The observer

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    681

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The observer

  3. Posted · Edited by The observer

    Most guys are creeps. Some of them have an anxious attachment style, some of them have a fearful attachment style, some of them have a disorganised attachment style, and some of them have some of each. We all have some of each in fractions, and very rarely you can find someone with little gaps in their security. I'm noticing this as I'm learning more. This is predominant throughout society. In college and everywhere. The last time I was attending the language lesson, I approached a girl lightly, made a couple of jokes and moved on. I wasn't interested in her to be honest. It wasn't even a challenge of putting myself out there in the field again. I was just being authentic. The truth is that I liked her girl friend. She was with her. I wanted to talk to her but she shied away and remained silent, it was like she was trying to hide. That turned me off. They were both walking down the corridor, and I heard them talking, so I interrupted with a friendly joke directed at the one I didn't like initially. I have a history of eye contact with the one I like. The other one I barely notice. The one I like started walking slower than her friend and me. Her friend started engaging with my conversation. She clearly has a good deal of self-esteem. I like that. I actually now am more attracted to her than her friend. Looks are deceiving. I don't like a slim tall girl. If tall, I like her fat. And if short, I like her curvy. The one I liked initially was short and curvy, actually a little close to fat, and she has a beautiful face and a good dressing taste. All that didn't matter after the approach. I was turned off. Afterwards, I walked out of the building, and I noticed the curvy girl stalking behind me. I only noticed that after I crossed the street. I looked back and I saw her. She immediately turned her face away. That turned me off even more. Noob. I really don't like her anymore. Personality is way, way more important to me than looks, but I would take the most I could have. The more the better. The problem here in my culture is that we can't have sex casually. Only after marriage. That explains why everyone acts weird. Everyone is horny and wants to have sex, but they can't. So, they unconsciously distort their sex desire into manipulation and silly ego games. I can see right through all that. It's ridiculous. It's like I'm God amongst humans. Can't blame them though. I was even worse and I had to work through it to get here. Religion also has a lot to do with this. Even if you're not serious about it, the predominant beliefs will affect you. Unless you're completely out of the effects of these silly things, you'll still be under the spell. You'll still be an ego that requires a certain process to hook. Silly. Being authentic is effortless and effective. It always works. I don't date girls who I know the relationship is doomed with from beginning. My basic standards must be met. If not, no second chances, no dating. I prefer being single and alone. I don't wanna waste my time.

    So, until next time...

  4. Posted · Edited by The observer

    Love is not infinite, but you're infinitely corrupt, and you need infinite healing. You have a history of manipulation; the latter wasn't your first, and it won't be the last. I am not a fool. I have tangible proof of your manipulation this time. You thought you were clever but you talked too much, and it turned against you. You could have remained silent and avoided being exposed. Liar! The lie that you thought was okay, was not. You said something at first, and then said something different at last. Somehow, I succeeded in cornering you. You could never run away from truth. I have screenshots now too. Accusing me of gaslighting, yet being the one actually doing it. Devil! And you speak of infinite Love. Classic!

    I've consciously forgiven you the first couple of times, it wasn't that serious, but enough is enough. You betrayed me time and time again. You disappointed me time and time again. Grow up.

  6. Posted

    Trust is an illusion. Yet, we enjoy it from time to time. But once broken, it's broken forever.

    Now, I better understand the feminine perspective on trust. How can a woman ever love a man who she knows will let her down, and even worse, stab her in the back, instead of being the one to protect her?

    Love dies when fear arises.

  9. Posted

    1 minute ago, Gili Trawangan said:

    Why don't you just assume you missed it in the first place?

    I would, but I remember vividly that the post ended exactly where I last quoted.

    3 minutes ago, Gili Trawangan said:

    Anyway, I'm out, not in the mood for your tone.

    That would be better for everyone. I am getting accused of something I didn't do, and you had me doubting my senses. Learn to be a more effective witness the next time you testify. This is a serious matter.

  11. Posted

    24 minutes ago, Gili Trawangan said:

    I saw it.

    Not that you need defending, but just saying, I noticed that he had conveniently ignored it before you even mentioned it yourself.

    When did you see it exactly? In the exact number of minutes if you can remember. I wasn't implying that he added it one or two hours later. I said that it was added while I was typing my reply. That could be 30 minutes.

  12. Posted · Edited by The observer

    39 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    First of all, if I edit a post it will be marked as “edited”.

