The observer

This journal has achieved its purpose, and has shown me my purpose. I guess it's time to start a new one.

Yesterday, I've finally watched Leo's after-retreat video. I never realised that I had my life purpose always under my nose. I was always thinking and searching for it where I never desired anything else but it. My life purpose is to be unconditionally loving! Conditions limit me in every aspect. Conditional love is not enough. And from experience, it always ends up hurting me. I will love everyone and everything without expectations. I want to live an adventurous life where I, unlike most people, don't wait for others to give me anything. The most suffering I've ever experienced was due to having expectations, and more accurately, wrong expectations. Now I want to become a warm environment for growing and nurturing people who are in need until they're ready to fly on their own, one at a time. I have infinite love inside of me. It would be a shame to me to ignore it anymore.

????? Not necessarily. Survival is not determined by the mind neither by the body. Without the mind, there's no fear and no resistance. But life and death are completely a different matter. The problem with this word is that it misses the heart of God and that it's also contrasted with free will which brings up the mind back again. Magic requires no thinking, just wondering and awe.

@Meta-Man Hahaha of course dude, that's the trick. Nobody wants to give up their knowledge and understanding. The mind is way too stubborn and tricky to unravel that easily. I have to agree with Leo on this one, there is a problem with using the concept of determination. Instead, I find the word magic more appropriate. There is the belief that the mind is necessary for survival. Well, need I say anything about beliefs?

@Meta-Man The point is; the mind is an illusion. It thinks it can control reality by studying, analysing, and understanding it where in fact all the mind knows is near zero. They say "ignorance is bliss" for a reason. Hahahaha.

You're only counting in a few factors here and dismissing an infinite amount of other factors. Suppose your arm stopped working. Suppose there is a transparent glass between you and me that you couldn't see. Suppose the water just vaporises in the air before reaching my face. Suppose you fall asleep before you can throw it at me. Etc... ? Life is funny it doesn't make sense anymore.

@Nak Khid I love your evil, you don't love mine. It hurts but nothing new here. I am the ultimate devil too. I love our differences. Can you love them too?

@Nak Khid God is both finite and infinite, also either and neither. It's so infinite that it could make itself either, both, and neither at the same time. Thought cannot capture the essence of God. Evil only exists inside you. It is not an actual thing. Whatever evil you see, is your own. Think about it this way; your identity (ego) hinges upon you wanting the world to be a certain way. There's nothing wrong with the world, really. Not even rape, torture, or murder. You're only trying to maintain your perspective by denying these things. You're not trying to survive yourself, or help others live a better life. You're only concerned about your worldview. That's your own evil. And of course in pointing that out, I'm not saying that you have to change. I love you for who you are. I love your evil. It's really not different to me than rape, torture, or murder. I love all parts of myself. But I want to ask you a question; imagine that all the evils you've ever thought of have been removed from reality. Like literally everything. All evil wiped out, okay? Ask yourself; Will I then be satisfied, like permanently? Or will I start desiring and chasing something else? Make sure you be brutally honest with yourself here. Because the answer to this question is root cause of all evil. You are the ultimate devil, but you can't see it.

It is prior to proof. But I think there is a misconception about the word itself. Don't think of absolute infinity as the mathematical infinity. The mathematical infinity does not exist while absolute infinity does. But I get it, really, because I've been confused by the term for a long time. To lubricate the realisation for you, start thinking of it as boundless, infinite potential. Infinite = not finite. Have you ever found Finiteness/limitation in your direct experience? Limitation is the illusion that you need to remove in order for infinity to make sense.

They both are and are not at the same time. Imagination is a function of the mind, but there's something prior to the mind. It is nothingness. From nothingness, everything emerges, including the mind and the ability to create distinctions. How can something come out of nothing? Sounds nonsensical, right? Nothingness isn't bound to sense. It creates the sense later on. Knowing/understanding is nothing other than the ability to create distinctions. This ability comes later after nothingness takes form and goes away after form merges back into nothingness. Right now, you're in nothingness. There are no "actual" distinctions. You are imagining all distinctions. If you stopped imagining them, you'd become "insane" because people would perceive as insane, but in reality you'd become enlightened and judgements as such would not make any sense to you because you'd have no distinctions between sanity and insanity.

@egoeimai You get it! ???

Guys, look at the porn industry. Most pornstars are females. Ergo, women are more horny. ?

Drop that cynicism Leo. Survival is not everything.

Impractical discussion. Men are hornier. Women are hornier. So what? You're not going to have sex with everyone on the planet. Statistics serve no value here, it just serves an ideology. You're only going to have sex with one partner at a time (or perhaps sometimes with multiple partners?). Why bother with the statistics when you should be focusing on your partner? Each case is different and unique. And if you know how to set the mood, you can get any woman horny. Sex for men is not about deep connection. It's about releasing tension mechanically asap. But this mechanical release is inconsiderate of the woman's body and is unfulfilling to both partners. Women's biology works differently on the time component but similarly on the tension component. A fantasy has to take place and it requires time to build. Every man should educate himself on how to give the best sex to his woman (both from her feedback and from research). Connecting with your partner during sex takes time, that's what differentiates between fulfilling and unfulfilling sex. A fulfilling sex for both partners will reset their hormones, while an unfulfilling sex will keep the man horny and the woman unsatisfied.

Sometimes life be like ??

I used to always suck in all kinds of ideologies from religion, to flat earth, to conspiracy theories, to science, to pseudo-science, to the law of attraction, to actualized.org thinking that I am following the truth. I have been questioning my reality since a very young age I don't even remember. I only used to go about it in the "wrongest" ways possible until about a year and a half ago when I read Jed McKenna's "Spiritual Enlightenment : The Damnedest Thing". Suddenly, poof! All gone.

