LastThursday

Falling in love in slow motion. I don't know if this is more of a hypothetical idea. I don't feel as though it's happened to me as such before, but it seems interesting to follow its trail as a thought. The starting point for it is attraction. Something or someone in your environment grabs your attention and you are attracted - I mean grabbing your attention and attraction are basically the same thing. It would seem to be a binary response in that way, either it grabs you or it doesn't. But binary or not, there is always an associated intensity to attraction and also attraction is multifaceted, often it's a jumble of different aspects that attract us to someone or something. Ok... What's love in the context of attraction then? Well maybe love is just repeated attraction. In time we learn to associate the bare attractive qualities in a person say, with a warm fuzzy feeling of... of... I don't know, I can't think of any other word than "love", alright, cozy familiarity. What I'm suggesting is that love takes its time to manifest and grows from the seed of attraction. This is the difference between love and lust, lust is just strong attraction, it's more of a Pavlovian response: attraction, lust, attraction, lust; there's no warm coziness. I am of the mind that love can be asymmetrical. So even if love slowly grows in the mind and body of one person, it doesn't have to manifest itself in the attracted person. This seems blatantly obvious, but often "love" gets dismissed as childish or as infatuation precisely because it isn't being reciprocated and that in turn is because society is deluded into thinking love is necessarily a two-way transaction, it isn't. When you hit spirituality, one-way love seems to be the higher form, but just to take the joy out of it, it stops being romantic love then and becomes God's love or whatever. How long does love take to arise? Again, love is not binary, it's a sliding scale from nearly nothing to full on. At the lower levels of love I would say it was difficult to disambiguate it from attraction. This is at it should be: attraction is the preliminary stages of love, they are one and the same thing. All this talk of love and attraction can be taken more generally for things as well as people, but I'm primarily talking about people here. To muddy the waters further because attraction itself comes in various intensities, it can be very hard to recognise if you even are falling in love or could possibly fall in love. It seems like in the normal state of affairs, there's attraction (possibly asymmetrical), but one person persists in expressing their love and wins over the other person to their way of thinking - so much for every romantic movie ever. But I say there is a falling in love by stealth and innocently: the attraction starts of innocently and nearly subconsciously, but exposure over time cements the attraction and love begins, again mostly subconsciously. Then that love intensifies over time and gets to the point where one day you're sitting there with a cup of tea, and realise "Damn, I can't stop thinking about X. How and why did that happen?". On reflection, that has happened to me a couple of times. And then in the next breath: "Nah. It can't be love, just behave @LastThursday. Save yourself for real love". And if my life were Sleepless in Seattle (it's not), I would go all out and try and consummate my newly discovered love. I think falling in love in slow motion is much more prevalent and goes unnoticed than is let on, mostly because it's dismissed as not being worthy or real. I object! It's as real and valid as any other form of love, especially romantic love, maybe even more so. Next time you look someone in the eye, ponder if they're in love with you without knowing it.

@Gianna a few thoughts, let me know what you think: The body likes to be in homeostasis, so creative energy requires to push it away from that. So the body signals its dissatisfaction (resistance) through anxiety and panic. Maybe the body overreacts sometimes? Signals from the body need to be interpreted and elaborated on (by the mind). The body doesn't really signal concepts such as anxiety and panic, it just gives out sensations. Is it possible that the mind could be misinterpreting the signals? Could it be that the anxiety and panic is caused by the mind first and then the body follows suit? After all, we need to live in a web of social responsibilities and rules and expectations, and using our creative potential to its fullest means breaking away from a lot of socially derived belonging? Maybe we're fighting our own mental conditioning and our bodies complain in sympathy?

Then proselytising that "there is no you" has no value. Or does it? I mean why go around saying something that doesn't make a difference either way? The fact remains that there is a "me", and here I am. I can appreciate that "I" could be re-contextualised away at any moment, but surely that will happen of its own accord, when and if it wants? Why all the goading with "there is no you"?

One response to "there is no you", is "so what?". In other words what use is it to know this and how should I "know" this snippet of information? What is "there is no you" leading to?

