charlie cho

That's interesting, I've never thought like this.

@Leo Gura What do you mean?

@Purple Man I agree with you. I just don't believe you having that certain belief in your mind will help you though.

Basically, knowledge work is related to the brain only. It has nothing to do with physical reality. But knowledge work is different from spiritual work, like priests and monks. What makes Bach? What makes Mozart? What makes a Benjamin Franklin? Churchill? They were successful in using their brains. Maybe they weren't spiritually developed, but their work is admirable. What are their habits? What makes them, them? Any advice?

What is the difference? Well, let's see. Music vs composition Spoken words vs writing (essays) Engineering vs math/physics concepts creative art vs creative idea physical vs knowledge/memory What's the difference between the physical and knowledge? Simply a duality. The physical isn't more real than the non-physical. Of course, 3rd symphony of Beethoven didn't start playing from an orchestra right away. It started from Beethoven wanting to dedicate a composition he had made to whom he had admired most, Napoleon Bonaparte. It started from his heart and to his mind. And he composed the 3rd symphony for Napoleon. https://youtu.be/ft9lJBXW5rg However, because Beethoven composed this music from his heart, to his mind, to his pen, to the paper, we are able to listen to such music in the physical world. So what is the difference between the idea of the 3rd symphony and the physical music we are able to hear today? Well, in this dual world, there is no difference between the idea in Beethoven, and the music of the 3rd symphony. They are exactly the same! Seeing and non seeing. Hearing (the 3rd symphony) vs non hearing (3rd symphony in Beethoven's mind) are basically two sides of the same coin. Therefore, an idea (knowledge) and the physical has no difference. Both are abstract. The first basketball game to be played ever (in Canada) is just as abstract as the person who had created the game of basketball first in his mind. Mind and physical has no difference. People love television above reading books People love talking in person above talking in the phone or the internet People tend to put superior importance to the physical than to the non-physical People tend to like sports rather than college lectures. But the problem is the physical isn't more superior than the non-physical. Television isn't superior to books. Sports isn't superior to lectures. And of - course it is also the case with the non physical not being superior to the physical. Books aren't superior to television. Sports isn't superior to lectures. They are simply the two sides of the same coin. Ideas are just as physical as any physical object. And any physical object is just the same as an idea as any idea

Spiritual circles enjoy bashing on intellectuals, but with right reason. But I can't help but think those people like OSHO, Krishnamurti, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and other well-known individuals were great intellects themselves. For example, Lao Tzu himself was a librarian for the Zhou Kingdom before he went on the mountains. If one reads Chuang Tzu's parables, you can immediately see this man, though he likes writing comedic parables, was a genius in prose, truly. Compared to many Chinese ancient classics, Chuang Tzu's writing style is too creative for us lay-man to comprehend. Confucius wrote difficult texts. His Annals of history is one of those books that are the most hardest to understand, but its mostly head-work. Chuang Tzu's writings are differentiated from Confucius's writings because of how much emotional intelligence is required to understand. Even in Chuang Tzu's parables, he logically deconstructs Confucius' stupidity, his demand for traditionalism, and makes us understand how unwise Confucius really was, but he does this not with logical prose, but in a way anyone can understand. Yet, one still needs a high-degree of emotional intelligence to understand Chuang Tzu. But still, most people understands Chuang Tzu even if they don't have much intelligence. But that is the genius of Chuang Tzu. Without his intellect, how can we expect him to create such great parables? Chuang Tzu was famous for having a monster-like intellect, comparable to Confucius. Yet, he was one of the intellectuals who loved to bash on the intellect, and his predecessors like Confucius. Again, OSHO was famous for having a massive intellect. He was a philosophy professor in one of the best schools in India. It was said that he read more than thousands of books before his 60s, when he quit reading any text. The last and best example would be Pythagoras. What is the role of ideas, intellect, and logic for spirituality? To be honest, to me... at least, I don't see the difference between the intellect, heart, and the physical. I only see these three are intimately connected.

I don't know about knee pain. I do have ankle pains from 2 ankle injuries All I can say from experience is that you must have a right mind and heart to get your body right. I'm sorry because I know this sounds unscientific, but I'd like to paraphrase a quote from legendary basketball coach John Wooden. He said that if your mind is not right, your form is not right, your body is not right, your health is not right. Having a crooked mind, your body will naturally crook itself for you. When your mind is not clear, you won't be aware that you body is leaning to one side, possibly putting more weight into one knee more than the other. Possibly addictively holding stress, but the mind is so occupied with desires, and ambitions that it won't be aware how those poisonous stress is holding your health back. All in all, get the mind right.... you know, then you will be more clear, if you become more clear, the health naturally comes back. But it won't be so apparent, as many good things in the world aren't so apparent at first.