@UnconsciousHuman Look buddy, I truly get your model. I just don't agree with it. I don't think it's based on deep enough observations. For me, what you're categorising as three is a one, or more accurately an unhealthy manifestation of a two.

Giraffe and elephant. I can't believe you guys are so stupid! Only one person knew the answer! How could you be so dumb?! I mean, for God's sake, only the head is hidden. I thought this platform was for intelligent people, but a kid in kindergarten would guess better. Now, guess the animal that wrote these things above. Hint: me 5 years ago. Applause ?? No need. Haha! Good day! ?

They will still be following you and seeing your activity even if you unfollow them. And they will not get notified when you hit that button and even if they look, they won't be able to know whether you actually follow them or not, so there's nothing to worry about.

Okay.

@UnconsciousHuman I can't Skype/voice chat for a variety of reasons I can't explain.

Okay. I'm sorry. I told you I can't.

As well, if they were to argue with you just for the sake of them being right, then I would classify that as stage TWO. If they were to argue with you to prove that logic is true, then I would classify that as stage THREE. If they were to focus more on human connection and your well-being regardless of logic, then I would classify that as stage FOUR. I'll leave FIVE because I think it's very complex.

I agree, it is fundamentally about "proof", but I don't think it's necessarily about "you wrong". You're adding a self into the context of stage THREE only, while the self is present in all the stages including TWO and FOUR. There is a fine distinction here. You say that a vegan proving the importance of veganism through logic is a stage Green (from SD) with THREE intentionality (from your model). I get that. And you're right. But I think your model is complex and could be simpler. Like, you say that we could have Yellow + THREE (learning +proving) or Green + THREE (e.g. proving the importance of connection or veganism) or Blue + THREE (proving religion/rules and norms) intentionalities. I think this nuance is creating confusion, and that it is based on a little confusion which I'm trying to point out. Fundamentally, THREES approach things with logic and proof. It's just how THREES interact with the world around them. If you're saying logical things, THREES will applaud you, regardless of whether what you're saying is true or not. If they were to argue with you just for the sake of proving you wrong, then I would classify that as stage ONE. Think about it this way, if a stage Orange is trying to prove that logic is true, while using logic, then he is Orange + THREE. Notice that he isn't necessarily focused on proving others wrong or himself right. He's just focused on proving that logic is true. Notice the subtle difference between this and saying that he's only focused on proving others wrong or playing up his self-image. Fundamentally, the function of seeking to be right and playing up the self-image is present in all SD tier one stages, AND in all of the intentionality stages too. Nobody wants to be wrong. That's just the nature of the self. Forget about SD, according to your system alone, how would you classify someone who's trying to prove that logic is true? Notice he values logic. Would you say that he's pure THREE? Or would you say that he's THREE (Orange) + THREE? Of course you would choose the former. Now, change the values that he's trying to prove. What will change? He will still be THREE according to your model. Because his approach is based on proof, logic, and evidence. But we can have a THREE approach to all SD tier one stages. And of course, we can have any approach from your model and apply it to all SD tier one stages. We've basically just got back to what @lmfao said earlier. It's simply more about how someone is approaching a particular discussion. You are trying to track how different approaches manifest in real time (real time values), regardless of the original set of values. And I'm with you. All I'm saying is that stage THREE approach is not the only stage which values being right and self-image. Think of these values as independent factors because you can have a stage THREE who is open-minded and not focused on his self-image. He could be simply focused on proving whatever values he has through reason and logic.

@UnconsciousHuman Okay dude. I truly get it now. But I still don't understand why a stage THREE would be focused on debunking others and/or playing up their self-image. I understand that you're suggesting that it's irrelevant to SD, but I am really convinced that this specific developmental line is in accordance with the original SD model. To put it in another way, people differ in their intentions/approaches at communicating with others according to the developmental line you're suggesting. The least developed intention/approach is ONE which is about extreme self-preservation, and the most developed intention/approach is FIVE which is about self-expansion. And the stages between are shades and degrees for this developmental line. Alright, so stage THREE is supposedly more expansive than stages ONE and TWO, and therefore it's less about self-preservation and more about objective truth, in its own unique ways, of course. Stage THREE sees the limitations and traps of stages ONE and TWO. Thus, I think it is valid to say that stage THREE is more focused on ways which are halfway between self-preservation and self-expansion, which emerge from seeing the limitations of the previous stages and how unaligned they are with the flow of reality. So, what emerges right after conforming, belonging, following arbitrary rules, and preserving the norms? In my view, the debunking others intentionality/approach fits more into stage ONE, because it's extremely focused on self-preservation. On the other hand, the playing up of self-image intentionality/approach fits into every stage with an odd number i.e. ONE, THREE, and FIVE, because those stages are individualistic by nature. What I'm suggesting is that there gets created a mix of ONE and TWO that makes THREE what it is. So, what do you get when you blend these two together? ?? At THREE, you want to have power and rule according to certain norms at the same time. It's like the epitome of TWO, like if you were in a society where everyone was conforming, belonging, etc... but lacking leadership, you'd emerge to become that leader. Yes, playing up your self-image plays a crucial role, but again, I don't think it's one of the essential characteristics for this stage in this specific developmental line. I think the best way to find that combination would be by creating a system of norms which guarantees fulfilling your individualistic tendencies and desires, like logic/rationality. See, logic/rationality claims that you can verify things for yourself without conforming to others by using certain tools that are based on certain norms. Logic/rationality guarantees you having the certainty of TWO, and the dominance/control of ONE. What do you think about that?