I very much operate in phases - sometimes recurring. Some new thought arises and grips my interest and I feel that I need to explore it fully. I don't have a filter for my exploration, if the interest has enough energy behind it then I go for it. In that sense I think I find myself to be quite different from people around me. I find it hard to quantify the difference though, I can see that other people have hobbies and interests, but they seem to be narrow in subject matter and long lasting. For example, someone may have interest in martial arts, and they pursue that regularly and as a matter of course. I too have long lasting interests such as playing keyboards, and information technology in general - but I see them as different from my "phases". By phase I mean interests and not some state-of-my-life type thing. At the moment it's playing Chess online. I don't have any expectation for how long I'm going to pursue this phase, only that I want to see if I can improve my playing and have fun. Another one is the subway map design I mentioned in another post. For that I had an idea based on the Moscow subway map, and wondered if I could run with it, just to see how things pan out. Another maybe, was to write a compiler for an 8-bit machine - which I mostly achieved. One of the beautiful things about exploring ideas in an unfettered way, is that as well as the joy in it, the side effects are always beneficial in some way. For example with Chess one side effect is to improve my quick logical thinking. With map design, I'm learning how to use illustrator software - so one day when there's a need to design a new logo for work or whatever, I can now step up say "yeah I'll do that". And that's the point, trying out many different types of activity is both fun and gives you a lot of different skills, which can synergise at some point in the future. I don't see anyone else working this way. Too many times I've found myself using the skills I learnt in some phase or other. If you want to be a renaissance man or woman, this is how to go about it. Mastery crystallises out of that synergy of experiences. Just ask Newton or Da Vinci. This is why I'm so attracted by this forum and Leo's work.

@modmyth I had an Icelandica phase for a while. More indulgence:

@Zeroguy where's your video? That would be cool af.

It's the best thing ever. I've done it a few times myself. My advice is to make the most of your free time, start putting put those ideas into practice now - before you hit the ground without a parachute.

There is no observer of reality. If this is true then where does the impression of there being an observer come from, and why is this everyone's default mode: thinking that there's an observer? You could look to language as a starting point. English and many other languages (at least European ones) divide words functionally. When an action is taking place, there is the person performing or initiating the action and there is the person (or thing) receiving or has the action done to them. Some quick examples are: LastThursday eats biscuits Cats are scared by cucumbers LastThursday is obsessed with food So how does this fit in with the idea of an observer, observing reality? Well, the verb "observe" grammatically works like the above examples: LastThursday observes reality Is language then the source of the idea of an observer of reality? Has language distorted reality? The logical question to ask is, why does language have this structure to verbs? I think that at the bottom of it there is the idea that an action has to be initiated by someone, or at least have a cause. All actions need causes. The role of language is very often to convey narrative. Narrative is the idea that things start off in one state, and then morphed into another state by a sequence of actions. To have any change at all in a narrative account, there need to be effects to every action. For example when we say "Susan took the kids to school", the effect is obvious: the kids ended up at school. This need for narrative and the consequences of it, is built right into most languages. Nearly all verbs need to have an initiator and an effect (or receiver of the action). But why is language this way in the first place? We could have had a language where actions just happen without being initiated or have any effects. Here's some examples of what this is like: Walking Singing Eats Observes Even with these examples, we are so used to the rules of English, that we still imagine these actions being carried out by someone or something. But truly the examples would be completely disconnected from the idea of a performer of the actions. We're getting into strange territory. It seems like language would collapse without distinguishing objects (nouns) and actions (verbs). What the above examples are implying is that we would only have one category: nounverbs. Luckily English has these nounverbs, they're called nominalisations. A word like "love" is a nounverb. It's a word that is actually a verb (loving) converted into use as a noun (love). So what is the nounverb of something like "LastThursday observes reality"? This would collapse into something like "Realising", i.e. reality doing its thing. See how in a nounverb like "Realising", there is no initiator and no effect, it is an action that simply continuously happens. This is closer to reality, stuff around us is just happening, it is all one giant happening (note, nounverb). Reality really doesn't need an obverver for it to happen to itself. So the idea of an observer simply evolved out of the conventions of language, and "you" have been duped by it. The "observer" is simply a convenience for conveying narrative when speaking.

