes. Now open them. Notice that you made everything go black for a second. Huh? Don't explain this away by citing some theory about the optic nerve. All scientific theories are merely correlation. Correlation is not causation. What is the cause for all these colors? Don't you ever wonder that? No, it's not pigments or light waves. There is no reason that a wavelength of 700 nm should equate to the experience of redness. It would be a mistake to throw up your hands and just go with what APPEARS to be true. You say that suffering = experience. I say DIG DEEPER! 4) If only it were that simple. Oftentimes suffering occurs in reaction to events that are out of our control. Let's say your mother dies. So, you self reflect, and acknowledge that you suffered... and... well, you can't really resolve to not have your mom die again, can you? So "morality," in this sense of "which action should one aspire toward," is more than strictly the manipulation of events. Counter-intuitively, by attempting to micromanage events in order to mitigate suffering, you will suffer more! The battle to end suffering is largely done between you and yourself, alone, without anything to do. Anyway, to wrap up. Let's say I have a knife and I'm free to stab you. Should I do that? Probably not. Why? Because that would most likely cause unnecessary suffering. Why prevent suffering? Because I'm really not a fan. I think this is a fair way to view morality. If I can prevent suffering, I will choose to do so precisely for the reason that I dislike suffering myself. That is my personal, subjective moral stance. Is there any "realism" here? Any objectivity? Yes? No? Actually, it doesn't matter. Because whatever answer you give, there is still existential investigation to do!

@Bill W ZOINKS my dude chill! No need to murder him he needs to be alive for the bomb viewing

I am most confused about the various facets of the Absolute - and that you claim to know them without a doubt. You say reality is exactly the way it is for a reason - that being, "Absolute Love." Each hair on your arm is precisely the way it is for the sake of Absolute Love. ...What?? At my current stage of development, Absolute Not-Knowing is King. If anything can be known, it is that I do not know. And I would like to end it there, but I can intuit that such a stance is limiting. So I have to be open to the possibility that actually I CAN Know. But I can't really know that either. So amidst this profound ignorance, I have also had profound experiences of Reality-Loving. It's impossible to describe. I recall once showering and breaking down in tears because the water running down my body was LOVE. Not the word "love," nor the idea of it, nor the conventional conditional bartering of affection, but the water was just IT. Not even "water." It felt so personal, and I had so much gratitude. (Not in the sense that, "Oh bless this water for providing for me," but rather a gratitude that the water was being itself) I've more or less begun to accept that Absolute Love is an essential aspect of Reality. But to say that Absolute Love is the REASON for which Reality IS? My instinct is to say "You don't KNOW that!" Could it not be the case, rather, that everything is for the sake of being itself, (ultimately without reason) and that Love is the expression/manifestation of this reason-less-ness? You could wave away this question by merely saying that the words "Reality" and "Love" are interchangeable, but then why stress that everything is for the sake of Love? Why Oh Why? I feel like it's right there at the tip of my tongue, but I just don't got it. How is it that you've got it?

I see. Fantastic answer. I think in the back of my mind I am still wrestling to have both going at the same time. Must contemplate more!

@cetus56 Haha, not yet! I'm still 20. I was asking that question from the POV of my cousin. He's the one to congratulate This is so fascinating. How do you reconcile the Stillness of the Eternal NOW with the fact that you've watched your daughter grow so much? Do you have to reground yourself every time you imagine the progression of time? Or do you let yourself fantasize, knowing that dualistic thinking is part of life's pleasures?

@cetus56 Gotcha

@Inliytened1 Yes I'm aware. But can you maintain that resolve when a loved one dies in front of your eyes? I don't think this is something that can be hand-waved away so easily, even after realizations of oneness. It's a total mindfuck, especially because your ego may want to grieve and your ideas about "oneness" might prevent you from being authentic in that moment.

@kieranperez Do you insist that your question goes beyond language, imagery, and symbols? Dissolve these and you no longer have a question. In fact, this could be said of all questions in this thread, although the way in which these symbols are dissolved differ from question to question. @cetus56 Am I being discouraged from answering certain questions? It's hard to tell. This particular one about gravity caught my interest, as I used to hold the same question in the past. Anyway, now that you ask: I do indeed have a question! "But Leo, how could you say that I was never born? I just watched my baby daughter being conceived, are you denying that this is how human beings come to be?"