RendHeaven

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    3,000

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RendHeaven

  7. Posted

    I'm 21. Played violin from age 4-17 and was in one of the most elite youth orchestras in America.

    I quit because it simply was not fun to practice anymore. All of my goals were manufactured by my parents and teachers. Not once did I pick up the violin in order to meet my own desire.

    I'm so glad I made the right choice. When you pursue a true passion, practice becomes effortless because you recognize that you're using your time in the best possible way.

  9. Posted

    3 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

    I have the same complex as guy 1 you mentioned above

    Wait is that to say "I'm racist" ??? LOL:ph34r:

    6 hours ago, soos_mite_ah said:

    I'm going to be completely honest and say that I would really like the input of the people reading the last couple posts because I don't know if this is just me and I'm deluding myself or if I actually make sense. I also wonder if other people have felt the same way where they feel that they can get by in social situations without making things weird but they don't feel like they are compatible with people either platonically or romantically 

    You make perfect sense.

    I feel similarly, I just don't see any of this as a problem :D

  11. Posted

    16 hours ago, mandyjw said:

    The best advice I've ever heard for dealing with grief is to look for your loved one where they are, not where they are not. Non-duality means no exclusion, what is real is never lost and death is an invitation to connect with what is eternal. There is never any closure, there is never any letting go  because there is no death. He's still here, you just have to look for where he is, not pay so much attention to where he isn't. 

    This can also possibly mean letting go of the pressure you're putting on yourself to let go and get over it. 

    ❤

    Also at the risk of sounding really strange and weird, start looking at the sky a lot. When we were kids our parents told us our pets went to live in the sky, well, it's not untrue. ;) 

    Oh my God.

  12. Posted · Edited by RendHeaven

    I've yet to find a fully turquoise level anime, but there definitely are sprinkles of turquoise throughout the medium.

    I recently watched Parasyte which is probably the closest thing to turquoise I've seen in terms of plot, but the ending was so rushed and some of the philosophical soliloquies felt forced, like someone who just discovered stage yellow paying lip service to turquoise teachings without fully understanding them.

    Someone's already mentioned Avatar the Last Airbender which occasionally drops turquoise truth bombs in a supplementary way (like one guy says "death is an illusion" as a meme/gag). Overall more yellow than turquoise because it doesn't seriously commit to explicitly centralizing turquoise values.

    This is what's mostly preventing turquoise from making an appearance in media imo - you can't really tell a dramatic story full of conflict if you explicitly go turquoise. There's no more tug-of-war to hook the audience to the plot the moment a story commits to values like cosmic compassion. To drive a plot-conflict, a story must limit its perspective and compassion. Think about that.

    I don't know if we can properly call it "anime," but Miyazaki films come to mind when I think of turquoise. Those films are not turquoise in terms of plot as you might expect, but moreso in terms of aesthetic delivery. The landscape shots, the background music, the long stretches of silence or reality-bending visuals speak turquoise without the use of words. There's a sort of widened appreciation of reality at large in these films which I cannot fathom coming from tier 1.

    Finally, Demon Slayer despite being a shonen must be mentioned here simply because the main character Tanjiro sets himself apart from all other anime protagonists by displaying saint-levels of compassion for the very demons that he swears to destroy. A masterclass in "Love thy enemy."

    img_7581.jpg?ssl=1

  15. Posted

    @VagosRespectfully, I feel like you missed the point of my earlier tirade :D 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.

    11 hours ago, Vagos said:

    The fact that there is no true(er) opinion from an absolute perspective does not mean that there is no true(er) opinion from a relative perspective.

    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.

    16 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

    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.

    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.

    11 hours ago, Vagos said:

    Don't think that just because ABSOLUTE Truth is infinite there aren't partial truths that are not. 

    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.

    11 hours ago, Vagos said:

    The pythagorean theorem say, is a definitive partial truth that is extremely solid FOR THE PARTIAL bubble in which it is existing. If you start questioning the ontological metaphysics of its essence (eg what is a line or a point or length and so on) then it of course collapses as a house of cards. That does not mean that it is not extremely solid in its relative domain.

    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.

    11 hours ago, Vagos said:

    You don't need do anything but imagine a team of ten people, one of them a bomb diffuser, with a bomb in the center of the room. Let's say one of them is you. Are you really going to contemplate if the bomb diffuser is the one who needs to diffuse the bomb? Are you really going to argue with him about it using your arguments about how what he has read in diffusing manuals is interpretable in many ways ?

    Lol :D 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.

    11 hours ago, Vagos said:

    Not all opinions are of the same value. Not inside the relative domain in which they are referring to. Outside that, and when being exposed to the absolute yes, all of them crumble to pieces. Language crumbles to pieces for that matter.

    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!

  16. Posted

    2 hours ago, mivafofa said:

    Does it happen to you too? 

    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.

  17. Posted · Edited by RendHeaven

    Oh man...

    A flat-out no is always NO! :D

    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.

  18. Posted · Edited by RendHeaven

    5 hours ago, Vagos said:

    because my opinion has very solid roots in fundamental concept analysis, epistemology and logic (logic as logics, as the science of doing logic and creating true statements, not as we usually use this word airy fairy like the opposite of feelings or whatever) and has a sound core structure that is not based on some stage green group thinking deeply ideological propaganda that has its roots in the internal need of belonging somewhere and has zero conceptual understanding because it usually has zero contemplation work done.

    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.

  23. Posted

    @soos_mite_ah Ok seriously you gotta stop being my twin ?

    4 hours ago, soos_mite_ah said:

    Owning a house isn't really one of my goals. Personally, I just really like the idea of living in a small apartment and using my space efficiently instead of having a bunch of extra space I don't really use. I also don't want to live in a suburb. Maybe I might want to live in a larger apartment if I have a family but as far as a house goes, I just don't see it fitting into my life until I'm old and I'm living my life in the country side. 

    I get that homeownership is an investment and renting doesn't give you anything in the long run. Like logically it makes sense to want to own a home. But it doesn't resonate with me like at all. It makes sense but it doesn't seem as fulfilling to me as other people make it out to be. 

    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).

    4 hours ago, soos_mite_ah said:

    Am I just crazy, too young, and naive for thinking this?

    No.

  25. Posted

    3 hours ago, mandyjw said:

    Lately I had an insight that it's a pretty awesome skill to be able to intuitively stop at the height of something. Like Bill Waterson stopping Calvin and Hobbes before it lost it's magic or got repetitive. Like ending a conversation when it's still at a high point. Like knowing when to stop working out when you feel energized. Like eating until you feel perfectly satisfied, not full. 

    It's neither an abstaining nor an indulgence. It's a secondary effect of knowing where one's happiness really comes from. 

    ???