Osaid

Yeah it's kind of like apples and oranges. Or like arguing about what the best emotion is. My taste definitely fluctuates depending on what I want to feel in the moment, so music taste seems to be a nebulous thing that can evolve or morph as your interests change. I've had phases where I would listen to one artist or genre and then completely switch to another one. There's can be an experience of "developing a taste" for certain genres. It's a matter of being able to subject yourself to the emotion or energy that the music provides. Some songs are just so good that they're "timeless" though.

Short listen to the recent blog one. Very simple and definitely invokes questioning. Lyrics are a main focus and they are literally questions. Then there's a pause or gap for the ambience to come through. Very expansive, not structured. "Freeing". Definitely like if contemplation were a song or something. Did Leo admit he uses them for contemplation? Cause I can definitely see that. Maybe. Definitely very simple compared to what I listen to. It could also be possible Leo simply hasn't ran into more complex music for him to like, but he would actually like it.

That's no excuse since I'm also an INTP. I get it though. Some people have different motives. Some people aren't even that sensitive to music. I understand that INTPs are often touted as "thinkers" and not "feelers", but they can actually get quite good at perceiving and organizing emotions and feelings if they glimpse the importance of it. Imagine if someone that was really good at thinking used that thinking to get really good at feeling, or some such thing.

Good point. If there's a real desire it seems to just happen by itself. Music or no music.

Hahaha I was gonna say, must be listening to some music while writing that.

Unserious thinking is the best type of thinking See

Ah ok I see. There's a deep desire to contemplate. Anything antithetical is rejected or seen as confusing or whatever. Thus far you've been focused on music that isn't energetic enough to override your thinking.

Oh heck no. I'm not using music to gain anything. That's like looking at a rose and going "but muh gainz". The rose isn't about you. You have to pick one or the other. What's the obsession with thinking? You wanna think real hard when listening to a good symphony?? It's very clear to me. The music is an invitation to feel something. You're either on board, or not. You wanna think. Music doesn't want you to think. It wants you to focus on the music, not you, not your gains, not your thinking. Not anything else.

Many things are, and yet people don't realize it. So they "self-report" or lay it out in the open without realizing it all the time. "How did you know that about me??"

Very real. Intimately tied with emotion/psychology. Kind of like libido. Same for movies and shows too. People don't get this and project negative emotions like "this makes me feel cringe and embarassed", etc., when it's quite clear a song or movie couldn't do any of that.

Electronic slander.

These are "grounding" activities. (they are about what is present or real) It probably also created a kind of flow state. It's hard to think about yourself when you're focused on what is present, like friends and work. Similar things are making jokes (humor) or really just focusing on anything that is directly perceived (like the breath). Even basic actions like drinking water or eating food are grounding, because they are real. Beautiful, the present (truth) sets you free. Truth can also be non-resistance, or "surrender". I think you're already good. Try some guided meditations on Youtube if you haven't tried them. They should be relaxing, like exiting the shower. Also pay attention to how emotions and feelings change based on what you focus on, that is also insightful. Nothing is wrong with you, nothing about you has really changed. “The unreal never was and the real never ceases to be".

Have you ever met someone that isn't emotional? Are men pretending to be robots or something?

That's true longevity, Bryan Johnson needs to up his game.

With the caveat that it will be 100 years spent as an inanimate object, until it wears off.

It's "unlimited", in that it isn't anything other than itself. Therefore it is being itself (as a tautology). When you make distinctions, like awareness != perception, you only make it by referring to what perception isn't or what is other than it, which isn't actually perceived as a real perception and thus it does not actually define perception at any point. Perception has no way to define itself, all it can do is point to what isn't itself, via what we call "distinctions". Yes, meaning would be the implication of something other than perception which could define perception.

From what I can tell, all their recent posts are straight from GPT. I forgot what the rules about that were. Kinda cool having GPT as a member of the forum, though.

I'd recognize my good friend GPT anywhere

Looks like they picked a good one.

That would be overlooking existence. In order for there to be needs and hardware, there has to be a concession that they exist (and thus are perceived). Otherwise, you're going off of what is never experienced (Santa Claus). Consider that, at the moment of the Big Bang, the Big Bang did not create the universe. Rather, the universe was the Big Bang. Only when the universe stops being the Big Bang do you say "the Big Bang created the universe" because now you can make a causal chain of events out of it. It is not absolutely true that the Big Bang created the universe, it is only true via a relative chain of events created by the separative faculty of your mind. You can only make that claim via memory, or by referring to what doesn't exist anymore, or non-existence, or "other-than-perception", aka "Santa Claus".

Nothing, really. What you described is not perception. Just like not seeing, not hearing, etc. Those are distinctions, which would be other than perception. No one knows what they aren't perceiving, because it's not perceived. Just like no one knows about Santa. If someone said they knew about Santa, it would be belief (not experienced), not something actually known.

You'd have to perceive that.

What am I "not getting"?

Getting what?

Perception doesn't require anything. Hence, infinite. Are there opposites or not?? Pick one. You can't be a non-dual dualist.