More good stuff here, give it a watch:

I dabble in a lot of things. I have a fascination for trains and for maps - I'm such a boy. I also have an eye for aesthetics. I thought I'd try my hand at re-designing the Tokyo subway map. I started a project in 2007 to redesign the London Underground map (subway), just for kicks. At the time I only had Paint, which was barely adequate for the task. I came across the image again recently and thought I'd try my hand using more professional illustrator software (albeit free: Inkscape). It took a few weeks to re-implement the 2007 design, and it looks a lot more professional: Apart from a few more tweaks it's finished. I have no idea where and if I should publish my map to the world, or I'll just sit on it another 14 years! Anyway I decided to try another map and thought the Tokyo subway would be interesting to do in the same style: Berlin next after this one. I'm getting obsessed...

Thanks @Preety_India it's more of an irritation than a thing. I'm not OCD but I do like to have everything in its place, and a place for everything, ok maybe a little OCD lol.

Wishing reality to be different than it is suffering and insanity.

Aqui estoy jugando con un sueño, dentro el sueño, solo en el sueño. ¿Donde estas? A qualquier esquina que miro, tu no estas alli, solo yo. Siempre yo, reflejando en el sol, la tierra, el aire y en mi cuerpo. Asi es, cada vez que te busco.

Yeah Leo's blunt. But also a lot is lost in writing. Sometimes it's just plain old dry humour or done for effect. I myself have been triggered a few times by Leo's bluntness, but it's definitely my problem not his - I've been known to be blunt myself, I can't complain. There's a lot of fragile egos on the forum and people are surprisingly touchy if confronted directly sometimes, because there's nowhere to hide. Sometimes bluntness is bitter medicine.

I was reading on Reddit stories about disappearing object phenomenon (DOP). This is where objects are put down, such as keys, and they completely vanish and are nowhere to be found, only to turn up later in the same spot they were put down. And as if someone were having a cosmic joke, it happened to me the day after. I'm not prone to losing stuff, I like to think I pay attention. I use four sturdy bags to do my fortnightly supermarket shop with. So, I park up at the supermarket, reach into my boot and only find three bags. Normally I fold the bags vertically together and carry them under my arm, this also keeps them together in my boot. So I'm stood there, wracking my brains trying to think wtf I did with the one missing bag - nothing comes. My bags shuttle between my flat and my car boot, not much scope for losing a bright orange bag. I could have conceivably lost it carrying them back to my car, down two flights to my garage. But if so, I should have noticed it on the way back up. I've used the same bags for probably a year or so, I'm careful. Who knows! Universe I want my bag back!

No. And yes. What you are living through is whatever is going on right now, there is literally nothing else going on, this is it. Everything else is fantasy. Perspective is fantasy. Now and moments are fantasy. Possible beings are fantasy. "Living through" is fantasy. I think you get the idea. But. If you want to believe in the fantasy of living in a moment, then there is only one moment, this one. Since there's only one moment, then everything must happen through it, every allowable possibility. What is "allowed" though is a matter for philosophical debate. In my reality right now, not everything is possible.

The hardest part is starting a conversation. With anyone, if you make eye contact, then you should start talking soon after and don't leave it too long. You need a hook, i.e. something to talk about. If you find the person attractive, then saying something about their appearance is useful, like "hey, nice shoes I really like the colour", don't go overboard though. Otherwise, talk about something that's going on around you, if you're in an art gallery: "don't you think Dali is amazing? Have you ever been to Figueres...", if you're in a coffee shop: "I always go for a latte, but I'm thinking something different today, what would you go for?" and so on. Don't talk about the weather, or politics or religion, keep it light and breezy.

@JuliusCaesar and all because you didn't want a deep voice. I wonder where that idea came from? The universe works in mysterious ways, nearly like there's a purpose to it.

