Reciprocality

@Karmadhi Haha well there are levels to fuck-ups it seems, though I don't really think you are fucked at all. It won't sort itself out however, so it is a matter of responsibility, and only you can take it for she obviously needs you to lead.

@Karmadhi well she is a girl, I know it is considered politically incorrect or whatever to understand the fundamental difference between men and women in general but she probably have things to lose that you do not. And she want to be a trophy, so instead of wasting time understanding her inner workings right now I believe you should accept that it is not easy to understand, as so many guys before you including me have had to accept.

@Leo Gura Yes, but is it not restricted to create something as opposed to avoid creating, is not that evident in all things always? If granted that the only thing it could not avoid doing is creating as evident by each of its products (or the singular one), then what about its particular products? Are they not evidently necessary as per experience alone? I would say so to an absolute certainty, it is here where my questions takes the predicate of the particular manifestations among the many possible ones and asks why ME in particular? To which the response again and again is both that it must be me for I am also the question, at which place there are no mysteries left except those relation among things that I naively accepted as me hitherto. Why then call it a willing thing, if as Curt alluded to in your convo it is just as much a perfect restriction?

@Leo Gura Is time travel part of your teachings also? @Karmadhi Even though you played rather nice the first time around you should probably listen to Leo if you get a second chance.

I'm sorry but I wont dictate an appropriate text for you. In fact I think you should call her if you first text that you want to, and say you are into her. I mean you said it yourself that texting is not your thing, it is not mine either and calling at an appropriate time has helped me in similar situations. How to do it, well that is precisely what i think you should figure out yourself.

Nothing confusing at all, you have to say that you are into her without being desperate. You already made out, be clear in your signals from now. She is testing you. edit: She might not be into you (could not know), but it is almost impossible that being blunt about your interests in her can ruin anything at this point in the relationship.

Life is an imposition on your existence, for imagination can pose for you the contrasting element to that imposition as precisely what makes you realize exactly what it means for you to be enslaved as such. But because there could be no restriction on the essential being which did not pose trough what we call "the future" its potential in equal extension we are free exactly because of our limits. But not even imagination can be of any contrast to for ex. the senses, in the ultimate sense, as to say it is not imagination as such which gives rise to the new moment but a force that an eastern influenced Pessimist like no other named Schopenhauer called 'The will as the thing in itself". When you speak of suffering you either report on you own experience or you speak on how (and how much) suffering distributes over existence as a whole trough beings such as yourself, to fail the distinction between these classes of things would stand in bad proportion to application of language at all, as the recognition of people beside you (if as mere objects of intuition) would be a precondition as well as extension of both. I believe suffering outweighs the opposite for most people by the reasoning that as an impression it takes all focus away, while a happy feeling seems to go readily unnoticed. Now, we apply dichotomies to all things for language to be sensible, that does not mean I say here that there is anything sensible to the idea that suffering has its real opposite, that is an assumption trough reasoning going haywire.

@axiom Perhaps there better be two languages, one for practical use and another in which the reference is always open and by which we do not put things in classes as in the former but put forever expansive classes on things.

I'm no master of meditation but I have noticed that I am less receptive to noise and touch when deep in the void. That may be due to the very same reason my vision becoming almost black if I stare on a single object for five/ten minutes, and indeed the calmness of meditation permeates the latter as well. To be a veteran of the void i think is a difference more quantitative than qualitative, such that what has in all of us the most potential for impression can be the most evaded in him or her. I had some minor angst a few weeks back, there were no doubt then as there is regarding minor pain in general that my focus on it actually made me suffer less or not at all. With my body burning however I expect no such fortune.

The only thing that can 'take over' in the sense I believe you mean it are beliefs themselves, emotion or logic in their purity can therefore only indirectly and therefore never really at all take over anything alone. No sentimental, emotivist, naive frame of mind can therefore be that very frame unless the belief in them perpetuates their essence. As with a logicistic, positivistic, dualistic, physicalistic frame of mind, since these things all flails their own predicate they are taking its stead. Since cohesion is impossible without logic, and all your life amounts to cohesion the question becomes not how one can make everything fit together from intention but why it fits together without intention at all. Emotions do not negate logic, emotion drives logic to its objects with or without conscious intention.