    No, it doesn't. Log out of your moderator account and see. No mod comments ever are marked as edited.

    39 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    Secondly, if we are to have a mutual exploration of ideas, there needs to be a certain level of trust and personal responsibility.

    There was no distrust on my part. I only stated what was the case for me. And I am responsible for everything I say. I didn't see that phrase when you first posted your comment. Your original post ended where I last quoted. The rest was added later. If you deny that, then I have nothing more to say.

    39 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    Cynical gaslighting alters the dynamics of a conversation and it is a dealbreaker for me.

    Yes, me too.

    39 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    That quote was in the original post. Period. 

    For me, it wasn't. I didn't perceive anything written beyond where I last quoted. Otherwise, I would have probably replied at least to some part of it, like I do usually with everything you say, especially that it has new information that can be talked about.

  13. Posted

    12 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    Of course not. Why would I want to tightly hold onto an idea as being true? That would be a limitation of exploration.

    I think there can be some reasons for why one would do that, ranging from having no curiosity or desire to further explore things, to the inability to see the limitations of the detached/depersonalised belief system and therefore taking it for granted as the best one. I believe I could brainstorm a few reasons within that range if I wanted to. Not saying anything about you, just putting my thoughts out there. And to further clarify your point, I will say that limitation of exploration isn't a problem in and of itself, but it can be in the context we're interested in and talking about. If that doesn't prove to you that I am aware of my constructs, I don't know what will. I believe we're on the same level regarding this point.

    12 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    What is referred to as “your belief system” is partial and incomplete (as is any belief). Of course there are blind spots within any belief system. That is a main limitation of any belief system. Imagine standing on a rooftop viewing the city below. Any view is partial and incomplete.

    Another way to look at it. Imagine that we are sharing one connected mind. There is no “my belief system” or “your belief system”. There are merely ideas appearing in our collective mind. This recontextualization alters the energetics and relationship to ideas. A trick of the mind is to create “your belief” and “my belief”.

    Yes, I am aware of all that. Ownership and attachment are completely two different things. This allows a feature. I can take ownership of a thought, like any other human being, without being attached to it, like most other human beings.

    13 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    Yes I did. I had previously written:

    Notice how the mind filtered this out. . .

    "The mind" didn't filter this out. It simply wasn't in the original script. You probably added it later while I was typing my reply. There's no need to jump to conclusions while you know this.

    13 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    There seems to be some personalization arising. For example, the passage below is not using personal pronouns for the ease of linguistic conversation. It seems like straightforward personalization:

    "You don't know. You're just saying these things without a clue about me or my direct experience. That's extremely arrogant of you, let alone offensive to me. I told you that I'm aware and you insist that I'm not. I can see that you mean well with that, but please don't take on the responsibility of waking me up. That's absolutely my business to mind, not yours."

    Of course, you were crossing my boundaries. I don't and won't tolerate that. I had to draw boundaries between 'you' and 'me' because you were lacking them. Not that it's a bad thing, but that it carried some claims and assumptions that weren't true about me. I told you that once before, but you didn't believe me and you were too much involved in my direct experience and insisted that you know me better than I know myself. I had to put an end to that.

    13 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    This misses a point. You can already see how Leo is wrong and you are right. Why on earth would I point that out to you? You already have that part down. You can clearly see how Leo is wrong and you are right. What you are missing is the awareness of how Leo is right and you are wrong. 

    Again, notice how an interpretive mind filter works. . .

    Well, again, I don't think that Leo's view is wrong. I think it's partial. If you read through my posts where I explained my pov, you will see that I see the validity of his pov, yet I think it's limited since it's just a state. I don't want to explain my pov all over again, partially because I'm bored with it. I like always moving to something new.

    13 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    I’ve already said it twice and I’ll say it again a third time: I acknowledge that you are right and I am wrong. Lack of this realization is a major block and reveals the limitation of creating a “your position” and “my position”. It restricts the amount of territory that can be explored. 

    There is understanding and misunderstanding. I don’t claim to own either. If we create two separate consciousnesses (“you” and “me”), then it is true to say that I don’t understand you if you say that I don’t understand you. You get to create that and I don’t get to override your creation since you are your own authority. You are god creating reality. You can create a reality in which “Serotoninluv doesn’t understand me and is arrogant and offensive”. Or you could create a reality in which “Serotoninluv doesn’t seem to fully understand me, yet he seems to be aware of something that intrigues me”. You have created the former, which is fine. I don’t really care either way since I am not invested into being right or wrong. This would be a waste of effort since any construct created is partially true and partially false.