Infinity doesn't have an edge, it's unbounded. What in our experience is unbounded? Consciousness itself, existence.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would see stage Yellow as the ability to take a holistic view of a system. For example a stage Green activity might be to send money to the poor of a country and to feel good about that. But a stage Yellow view might be to ask, is that money going to the people it is intended for or local warlords; is the money being targeted at the right people; is giving money the best activity, maybe building schools or sending clothing is better; maybe it's better to teach the locals better survival skills, or to give them education; maybe we're imposing our values on their culture? And on and on. So these are all Green concerns, but you can see the more you take into account, the more systems minded (Yellow) your approach has to become. Being Yellow is a realisation that everything is interconnected, changing one thing here, changes something else over there. Over here in the UK for example, there is a mania in cities and towns for slowing down traffic to 20 mph (30 kph). This is good, as it reduces accidents and save lives. But equally it is bad because it burns more fuel and increases pollution and actually keeps cars on the road longer. It never deters car usage. This is an example of stage Green thinking without taking a systems view approach.

One of the biggest hurdles I overcame is having a victim mindset. For a long time I felt like I wanted to lash out and put everyone in their place, and tell them how stupid they had been for treating me badly and neglecting me. This applied to my parents, siblings, family, friends, and in fact everyone. Although, I never did confront anyone directly, I instead just withdrew myself from everyone. If I couldn't be treated well, they didn't deserve me in their lives. I think watching one of Leo's videos on the subject was the tipping point. That was a few years ago. I then knew I was being an ungrateful selfish bastard. I'm still one, but I'm an "aware ungrateful selfish bastard" lol. The awareness I've gained is that once everything is stripped back, I feel a sense of lack of love. The word "lack" is interesting because it presupposes that I'm actually entitled to love from people, which I'm actually not. That realisation has felt like a dagger to the heart, but it was also both sobering and liberating. Most of the love we/I want is conditional. We want to be loved in a way we understand. It's not enough that we simply get love in whatever form it comes, it has to be meaningful to us directly. Before I even stumbled upon Actualized I had a form of hypnotherapy. I was in a low place at the time. One of the things that emphatically stuck in my mind about the sessions was that I was actually lovable. At the time it struck me as bloody obvious, but it also had a deep effect on me - it was something that I'd forgotten - I felt I'd spent a long time not being loved. That forgetfulness had infected my very being, I really didn't love myself very much either I'd forgotten how to and maybe I never really learned how to in the first place. I opened my eyes gradually to the snippets of love around me. Despite being withdrawn myself, friends and family would still contact me, that was love. I would just turn up to see me my mum, and she would feed me and let me sleep over and would be happy to see me - that was love. The guy in the coffee shop who knows what coffee I order, that's love. The friend who buys me a CD or gives me a book for my birthday, that's love. The sister who prompts me now and then, despite me snubbing her for five years, that's love. The strangers who gave me their condolences when my mum passed away, that's love. The friend who emphatically said he would be there with me at my mum's funeral, that's love. Love is everywhere. What triggered me to write this is that there have been a few events recently that jarred me: marriages, pregnancies, people getting on with their lives. These people were/are significant to me in one way or another. I feel both envy, out on a limb, and as if I'm simply observing the world doing its thing without it ever involving me. I want and need to stop feeling detached and blowing in the breeze and unloved, instead I need to be in the flow of the river. But for that I need to change my mindset, but I'm not there yet. I find this amusing and insightful to my condition:

Go listen to a language you don't understand at all. Only then do you realise how arbitrary it is, we are all producing gibberish with our mouths. In that sense it is empty. Even language having rules (grammar) doesn't stop it from being gibberish. The only thing that gives language any meaning is because it is anchored to reality. Language needs reality in order to make any sense. The thing is, reality is also gibberish (arbitrary). It also looks like it has rules (a grammar of reality, a.k.a. physics). When we're born we have hardly any understanding of reality whatsoever. So what is reality anchored to that gives it meaning? How do we come to understand reality? There is only one answer: there is an intelligence to/inside/part of reality that gives it meaning. That is how a new born is able to bootstrap reality into something meaningful.