Osaid

Very cool. Unfortunately, I have nothing to argue about with you.

What about when you're trying to fall asleep? Same deal?

Language is deep. I am quite sure that there is something happening here where people think language is reality. Otherwise, there is no possibility for symbolism or description or identity or distinction.

Yeah, we could say that's a function of language. All the while, the experience of "grass", or just experience, is clearly not a consensus or agreement. You can definitely debate with someone about what "this" is called (maybe they speak Spanish), but debating about the existence of "this" would be silly because the only way you can argue is through the experience of "this". The debate or difference is only about "what do we call it and how do we filter it through language and knowledge". After what, though? "This" is always here, prior to all concepts, because it's undistinguished. Without saying "this is that" (language), experience quite literally seems to not be anything in particular. I do not see how anything can be distinguished without first making a statement about it.

Wow that's so manipulative and evil, helping your partner blossom into having an awesome life. But I guess you gotta do what you gotta do. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄

0 ÷ 10 = 0

If you're seeking something, you can be sure it's not wholeness.

Nice. Experience itself is quite obvious, isn't it? The fact that you're experiencing. Maybe it's the most obvious thing there is. The truth of this can be experientially "grounding" or like an "anchor". Whatever there may be, if it is true, then it must include this fact of existence, which is the most obvious. Meditation is good for recognizing this. Therein, the confusion doesn't seem to come from experience or existence itself, but it comes when you start dissecting this obvious fact of existence into its various contents, like "what am I", or "what is that", and so on and so on. So, I think a good course of action is to keep focus on what is already seen to be real and infallible, and then the unreal and fallible will vanish on its own. You can run around trying to disprove an infinite amount of different things, or you can just keep focus on what is already real and self-evident. Then, it would probably be great to ask: Is there an aspect of reality which is not susceptible to change? Essentially, an aspect which is changeless or unchanging.

Welcome

If you're open to trying, I like intermittent fasting. Like 16 or 18 hours, 1-2 meals a day. Except, I do allow liquids like coffee or tea in the morning with cream or sugar and a snack at most. I think warm beverages like coffee and tea help with metabolism. The meals have to be dense and filling and nutritious though. Lack of nutrition will cause more cravings because the body tries to find it in something else, creating a cycle. Fiber is also good for satiety. Calories are also good for satiety. Hard to go wrong with whole foods. I don't believe in the "low-calorie" philosophy/fad, I think it leads to consuming strange processed foods without any nutrition which creates a cycle of cravings, as mentioned before. Basically, what you're eating is like eating air, so you end up hungry very quickly afterwards or it makes a tendency to snack on air all the time. It's hard to see anything bad happening with the fasting as a "buffer", and you could probably combine exercise too. For weight loss I would probably consume coffee/tea with just cream or no cream at all. As for the question in the title, high fat because it tastes the best.

Is it true that you're trusting that something is true? Is it true that you're holding or thinking that something is true? No, those would be beliefs.

Right. Certainly I use the word "grass", but there is an "actual phenomenon" beyond the word. There isn't actually something called grass. The word only points to something which is ineffable. It is ineffable because it exists by itself. The actual observation of it excludes everything else. It's very similar to how I can use my physical hand to point at the moon, but the finger is clearly not the moon. Similarly, words and knowledge seem to actually be "mental pointers", they don't define or illuminate what they point at any more than a finger does. It would be knowledge. It differs because it is knowledge. There would be the word "grass" and all the associations with the word with all of its properties. But the actual thing that this knowledge is "about" has no association. Knowing a chair is quite clearly a different process compared to the existence of a chair. You can be in a room which has no chairs and still say "I know what a chair is". A blind man can do this as well. That seems very hard to do. From my POV all distinctions arise from language/thoughts/words. Without that there's nothing distinguished at all. The body can move around and do its thing, but that all happens by itself in one movement, it doesn't actually need something else. I do suspect there is a kind of "intuition" or "knowing" which doesn't require separation which is actually inherent to awareness or observation itself, though. You are likely referring to that. Emotion is like that. It does seem that all words are made up, and that therein all the objects we perceive are "man-made" or learned over time. But the stranger and trickier aspect I noticed is that this conclusion is itself made of words, and so the insight runs into a kind of "dead-end". It loops in on itself. Catch-22.

No. "Same as before" would be a present thought. Like "tomorrow". Right, it's totally independent. But when we open our eyes we think it isn't, lol. I think the entire realization was that knowing is symbolic. You definitely do not need to know or symbolize anything to see "grass". It's just a given. There's the thing by itself, then there's the "knowing" of it which introduces something else. When you say "this is grass" it's as if what you're perceiving is put into a relationship, but it was very clear that there isn't actually any relationship. You can invent any sound or image or symbol or thought that you want, like "cat" or "this isnt a cat" or "this is grass" and you will not get closer to knowing what anything is, because what actually exists is not symbolic or relational. You could say "grass" or "rock" or "phone" and it would "slip off" of what you're perceiving in a way where it's very obvious that you don't actually know anything about what you're perceiving.

Yep. Basically always conflated with sexism/misandry. Too many bad actors unfortunately.

You can check Marriam-Webster too if you want ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's the definition:

It's a misunderstanding. That is not feminism, it is misandry. Someone can claim to be something and yet be another thing. In actuality, feminism is about equal rights for all genders. It has nothing to do with the statements made about men in the OP.

"What something is" seems to require something other than what is. The question itself seems to be mistaken. I had a strange experience where I could clearly and factually see that we don't know anything. All notions were void and essentially seen as complete nonsense. Greatest day of my life. Visually everything stayed the same (no substances involved), but at the same time everything felt/seemed very different, like very playful and "alien". Thoughts would pop up like "grass" and yet it was obvious it wasn't actually describing anything, the notion that it was seemed completely ridiculous. All ideas and descriptions were like sounds or images popping up with no relation. When people talked it was obvious what they were saying doesn't exist. I think this is always true and it's just a matter of "tapping into it" right now.

Yeah I think it's a matter of philosophy, not even science or diet. Materialism is often conflated with science when it isn't. Trying to argue science or diet naturally ends up in circles.

Also the OP is an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy that they're trusting. There's nothing to really argue against other than "I'm putting my faith and trust in something other than me" as like a philosophical position, which isn't really diet-related.

I tried to follow the RDA and I'm pretty sure it's actually impossible to meet the whole amount through whole foods without overconsumption or eating like 3 meals in one day. It's physically a struggle. Idk if I'm autistic for actually trying to follow the guidelines, but it don't work. The best is meeting about half of what they recommend daily, I think. That being said, you'll know if it works by how you feel when doing it.

It's very strange, but "here" ends up being truer than the why. Why is in hindsight. Here is what spawns it. Gotta change priorities from intellect to presence. As soon as you try to dissect what exists it's already in pieces.

Difference is form, like humans and entities. "Physical" and "non-physical" is already two forms, and therefore isn't the same as "non-physical".

I think that's a harsh assessment. It's just saying that everyone and everything is already non-physical.

Interesting. Do you take questions?