God is never alone. God is alone, however, in relation to relationship. If there is such a thing as being alone, then there should be the opposite of aloneness. What would that be? Just like we say if there is black, there is white. If there is good, there is evil. If there is aloneness, there should be a relationship. So, in those terms, God is alone with its opposite, relationship. Two sides to God exist. One is his relational nature, and the other his lonesome nature. God is so relational that the two opposites become one, therefore, alone. God has woman and man so deeply in relationship that woman and man merge into one, therefore becoming alone into oneness. So that aloneness in itself is a relationship to God. And that relationship is so deep that is becomes one, therefore alone. God is "alone", but not quite that simply "alone". It's alone with its relationship. God is in relationship, but not quite that simply in "relationship". It's in relationship with oneness, aloneness.

I'm not talking about how to get laid.... I mean the nature of the universe is relationship! Everything is sexual. The trees, the birds, the flowers are all sexual. Yes, flowers are sexual. It has a male and a female. Down to our very cells, there is a male and a female. Everything is dual. And its duality creates aloneness. Therefore, duality and aloneness has a relationship, a duality. I'd be grateful if you could share your insights into the nature of relationship of nature.

@AtheisticNonduality what is the knowledge I have to acquire to understand him?

@Carl-Richard I'm just saying, there are many things that logical reasoning can help you 'DO' and 'PRACTICE'. For example, the computer you are typing in. That computer wasn't built by just "doing" things. They were "thinking" things logically to come up with making first computer ever made.

Like, I read many of his books. I have to admit that I don't really understand what the man is trying to say. But, I do see many underlying themes in his books. I'm embarrassed to say what I have analyzed from his books so much that I have to ask you how you've come to understand his books. I guess, the question should really be if you can even understand him in the first place. Every sentence seems like it's rich with ideas, but because I can only take one thing at a time, and there are many references Nietzsche makes that I have not encountered in my knowledge of the world, so I struggle to comprehend any sentence of his. It's funny, I know, but it's simply the reality of my life.

About the "gamey" part of your texts. You know, how you write things online, text, or show in pictures show how you are in real life. I think you got to see the girl as a person, not as a girl you wanna fuck. You know, if you see that girl as a girl you wanna fuck, it kinda objectifies that person. Even if she felt attracted to you, the way you look at her (objectifying) will make you not so attractive. Your gamey way of talking, I'm trying to explain... I mean 99% of guys, like myself too, objectify women, so not just saying you are at fault. But, you know, to look attractive to the girl, you got to do everything you can, including what 99% of men struggle to do, which is "look at the girl as a person, not as a girl you wanna fuck."

@Razard86 Yeah. But intuition is basically the intelligence of the heart and gut. Intuition can't be trained though, does it. So all I have that I CAN train is logic. And I don't see how logic can delude oneself if it is used in the service of intuition. You know, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Logic having nothing to support is dangerous, but as long as it serves intuition, it is the best ally. And as long as intuition has logic as its ally, why not develop logic at its best? I say this because my logical skills isn't the best, so I want to develop it as much as I can so it can be a cause for good fortune. You know, the question shouldn't why shouldn't we develop our logical skills. The question ought to be, why not develop our logical skills to an elite level, as long as it serves intuition?

I guess to develop the intellect, I think developing our logical brain, or the encoding brain is most important. Emotional intelligence/social intelligence, which basically sounds the same to me in their meaning, can't be developed by effort. I heard Daniel Goldman say the best way to train social intelligence is meditation, and meditation isn't something you 'practice' in order to get good. Meditation in itself means to discard any 'habit' or 'practice' in one's life, so to practice meditation is a contradictory statement in itself. I don't know why schools don't teach logic courses now. I heard law schools have to teach logic, though, because it helps for the students to make persuasive arguments in court, but it doesn't seem to me they care about anything else other than to just convince audiences. What's the best way to develop the logical brain? Study Epistemology? Reading that book, Leo recommended, 'Theory and Reality', I instantly saw results of the change in my way of thinking. I've watched some videos on Logic, but they never helped me to change my way of thinking, though. They just felt like rote learning "logic" not really changing the way I thought. Just reading a lot of scientific text, solving math problems, reading chemistry texts didn't help me change the way I thought. Again, it felt like rote learning. Actually, reading history and philosophy helped me most in my logical thinking. It's ironic to say, I know, but I can see how the things I studied in the humanities helped me in learning technological things. So, how did you learn logical thinking, encoding? Did you play a lot of poker, chess? Did that help?