tsuki

@Shin Git gud. I don't even remember how many tries that little fuck took me. All I know that I threw a controller when I was fighting Pontiff Sulyhvan.

@jbram2002 Yes, Mr officer. I'll be good to my spouse from now on .

Oh yeah, fighting with your husband for his own good is the best excuse I've heard. Now it even has a spiritual twist - shadow work.

You know, there is a reason why shadow work works best with people you can't punch in the face .

I've been contemplating this stuff for quite some time now and this model can be distilled down to the following metaphor: If experience is a movie, then: sensations are the camerawork, thoughts are the script, feelings are the scenography and intuition is the editing.

Intuition is something of an eye into "your" subconscious world. It is not exactly yours because there are non-personal aspects to it, but the bottom line is that there is much, much, much more to your unconscious than to your conscious mind. What you think, feel and see is just a tiny speck of what is actually going on and those things are not apart from your intuition, they are interwoven with it. If you conscious experience is a movie, then sensations are the cameraman, thoughts are the scriptwriter, feelings are the scenographer and intuition is the editor. Intuition works through other parts of experience to convey its message and it is never explicitly stated until you start to interpret it. If you find yourself to be distrustful towards it, then it probably means that you haven't developed it and you don't know how to read its messages. The process of learning this is, funnily enough, the process of healing your subconscious traumas. An undeveloped intuition will get you to do all the wrong stuff until you self reflect and connect to the parts of yourself that you reject. It may be the case that following it here will bring you enormous amounts of suffering, but it will also be a great opportunity for growth. When it comes to your long-term goals, there is a very important aspect in it of how those plans actually mesh with who you are subconsciously. The plan may be great and very well reasoned, but it will only succeed if you are able to follow it without painstaking discipline and effort. Your intuition can tell you that and this is why you need to let it speak to you to get the full picture.

And how exactly would you distinguish the former from the latter? You seem aware enough to know that you probably wouldn't recognize the truth if you stumbled upon it. If this place is really just an arena for mental masturbation, then finding a way to genuinely contribute (apart from meta discussions) seems like a good challenge to genuinely grow. Aren't the worst places in the biggest need of help?

Intuition is not a thought, not a feeling and not a sensation. Its domain is gluing together of thoughts, feelings and sensations into experience. It is the interface between the conscious and subconscious mind and it works through meaningful coincidences. It is knowledge without the possibility to explain its origin. In order to develop your intuition - stop treating thoughts or feelings as your compass and go with the flow of life and see where it guides you.

I've been contemplating my recent essays in Sacred Space and it's scary to continue them, to draw more conclusions and go deeper. I think that this fear is rooted in the possibility that I will end up empty-handed again. My reason for stalling is that I can see the INTJ staring back at me from those writings. There is a hint of universality in it, but it takes a lot of distillation and care to observe it. I've been pondering about the nature of introverted intuition a lot lately, mainly to understand other cognitive functions. I can see the distinction between thinking and feeling and turn introversion into extraversion here pretty well. The difference between intuition and sensing and the attitude towards them are still a mystery to me. For an INTJ, preception axis is greatly polarized where introverted intuition (Ni) is dwarfing extraverted sensing (Se). In order to squeeze myself into extraverted intuition and introverted sensing I would have to flip my attitude towards these functions and it is surprisingly difficult. Intuition is the most subtle of all cognitive functions, even more so when it is introverted. On top of that, it is my primary function and it is something that is supposedly so heavily used and natural that it feels like breathing. I began to observe its workings only recently, just a few years ago. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Jungian_cognitive_functions#/Intuition https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Intuition

Fish don't invent water and humans don't create understanding. You are exactly as original as the present moment.

The first thought that came to mind: suffering.

You're just too much fun ❤️ All I'm saying is that loving yourself is just as valid as loving others. Despite loving myself I can make space for you while you're denying the validity of what I'm saying. You're not fighting with me, but with your misconceptions about me. Instead facing them, you created philosophy that alienates a huge portion of Earth's population. It must be horrible to live in a world like that ❤️ If you knew how to love yourself, you would give it up. I originally responded with a genuine intent, but now I'm having so much fun that I suspect that I'm just picking on you. This is where I'll stop. Have a nice day ❤️

So, you can't think for yourself and you can't feel for yourself? You're supposed to give everything to others? How do you contribute anything to the group in such a setup instead of being a freeloader? How do you oppose injustice? How do you decide to whom you give yourself if you have no faculties of your own left?

The exact same thing can be said about the attitude towards life where you only do what you think you should do. Being driven by thoughts is exactly as subjective and individualistic as being driven by feelings. "When you only focus on thinking for yourself, you miss out on everything that's truly important, and when people try to convince you while you don't believe them, you shut them down and push them away. Thinking for yourself is the best way to be alone. " Instead of opening up to what I just said (which is not in opposition to what you wrote by any means) - you declare approximately half of the world's population as 'the worst thing [to do]". How exactly is that not "ego based"? The difference between us is that I can see our commonality while you highlight the difference.