    Like I said, I can hold these two different views together at the same time. I don't need to choose either one, that would be a limitation for me. And I certainly wouldn't be talking to you if I know it's a dead end. No matter the discussion, I find that you always have something to offer, and that's why I'm still responding to you. Otherwise, I would have probably dismissed your points from the very beginning or said something sarcastic and moved on. I have people that I deliberately dismiss. You're on the opposite side of that. I wanted you to come in and have this discussion from the beginning, but you said that I am trying to figure out what love is through logic, and I didn't want to upset you, so I told you that I'll keep an open mind.

    13 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    As well, seeing an intellectual construct does not equal the ability to utilize that construct. For example, a mind may be able to see various levels of resolution when pointed out. Yet that does not mean the mind has the ability to create various levels, the ability to zoom in and out of various levels or make connections among various levels. This is a much more advanced skill.

    Sure. The way I perceive myself is that I have some degree of skill regarding this, perhaps at an intermediate level.

    13 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    Thank you. That allows space. Curiosity is one of the most important ingredients to consciousness exploration. I’ve found that when curiosity is expanded, space for observation and exploration is expanded. Notice how the mind can be selectively curious. . . 

    ??

  14. Posted · Edited by The observer

    3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    In a fluid mind that holds ideas lightly, these snags don’t appear.

    Don't hold this idea tightly.

    What you call "snags" appear and they don't care about other people's assessments/judgements. They don't actually indicate anything. That's simply a judgement/construct you've created, and you're contracted inside of it. Personality dynamics has nothing to do with the discussion. I hope you won't bring it up anymore. And here's why:

    "Part of attachment/identification is creating “a fluid mind” and “an attached mind”. As well as creating things like “expansion vs. contraction”. Such depersonalization can lead to interpretations such as “your mind is identified”, “you don't have enough detachment”, “you have belief systems”, etc. This appears in my mind at times as well. . . These are reflections of attachment/identification to depersonalised dynamics that relate to belief systems. In a fluid mind that holds ideas lightly, these snags don’t appear."

    See. You can't see these blindspots in your belief system, and you use it to devalue other systems since you believe yours is superior or truer or more expansive. But according to whom?

    3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    You are missing the point that I can see that you are correct and that I am wrong.

    You didn't say that you are wrong before, only now. You said something that indicates my inferiority since it was "obvious to you that I cannot speak Chinese fluently". I'm quite sure I haven't missed anything there.

    3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    If that were true, your mind would be fluid like water and you would be able to see and understand how you are wrong and Leo is right.

    There's nothing personal between me and Leo or you or anyone. If I see truth anywhere, I will adopt it. And it's not you who decides what truth is. Language is just a medium for sharing ideas, I don't necessarily have to use a depersonalised language to have a conversation. Don't get too hung up on that.

    3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    Claiming ownership as a “personal opinion” is one of the best indicators of contraction. Any opinion / belief held tightly by the mind is a contraction. And there is nothing wrong with contraction. Life is an interplay between expansion and contraction. Like the in-breath is expansion and the out-breath is contraction. Yet some minds get stuck in contraction as it grasps.

    But you're allowed to believe that reality is love. Your beliefs don't cause contraction, but mine do, because they don't agree with yours? So nice!

    3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    If I tightly hold an apple in each hand, how can I play the piano?

    Exactly! Right back at ya.

    3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    This is a good place to observe creation. You have created an idea of a love theory of which I think is more inclusive than a love theory you claim as “my personal opinion”. Yet I have not held any love theory. You are creating that. So tell me, what is this “love theory” you have assigned to me? Notice how the mind is creating a love theory that I hold to provide contrast for a love theory that it desires to hold and is attached to.

    Don't be a slick. I'm not going to deconstruct your views for you. That's your work, not mine. You're here trying to point out that Leo is right and I am wrong, in your own words; "you would be able to see and understand how you are wrong and Leo is right".

    3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    Agreement and disagreement is a creation of the mind. This is necessary for contrast and ownership of a belief it holds.

    I’ve already acknowledged that you are right and I am wrong. 

    Blah blah blah...

