Natasha Tori Maru

Upon re-read this sounds like telepathy. I suppose the benefit to telepathic connection and communication would be context is transmitted along with the 'distinction'. Less misunderstanding. Sort of like the entirely of what is 'Christmas' being sent - the tree, the ham, the turkey (fucken yum yum, its obviously lunchtime in Australia), the reason for celebration: birth of Christ (hearsay, goddamit) . As opposed to describing Christmas along with the historical context in a linear method using language. Anyway back to the topic - apologies. This one was with @Carl-Richard in mind

HAHAHA "I changed my mind, no thanks"

This is very true - my brother types INFP. Lovely man, but chronic oversharer. I don't need to hear it! He and I went to battle as kids. I am the heartless one Yes, crying is a huge release for me too. I feel VERY calm after. I rarely cry though. I process all my emotions internally. I don't like to talk about the process. I find it very uncomfortable to be 'in process' and have someone try to elicit anything out of me. Afterwards when I have clarity and distance I am okay to speak about it. But during I am super private. As you can imagine - this is an example of a woman not fitting the expected mould of society (which fits the youtube link above). Usually ends up with segregation or the old aloof/snob label. Interestingly, I thought feeling emotion strongly made me an Fe user, and hence mistyped as INFJ for the longest time. It was @Joshe who pointed out I was showing more INTJ traits. But looking back I actually do not show Fe at all...

@Daniel Balan Hahaha "I took my ego with me into God consiousness"

@Daniel Balan I was wondering this also - Yimpa was very sweet to me when I first started posting. *Channels the woo-woo to call Yimpa*

Interesting thought here. Maybe it can be seen as, for example, in communication: the context of a communication being the substrate of multiple frames of assumption coherently merging - to facilitate understanding of a set of symbols (as opposed to things). That is - looking at it purely as context within the social domain. Bit off track, side thought

I personally don't hand sovereignty of thought to AI. And notice I didn't call you any names here - so please do me the respect of NOT implying anyone is a narcissist for having a different view to you. We aren't trying to shut each other down - merely understand. Different views are being shared. My message was to impart that my experience didn't resonate with you - so I am leaving the discussion.

Once again - you asked for clarification and I answered. Good luck with your spiritual journey. I hope it brings you some sort of truth, although I suspect that will be difficult as it is based on belief. You aren't fully understanding what is being conveyed. It would be wise to listen to the wisdom of the masters.

@OBEler Ah right, gotcha I see I missed this - thank you

@theleelajoker Agree, unstoppable force and immovable object >.<

@theleelajoker didn't say women only have good qualities. You assumed he saw only positives. You never included men. Re-read the statement in your post. I consider that retracting the statement if you are being genuine.

Thats true I was making some assumptions. These were based on your previous answers also. But you must admit if you don't currently have the experience of many women close to you - you can fall into myopic attitudes due to the atrophy of experience. Easy to forget experience if you are replacing it with hearsay. Humans never remember things properly. Myself included. Respectfully disagree as this whole conversation is a narrative and IS the context in its entirety. I have noticed you read each users post separately. What I am picking up on is the common thread through ALL your posts. You effectively played your hand here. You haven't even acknowledged the entire thread of actualizers presenting alternatives and even Leo himself warning you of the wild generalizations you have presented.

@James123

@Lyubov Yep

What? I didn't make any comments about women not being into abstract things? Are we having the same conversation? I don't have anything to say on the matter. Okay so ... is positive? Are we discussing open minds? Can you stay on point - are you deviating around in an attempt to subtly undermine my character implying I do not have an open mind? Let's not forget you were the one to label women as grifters & exploiters here. Who really has a closed mind? Notice it is only you pushing this narrative with a whole thread of actualizers being like 'Nah, no lol'. AND YOU STILL WON"T BUDGE. Additionally - the point I was making was your blatant gender misappropriation. No idea what the point is.

Through the spiritual path you actually fall in love with life all over again. Wonder, mystery, awe all return. And you realize this is actually the ONLY place you want to be

Welcome ! Never fear being authentic and genuine - we all disagree a lot but the next thread over users will be laughing at each other in jest

In red - you are speaking to another man, not a boy, yeah? That is a man. Did he idealize women? I thought he was presenting counters to your argument. He never said women couldn't be grifters/exploiters. And they can be. I am more challenging you to see that you are misappropriating traits to genders. People are just dickheads really - case closed. It's fine to generalize - but most of your conclusions are misappropriated AND show negative bias, which, I suspect, is why @theleelajoker raised positive. To bring balance. Saying 'I love women' isn't some get out of jail free card. The guys here are bringing up stories from direct experience, and you did acknowledge you don't have many female friends/acquaintances. I think we can all agree experience trumps any 'theory' or hearsay. Most especially, if you want to see the 'truth' of woman, you cannot be having just shallow surfacy interactions and lack of variety of experience. You also need depth and variety of connection to hit closer to the truth. @theleelajoker provided his experience there.

Yep - I agree. It is a form of emotional labour many women are completely blind to. Teal Swan would call this 'containment' It is also a process I am familiar with myself, as I am often the one to perform 'emotional compression' for others. Although at a guess this might come down to personality type and balance of masculine/feminine. Never had an issue with holding space for others emotionally. I am very reserved expressing my own emotions moreso. Have you had issue navigating emotional landscapes when emoting, as this fella suggests many men do, when unfamiliar with expression? Some men have A LOT going on and when given an opportunely to express it can be like a damn overflowing. I could NEVER punish someone for such an earnest expression. Immaturity does that. Personally, I have no issue when men cry. I never get the 'ick'. I definitely agree that if you do not fit societies standard for gender emotional expression you are denigrated for it. I am punished pretty hard for being blunt and candid when I have a big agenda I need to execute. And woman to woman - if I do not emote properly, as society deems I should, I get slapped with being cold. Heard THAT before....

Fixed that for you.

Haha I would say that's not awakening/enlightenment - that's an e-peen measuring contest

@Chadders I think you misunderstand @Carl-Richard Experience is truth - it is this reality directly right now that is true. The realisation is that there is nothing else - you just forget this due to survival manifesting an ego. And this ego - the self - gets in between your being, and your experience. It is difficult to realise this - and - as you say, easy to 'intellectually' know this. The spiritual path will bring you closer to the nature of your true being. In terms of a direct answer - only you can find this answer by engaging in the spiritual process.

@Human Mint They are 2 separate realizations.

Actualized Quotes #287 It eats - powerful reminder. Thank you

So by the above, context is the condition of possibility for a thing to be what it is? But then, looking at it ontologically - appearing is being - but then this contextual thing only appears within a field? FUCK No context - no thing? WHAT