Some people treat feelings as a barometer of the group's well being. These people treat them as means to connect with others and understand them by 'becoming' them (empathizing), or 'influencing' them (harmonizing). On the other hand, some people are driven by feelings and become individualistic. Paradoxically, this individualism can be a bonding factor, but this bond is expressed through giving space. When you love yourself and your interests diverge with another person's, then this divergence is not laced with hate but with compassion. You understand that the other person loves himself too and only does this because he has to. We don't choose what we feel towards others, so in this sense, we're all victims of this disagreement. This conflict becomes impersonal in the sense that it is not about me, but about each of us trying to cope with harshness of the world to the best of our abilities. If we're fortunate enough, our abilities let us solve problems through cooperation, or compromise and violence becomes the last resort. If I truly love myself and am able to connect with others, the interest of the group becomes a factor in my well being, so it's only natural that I care about them as well. Loving yourself is just as valid in spirituality as loving others.

@DrewNows Generally speaking yes. I think that it was intended more as a place where you observe your shadow at work when you interact with other people. Obviously, we have to react to something other than people being surprised by the purpose of this thread, so your spilled guts are the perfect material for that.

The only way to measure your spiritual growth is to observe and appreciate how spiritual the whole world is.

@Mezanti I took LSD once, so I'm not all that experienced, but when it comes to psychedelics - take them once you are absolutely sure that you can handle anything they will throw at you. If you're not sure, then this very feeling can be magnified into a bad trip that could potentially damage you.

Important note: alchemy is the intersection of two archetypes. Are paradoxes descriptions of archetypes?

Of course it's working. You can blame water for not being tasty enough, or blame your meals for being too tasty. You can return to drinking soda to wash the taste off, or start eating better . Start distinguishing between pain and suffering. Pain is a sensation and it does not speak. The only quality of pain is that it is very intense, overwhelming. Suffering is when you let the pain get to the mind and let the mind talk in reaction to it. It starts to go off into the future and come up with schemes about how to prevent it, how you would rather do other stuff. Instead of thinking, just focus on the sensation of pain. It will be much easier to stomach it this way. Stop repeating this nonsense, you're only making it worse this way.

On Ego and the nature of conflict from the perspective of transaction, part 4. But why does conflict arise in the first place? Isn't it simply because we want things and are unwilling to give them up? Surely, if any of the people involved gave up what they wanted - there would be no need to fight. But how exactly does one decide when is it appropriate to withdraw? Why do I have to give up and my opponent gets to have what he wants? Usually we explain our choices in terms of values, virtues, or principles. We say that we prefer one thing over the other because we see them as more noble, greater or superior. We prefer happiness over misery, wealth over poverty, mercy over cruelty and so on. We strive to be better to seek fulfillment and avoid suffering for the good of all beings. The main difficulty in accomplishing this feat is the fact that there are many different sets of values and they are often contradictory. How to reconcile the fact that a wise person has to be both merciful and ruthless in order to be just? How to choose which set of values to follow? After all, we cannot rely on virtues in order to choose which virtues are appropriate. So, how exactly do we choose how to choose? Do we engage in inner dialog until we come up with a solution? Do we follow our feelings to see what's right? What if feelings and thoughts are in opposition, like when we know that we shouldn't do something that we feel is important? Do we trust our logic that tells us to not trust our feelings, or do we submit to emotions and run amok? How exactly do we submit to either of those? Can this submission, or choice, be observed? Don't we have to choose how to observe choice? Wouldn't we influence the observation this way? The same questions can be posed with respect to thought. We think that we think our thoughts, that we are responsible for them. They form the stream of continuous experience, but each thought arrives one at the time and never announces the next one. We can form a story in our head what we will be doing next Monday, but we do not form the stories about what stories we will form (when we are forming them). In this sense, free will is a local phenomenon in our conscious experience. The last example comes from observation of objects and trying to grasp what are they in their essence. When I look at a cup, it is apparent what it is even prior to naming it in my thoughts. From one point of view, a cup has physical properties, but it is what it is only in relation to its usefulness. This usefulness, however is never expressed verbally. I can be preoccupied with a conversation with another person and still write something with a pen without contemplating its properties, or even noticing it. In fact, my philosophical disposition towards it prevents me from seeing it as a pen in its everyday way of being, in its usefulness. In order to write, I have to be preoccupied with my thoughts to "see" the pen for what it is. In order to see a pen properly, I have to stop inspecting it. Similarly, when I'm throwing a ball, or smiling, I don't deliberately contract and relax my muscles. I just do it. The above examples show that there is a ground for what is experienced, but this ground cannot be expressed in terms of it. Questions about the meaning of color red cannot be answered verbally because the association between certain sights and thoughts ("red") is the basis for it. These associations lie within the realm of the subconscious mind and they are what I call archetypes. Archetypes are the mediators between various parts of our experience and the 'sense' that 'perceives' them is what I call intuition. Intuition is the interface between the conscious and the unconscious mind. We may be free to pursue our desires, but we are not free to choose them. We may choose to live the virtuous life, but we do not know what virtues are. That is because virtues are intuitive, archetypical. Archetypes reside "between" our faculties and are the invisible mechanism that guide the experience through awareness. When we decide on our actions in the personal frame of reference, when we mediate between thoughts and emotions to make a decision, personal archetypes are at play. These archetypes are what constitutes personality. This personality can express itself as the 'conqueror' or 'protector', but they occur symmetrically in interactions and this symmetry needs to be accounted for. Emotions and language that are experienced personally arise simultaneously in people that engage in communication. They are personal experiences, two ends, of energetic transactions that occur within the trans-personal realm. The symmetric relationship between personal archetypes ("conqueror", "protector") can be accounted for by trans-personal, or collective archetypes that mediate emotional and linguistic transactions at play. While personal archetypes make up the personality, the collective ones are the universal makeup of God's unconscious mind. To be continued.