To assign probability to a WW3 in the next few years is the pinnacle of pure speculation,a drudgerous task devoid of both reason and aim. Though it will either be a world war in some sense or there will be no world war in any sense, what i would speculate on rather is the nature of the war were it to unfold at all. As a conclusion from there you are likely to see how that looks very different from the past wars we are familiar with, and for that reason alone you can see how the bayesian model of probability will do you minimal service. Unless you close the system, begin from 50/50 and infest the reasoning with naive objects of reference such as "putin this" "the u.s this", "atomic bomb here" or "fear here". The problem then is that the meaning such references are supposed to contain in proportion to the universe are so radically removed from its actual workings that the conclusion says more of your insanity then about the world beyond established grasp. At which point you discover the inductive method as a means for each such object to bear resemblance to the present world as idea, but since the object are themselves intuited as wild-cards that function at immeasurable will you are left without any more insight then you begun with, as well as the problem of drawing from trivial experience in history as alluded to above.

@Yarco xd

@John Paul You don't always have to own any property to rent out on Airbnb, as long as you are prepared to take on some minor risk then you can rent an apartment for the same month in which you rent it out to travelers who would gladly pay both three and four times what you do each day.

@Gregory1 You seem to compensate so much in the policing aspect of things one could be forgiven for questioning who enacted the laws on the account of which you patrol.

All negations are of the mind, death as such is an object of reason. If there is something outside your bubble of consciousness it would be the thing in itself, the thing precisely the definition of which absurds. Trough your limitations there are no such thing as a thing in itself, and since you are those reductions only you are in absurdity questioning the possebility itself of what is outside you. Pure imagination as an end in itself forever not to be a means as otherwise would be your nature.

Logic is a precondition for identity, of which i have seen almost nobody on this forum very aware. That requires substantial meta-cognition, for even in the application of logic which is the only mode for language there rests no insurance that logic inheres in it. Formal logic is to logic as such as the calculator is to both a finished and an unfinished calculation. It is not those alone with a skill in synthetic computation who apply logic in a day to day basis, and on the matter of synthetic computation as you seem to propose this forum being filled with I must respond with a hard hell no, as would be a trivial addition to its general ends.

@Ramu I guess had it not been for you telling them as bluntly as you do that they are not put up for it then they would definitley not 'get it', right?

@Ramu It's good you included yourself among the chosen ones, could have left us completely in the dark otherwise.

As long as you are living you can not transcend concept, but you can transcend the belief that the object of reference trough concept is external and something 'in itself' beyond the reference itself, as in beyond your mind. Solipsism as a metaphysics based in the (knowledge of the boundary of mind) as the boundary to existence can either be assumed as absurd or assumed as perfectly cohesive or sensible. The question then gets back to the original meaning of skepticism, in which alone the imaginary power poses the alternative to having already been convinced of a given claim. Such that if I said 'around my house there is a pink fence' you either believed the information as such or you problematize it trough imagination perhaps as 'I could easily conceive that a fence were white'. In which case we must ask what is the relation between the imagined and the claim, and what is the nature of such claims which can have an equal antithesis and precisely the nature of such claims beyond conceivable antitheses. The solipsist is indeed a skeptic who regard his imagination as something which stands powerless to not only some but indeed all possible claims and information in general, the skeptic however is the least skeptic of all for he thinks that there where anything transcendentally meaningful in the claim such to deserve a wholehearted discourse in the first place. He then applies his abundance of speculative powers onto a claim he conceive of as both integral to his schema and powerful over the things in themselves from where he believes his schema were wholly built. Solipsism regard the question of 'others' as a meaningful question to be defeated synthetically. In so doing it defeats its own premise in imagination being powerless. We could even say that he is in it for the 'game'. Non-dualism does not regard the question as meaningful at all, indeed no question as meaningful at all.

Yes its called cleanliness, go figure.

He is teasing you, just wanted to make sure you love him.

Life would be dreadful without drama, as such they are often perfectly capable of making you more interesting then you are. So they create in you the beast they almost tamed in themselves. The higher your aim the more of a beast you must be on your own though, the higher their expectations and the more boring you appear. You speak of 'caring', but if you have cared too much they want to be teased, if you care not enough then your problem is elsewhere. And the real world of dating is to its theory what Actualized teachings is to its followers, and with that in mind you are wasting your time.

And they also hate it when you are honest about your emotions and thoughts, curious don't you think? I guess it amounts to tact and general human social skill more so than honesty or deception as though ever perfect on their own.

Sure he will, he's just waiting out you clever beggars to expand the fee for him.

If your standards are set around the 13th century then sure.