    3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    Imagine a discussion about geography in which one person only sees a map of France. When the conversation involves Europe, the person says “France is Europe”. Is that correct or incorrect? In a way, it’s correct, yet in another way it’s incorrect since it is contracts Europe within France. From this mindset, someone that claims “Madrid is Europe” will seem like an opposing view. As well, someone saying “All of these cities are Europe” will seem like an opposing view. It’s not that France is technically wrong, it’s just contracted. One would need to hold their map of France lightly to see other maps of Europe and start connecting dots. Yet the mind often thinks “My belief is that France is Europe. This is obviously true. I’m not willing to reject my opinion that France is Europe and accept your opinion that France is not Europe. Let’s agree to disagree”. Yet it’s not about rejecting one view and accepting another. It’s about zooming out and seeing the big picture. When we zoom out and see the big picture of Europe, we are still holding an image of France in our mind, yet we do so loosely - then we can see how France fits into the bigger picture. I’m not disagreeing with you that France is Europe. From one perspective, it is correct. From another perspective it is incorrect. A fluid mind holds these ideas lightly and can see how they are all connected within a bigger picture. France, Madrid, Big Ben, Poland etc. are all Europe.

    This 1st grade example only shows that you don't understand what I'm saying. It doesn't represent what's happening at all but rather how you perceive things to be. You confuse your perception with the actual reality, and you still insist that I have a contracted mindset. I'll say it again: arrogant and offensive.

    P.S. whatever impression my style might give you is not what is actually happening. I am actually extremely enjoying the discussion. So, thank you for your time. It is appreciated beyond description.

  15. Posted · Edited by The observer

    @Serotoninluv Please make sure you do get your PhD in speaking out of context.

    38 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    You are aware of it within the construct you reside. You are creating that “it”.

    You don't know. You're just saying these things without a clue about me or my direct experience. That's extremely arrogant of you, let alone offensive to me. I told you that I'm aware and you insist that I'm not. I can see that you mean well with that, but please don't take on the responsibility of waking me up. That's absolutely my business to mind, not yours.

    38 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    You are clearly not aware of something outside your construct. Again, this is not to say that any awakenings you have had are Illegitimate. Yet you are clearly not fluent in another area. When someone can speak Chinese fluently, it’s totally obvious when someone cannot speak Chinese fluently.

    *Repeat the reply above*

    + Your relative/subjective assessment of the fluency of others is silly. It clearly demonstrates that you're the one who's identified with his construct, and yet ironically calling out other constructs as not fluent enough.

    For all I know, eloquence/rhetoric is completely relative and any judgement made must be based on a construct. Don't shoot yourself in the foot.

    38 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    Creating a being called “Serotoninluv” that is making assumptions and trapped within his construct maintains contraction within that construct. It creates a dynamic of “my idea” vs “his idea”.

    Not necessarily. That dynamic does not exist for me. I am not unaware of it, it does not exist. So, let's skip that in the next reply.

    38 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    To say an expansive view is less inclusive than a contracted view is the silliness.

    Of course, that's silly. But I didn't conclude which view is the more expansive. I said that I think mine is more expansive. That's my personal opinion at the moment, which might change at any other moment.

    38 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    You are creating and attributing an idea of “love” as “Serotoninluv’s” idea that is contrary to your idea. This is your creation.

    What I am pointing at says your idea of love is correct AND there is a more expansive understanding that INCLUDES your idea (as true) within a larger truth. 

    Yeah, so what? Everyone does that. We're humans, we have sophisticated brains that can do that in the blink of an eye.

    However, I didn't mean that our ideas are contradictory. I meant that my explanation/understanding is more inclusive than the love theory. But you can't see that because you think the love theory is more inclusive than mine. How would you solve this problem? I have no idea. Maybe we should just agree to disagree for a now until either of us has some more clarity.

    38 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    However, if one extrapolates a finite truth into a broader truth, it becomes a falsehood within the larger truth. 

    Yes, exactly! But like I said, we both perceive each other's views as such, so...

  16. Posted

    7 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

    This is false.  God or Consciousness can become directly conscious of itself.   This will be the total annihilation of all differences.

    The unawakened God is IT now but the problem is God is not directly conscious of itself.   Its paradoxical because of Oneness.  But the direct realization of Oneness is awakening.

    @Someone here That's a good example of what I was referring to.