My god, I absolutely love this song. I'm not even ashamed of listening to Miley Cyrus. It's really good.

I thought that too and that is what's embarrassing about it. I am sharing the most intimate parts of myself. Recently I've been asking myself whether I really am this humble, or that my sense of self is so inflated that I confused myself with God. With all the gifts I've been blessed with, I decided to not pursue science and live ordinary life while studying independently. From one point of view, I am pressed to study and develop myself because my mind would turn on itself and I would go mad. From another point of view, I am wasting my potential while studying fairy tales and creating theories of everything that even the most profound philosophers never attempted to. I treat sacred space as a notebook where I perfect my understanding, hoping that somebody else finds value in my writing. It's not entirely clear to me whether I'm insanely wise, or just insane. My only reality check is to just be honest and write whatever I truly think so that people can decide for themselves and stay away if they find my mind to be threatening.

On Ego and the nature of conflict from the perspective of transaction, part 3. How exactly does the conflict take place though? While we certainly can fight physically, we have been given a way to resolve conflict without visible bloodshed: speech. It may be difficult to accept that the two have something in common, but don't we understand something when we're being petted, or hit with a zen stick? From the point of view of language, conflict is about establishing shared truth and the agreement to respect it. We expect others to hear what we're saying and present their truth to us so that we can find the common kernel. It is the most curious of things that despite our best efforts to do so, we can rarely see things the same way others do. If it wasn't the case and we could, would there be any grounds for disagreement then? Why is it that we cannot understand each other, and yet - it is apparent that we communicate? Can we inspect language more closely? Many have tried to do that, but to no avail. We can question the meaning of words to no end and it always turns out that even we don't understand what we're saying. If that is the truth of our inner experience, then why are we so invested in convincing others of the fact that we're right? If we can't even find the meaning of our own words, then by what magic others react to what we're saying? Isn't it to be expected that their inner experience of language is the same in its groundlessness? That the other can speak only as long as he forgets that he has no idea what he says? Just like it was the case with emotions, communication is an energetic transaction between parties in conflict. Each end of this transaction is experienced as language, even if its appearance is intangible for participants. The big question is: what is the thing that manifests through this transaction? Is it personal? Each end of this transaction is personal, but the whole of it - isn't. Just like the chatter happens in our minds, the transaction takes place in the mind of God. Haven't we all experienced that there are no original thoughts within us? That everything we have, has been picked up on the fly and mingled? The substance of God's mind is what I call culture. It is not just human culture - it also underlies animal violence and all of our interactions in the world. Culture is the basis for understanding and we have access to it prior to knowing words. Don't we understand when we're being taught how to speak? From this point of view - isn't it obvious that both the conqueror and the protector are victims of their own conflict? There is, however one last bit that has been missed. From one point of view, we are driven by emotions, but from another - by thoughts. How exactly do we manage to balance the two, if they are opposite forces? After all, our emotional behavior overrides our logical faculties. It possesses us to do things seemingly against what we think we should do. Are we just slaves to our/God's desires, or mechanical beings that simply repeat culture? The idea of free will has been advocated to solve this mystery, but how exactly do we make choices? Is free will a thought? Is it an emotion? Can it be observed? The only answer is: no, but we can't really deny its existence. Have we arrived at the mysterious Ego that plays the tricks upon mere mortals? The Devil has traditionally been seated in the dark places and that is for a reason. To be continued.