Princess Arabia

Yes, but he doesn't notice those who just ignores him or never replies to him or had nothing to say, he noticed you apart from those people because you at least responded, spoke with or paid his posts any attention but without rebuttals and was always cordial and kind and without resistance. Perfect for the role he was playing. Your "no opinions" were still verbally expressed, so he noticed that. Those who just ignored, went unnoticed.

You only stood out to him because you never talked back to him and either agreed with what he said or had no relevant opinion about what he said about anything. You're not controversial or dramatic and don't give anyone here any shit and you basically are emotionless (according to you), so that works for his storyline and the construction he was building for himself. Anyone that stood in the way of that, was an enemy and a threat. Why do you think he acted the way he did upon leaving. His construction was tearing apart and crumbling, and it was a desperate attempt at trying to not care, but that attempt only showed a desperate cry for help.

You're right about that.

If this is infinite how can it end. How can it even have begun. The only thing i have to say about infinity is that there's really nothing to say about it because whatever I say about it, is also it. If I decide to go in a cave and not talk to anyone anymore and not deal with anyone ever again, that's also infinity appearing as that. It cannot be escaped. Trying to get rid of the self, is also infinity appearing as that. Saying there's no more 'me' and I don't feel a sense of 'me' is also infinity appearing as that. If one feels trapped in a body and feel as if there's no escape, that's also it. If one 'dies', that's also infinity appearing as a body that dies. It's incredible what this is.

This is why I gave examples of both. They are two separate things and not about mistaking one for the other. You're missing that point. I understand what you're trying to say but one cannot mistake needing to make a judgement call on a decision and bashing someone upside the head with a harsh judgement or criticism. They are just simply two different things.

I've noticed this confusion many times here on the forum and I'd like to make the distinction between the two. One is to understand something to the degree one can make an informed decision based on that judgement, aka judgement call. The ability to come to a sensible conclusion about something. E.g. I looked at both students' grades and made the judgment call that one exceeded the other by far and deserved the promotion being considered for Class President. The other is to criticize condemn and judge. To bash, to belittle. Forming a negative opinion of or expressing a negative statement about someone or something. E,g. That girl is very promiscuous, that guy thinks he's the shit and he's not all that, lawyers are some conniving full of shit assholes that should be put on trial themselves, those people in the backyard are so dirty and nasty and never pick up after themselves. Those are judgements also. Making judgmental statements about a person, place or thing. There's a difference between the two and I just thought I'd point out the difference. We don't have to make harsh judgements about people but we often times do need to make a judgement call about a decision we need to make. One can observe without making judgements, but to make a judgement call one needs to observe - Princess Arabia (yes, I'm a philosopher now).

Ok, this is the difference and what I'm referring to. The difference in the words and meanings aren't relative. What's relative is how they get applied and used and in what context.

Congrats, Davino.

hilarious 😅

Yes, the dictionary's definition is in regards to the first definition. The second definition is in the category of "to pass judgement on", for which there is a definition for if you type in those words and that's where the second definition comes in. So search "to pass judgement on" and you'll see a different meaning than the first.

Saying 'X is clearly wrong' is not a judgement, but merely an opinion. There's also differences there too. I actually should have mentioned that in the original post because that also gets confused with judgements - opinions i,e.

A judgment based on a decision made or that needs to be made, imo, is one that's usually personal/private/made to oneself internally. E.g making a call as to whether to quote your whole response or just the piece I quoted. It's usually a matter of discernment and decision-making. There are really no lines between the two, as they are two completely different things. You're either judging something or making a judgement call.

Ok, that's enough. I'm Absolutely talked out for the day. Good night and see you again for a neither real or unreal discussion about no-thing. Hehe.❤️

I've let go of all that too. The more labels one puts on themselves, the more attached one tends to become and needing to live up to that label - subconsciously. E.g. Smoker, drinker, etc, One tends to live up to those and find it hard to let go of because of the identity associated with that label. It's like the killing of oneself (identity) and nothing really wants to die. So the stage orange in you doesn't let you rest because it has no where to go but to be a stage orange in you because without you there's no stage orange.

Btw, thanks for stopping by and good to see you.

That is your definition. Please don't put words in my mouth or offer up what you THINK I'm saying in my responses. To me appearances are neither real nor unreal, they are simply appearances that appears from nothing. Would you call a rainbow real or false. It looks like something appearing in the sky but go try to grab it and nothings there. It's an effect from the sun's rays and the clouds or however the process responsible for it's formation. That's what I call neither real or unreal. Appearance means that which appears and not within reality because reality is not a thing for something to be within. Reality is not a container.

I never said otherwise; plus please quote where I said nonduality (or even mentioned the word here) was not illusory. You can definitely quote me saying in many instances that life just is, though.

Cling to can mean different things to different people. I'm guessing you're asking because of the way I speak. I don't look at life as something to cling to. Things come and things go. I've had so many of those kinds of changes that I've learnt to not cling to anything too material. I'm not nihilistic nor am I just nonchalant about life. Life is glorious. Too glorious and magnificent and magical for me to try and claim to be mine. It's life lifing and I'm here witnessing it all, apparently and until I'm not. Idk what comes after but for now it's a show but not a show to be claimed or owned. Life is unconditional and doesn't need my petty conditions for it to be whatever it wants. I've recognized it's temporary and fleeting so why cling.