  17. Posted

    22 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    The problem is that you are pointing within a construct you have created. You will not be able to see clearly and be qualified to point beyond your construct until you expand beyond your construct. Further, you will not be able to understand the pointers you interpret as confusing within your construct until you expand beyond that construct.

    I am well aware of that. You assume I'm not. That's your problem, not mine. In fact, I think that you and Leo are trapped inside your construct and aren't able to expand/see beyond it to join me in mine. So, who's to say which construct is more inclusive? For me, the love theory is silly, not because it's illogical. I don't subscribe to logic. But because it contradicts my direct experience so far, big time, and because I believe I've gone further than Leo in this work, partially because I'd thought that the love theory was true earlier and had moved past it.

    Maybe in the future I will discover that your love theory is true. I don't know. Or maybe I will have more evidence that mine is the true one. I don't know either. All I know is that you aren't open to being wrong. You believe that you have the ultimate explanation without the shadow of a doubt. That's extremely silly. We've all been in this trap. It's known as closed-mindedness. And what's more silly is that you seem to believe that your explanation is in any way true. You seem to believe that the map is the territory, which I don't. But you perceive me as such, so it's pointless, we can't settle it once and for all.

    22 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    There are awakenings you haven’t had yet.

    Absolutely, but not exclusive to me. There are awakenings that neither you nor Leo have had yet, mine are some of which I believe you haven't.

  18. Posted

    1 minute ago, Someone here said:

    We have to distinguish between the ultimate explanations and the relative ones. 

    Yes, please! I want you to deeply contemplate this distinction. What does it actually mean?

    2 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    What I mean by limited partial explanation is exactly that.. Limited partial explanation!

    This does not help.

    3 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    For instance we don't have ultimate explanation of where the hell did the universe come from and why but we do have a relatively correct map "the big bang" explaing how it came about.

    What if there was no ultimate explanation? What if the universe didn't actually come from 'somewhere'? What if the big bang is merely 0.0000000000001% or less of the universe?

    What is the universe?

  19. Posted · Edited by The observer

    11 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    I'm well aware that it can't give ultimate explanation. But we do have limited partial explanations that's for sure. The examples are just countless you name it.  But then again here we are drifting away from the original topic. This topic is specifically about explaining psychedelics scientifically. 

    Okay, let's stay on topic. How does science explain psychedelics?

    And what do you mean exactly by limited partial explanations? And ultimate explanations?

  20. Posted · Edited by The observer

    @Serotoninluv Please don't take things out of context. I was referring to a specific issue here. It's the confusion that the pointer 'love' causes to 'a lot of people'. And it is absolutely right regardless of opinions. Want proof? Just read throughout the forum for confused questions about love. The pointers we already have already cause a lot of confusion. We don't need more confusing pointers. We need more effective ones. Apparently, you don't see 'love' as a pointer, you see it as truth, but let's leave that for now because I'm bored with this discussion.

    Now, you may object to the relativity of the amount of people getting confused; Is a thousand people 'a lot' or is it not? But that would be something we can agree to disagree upon, since no one has or can have accurate numbers/statistics.

  22. Posted

    17 hours ago, Someone here said:

    Science apparently explained a lot of things. Might not be able to explain everything. But to say it can't explain anything is just ridiculously false.

    Science didn't actually explain anything at all. Literally nothing.

    Still, it's definitely capable of creating value out of translating one form of perception into another and interchangeably.

    To make this conversation solid, could you provide one example where you think science did explain something, so that we can deconstruct it with you?

  23. Posted · Edited by The observer

    @Someone here Bashing? Lol! I was specifically talking about the ones that want others to become like them. That's what many of them do. And of course, it's not exclusive to mystics. The ego loves to have control over reality. The ones that tell you to copy them do not want you to be free. That's what I meant.

    Of course, that's what our modern definition of freedom means. But now that I think about it, even blindly following others can be freedom for some people. So, I guess it's not so simple.

  24. Posted

    6 hours ago, Someone here said:

    I can sense that. What confused me Leo says there is levels to awakening. I'm convinced that all of reality is itself awakening. So in that sense you could say there is endless levels to awakening that's true which is the same thing as saying there's zero levels to it and this is it lol. 

    That's precisely true. You don't need to become a spiritual monk to be awake. You can be an awake scientist, or anything else that you want. Awakening is not exclusive to mysticism. That's a myth created by mystics that want you to become a mystical doppelganger of them.

    Follow your heart. It sure knows where it belongs.