As much value as you give it. Life doesn't care about value; it just is, and doesn't need value from anything. It's the human identity that seeks for value. So you make the call. Read along or don't, the body still breathes. I might find value in having values, but I'm also aware that it's all made up and constructed. All normal and a part of life. Nothing to cling to or suffer about. Those values are meaningless, empty and means nothing but only to the story teller and it's made-up life. Not a very popular message but yet liberating but not for the one that's deeply neurotic and arrogant and narcissistic into seeing itself as the center of the Universe and that it actually is important and has a real purpose.

I said apparent individual's life. Meaning there really is no life of an individual but it surely appears that way. So, there are really no consequences either way because the individual's apparent life isn't really happening. Meaning there are things appearing eg bodies, houses, cars, trees, whatever appears is energy appearing solid and as form but it's not personal, sees no one; but there's an energetic pattern that tends to be found within the body that gets contracted and feels like a person there that we call me that thinks it's a human with a life and a story. So there are no real consequences because there's actually no one there. It's all just appearances and illusory effects. Seems real, but it's all empty and void of any real meaning and real substance. Apparent consequences are also just stories and ideas that the me invented to carry on it's personal storyline.

There are no truths or lies but only in the relative sense. Notice I didn't say all is Absolutely true, I used only the word Absolute. All that you asked is the Absolute appearing as questions being asked. Whichever way they are answered is also the Absolute responding and appearing as such. Answers in the affirmative or negative will all be relative answers. As far as the expressing of words statement, that's all illusory and only as an appearance because all is the Absolute and nothing can be known. For there to be something known there has to be more than one, separation and time which are also the Absolute appearing as apparent space and time. There's nothing but all there is so how can anything really be known. It's all a mirage, an appearance neither real or unreal but not actually the case. It's all illusory knowledge and expressions and also there's an illusory effect of you having an experience of knowing. That's what I mean by nothing can really be expressed with words.

Geesh, you would think I'm asking him to pay my college tuition or rent or car note. It's only a date that he asked me to go on and i would only accept if I liked him. Not just for a free meal. I can feed myself. I am nit going to keep explaining myself just to get insulted and be misinterpreted and words put in my mouth because of your preconceived notions about women. Lots of these rebuttals are mentioning nothing I've stated and no one is mentioning the fact that I said I would pay for the date if I asked a man out. Just because I don't ask men out doesn't negate that fact. I've done it in the past many times. I just don't anymore. I don't have to explain why. I have to take into consideration who I'm debating with and the type of mindsets. Nothing negative just different and at a different stage. I'm much older than most of you and more experienced and understand somewhat that men and women are different and are attracted to different things. Also culture and regions play a role. My mindset is definitely not one of entitlement, think because I'm beautiful that men should pay for everything or that i'm better or deserve more just for being a woman. I don't think that way. Neither does my stance has to do with treating the guy as a trick or a sex worker or anything on those regards. Those are different matters. All I'm saying is my stance and this is my personal stance that I'm getting slack for, is if a man asks me out on a personal date, then he is expected to foot the bill that's it. To ne that's just proper dating etiquette just like I won't expect to be on my phone throughout a romantic date because it's bad manners, or constantly keep looking at another guy or things of that nature. For me it's about manners and etiquette in this regard and nothing about what you are all referring to especially @Hojo. So off-track. With this said, I'm respectfully dismissing myself from this conversation as I can't think of anything else to say to make my point or to express myself as to how I see this. Instead, I'm getting backlashes and insinuations of a user, entitled because of beauty and not seeing the man for who he genuinely is etcetc. I have said all I have to say and will stick to what I'm saying with feelings of dignity and respect to and for myself for the way i feel about all this. I respect your opinions but I refuse to be put on the stand and be belittled for the way I feel about this matter. The only stance I have here is if a man asks me out on a date he should be responsible for that date. I didn't even mention this before but I will now, he should even make sure as a woman that I have a safe way of getting there and a safe way of getting back home or wherever my head will lay for the evening. That's not too much to ask and I make no excuses for these expectations. Chow.

Sorry but that's your childish interpretation of what's being said. I mentioned nothing about being beautiful and I know lots of ugly women who feel the same way. A feminine woman's style of approach is seductive and more passive. A masculine wonanls style is forceful and aggressive. A man pays for a date he asks a woman out on, period end of story whether she's ugly, beautiful, rich or whatever unless she offers to and vice versa. I mentioned nothing about valuing my time but his way of appreciating me for accepting his offer and I will do the same in ways that expresses my femininity and without it being an exchange of time for pay. A man will understand what I'm saying. A grown mature man. One who has had lots of experience with ladies, not girls and teenie bobbers.

That's not true. You are reading into more than what's being said. You're taking it personally and concocting up stories in your head from what's being said. Probably things like, what if I can't afford a date then I'm dateless, she doesn't like me as much she expects me to pay for her food, I have to limit my dates with women if I have to keep paying for them all. It's obvious from what you're saying that these are the kinds of things going through your head and what has nothing to do with my pov on this. Saying "put in a man's position", " have no idea how it feels from a male's perspective", reveals the mindset you have on this and the kinds of projected stories that is feeding this mentality. It's obvious to me and is only my opinion.