UnbornTao

My bad, I think I mixed up Syria and Iran. Hey, it doesn't hurt to ask.

@integration journey You doing OK?

Oops... Where did it go?

@BlessedLion Well said. Still, I noticed you used universal instead of absolute. I wonder why. In any case, people claim all sorts of things all the time. What's really in question is the realness of what's being claimed. And this is what's easily missed by people. The same argument could be made the other way around: if someone were directly conscious of X as not absolute (or whatever), then - until that is directly perceived - the matter wouldn't be resolved. Being assertive is just that, and doesn't make anything true. The issue is that, particularly with this topic, people want to believe it, as you alluded to. As far as love goes, who wouldn't want to be willing to be deceived by it? If anything, it's the one thing about which no one really cares what the case is, as long as it feels good, is affirming, or validates a belief system. It'd much harder to swallow a worldview in which Nothing would be the case (for example), even if it weren't really understood. Add to that sweet notion some drugs and a particular good-sounding worldview, and you have a recipe for deception - a self-affirming one, though. Bliss, baby.

The cult the ego makes.

You keep going for a certain kind of apple, and not the images. Why? We can differentiate between objects and the thoughts we have relative to them. And we already do. This is our lived experience right now. One is made by you, while the other is so-called objective. When a rock is thrown at you, you make sure to step out of its way, regardless of whether you hold the rock in high regard, like it, despise it, and so on. That's my point.

Definitely. And here's an exercise - or meditation, if you will: What's an experience of reality prior to "language"? What was life like before the addition of this layer? Not easy.

This matter is a bitch. Not every concept is language-based, it seems to me. And they're not the same. Hmm. But their relationship is certainly close. For example, we say that we experience emotions, and yet they're conceptually based at the same time. But this assertion flies in the face of our shared reality. I suspect emotion was possible for humans prior to the invention of language - or feeling, at least. We also objectify emotions as something real and "fixed," whereas the more likely scenario is that people of old experienced them differently. As usual, a lot is being taken for granted by us, arrogant humans! There are more questions to be asked.

An insight is rarely transmitted when people think they understand the form an explanation or claim takes. Insight lies outside the bounds of one's world.

Same. Jesus fucking christ haha

I was wondering whether that's enough time for the mix to properly cook. Have you tried putting it in the oven for 10-12 minutes at 170ºC? I'm curious what the end result would be.

Definitely. You're doing both, then. First you have the emotion and then react to it. Yep, 'wizard' is fitting. It's a shame that his career at the top was so short-lived. Messi and Cristiano went at it for more than a decade.

You clearly are missing an Australia Awakening.

Not the real Ronaldo?

If language is a cult, then we are all passionate devotees.

Iron-Wand.

Is this basically saying "people see what they want to see"? If so, couldn't agree more!

Lately, for me, it's been softer forms of movement - just walking, with the dog. I need to pick up running again. Who's doing your emotioins, though?

I'd start by getting clear that what you end up doing is what you actually intended to do - rather than what you merely said to yourself in your own mind. You may have had a desire to read, but you hadn't really formed the intention to do so. Besides that, turn off your phone, the TV, or any other pertinent device. No kidding. Then decide to read a book for however long you want. And catch the impulse at the very beginning. This should help.

I didn't say that. Neither is true in the ultimate sense. Agreeing is part of the latter, by the way. When you're hungry, you don't eat an image of an apple. This is the disparity I'm pointing out, since you said there was no difference between the two. Even when you eat a so-called real apple, there's likely a lot in that experience that belongs to the category of mental construction, accompanying the simple act of eating a food item.

If you say honestly and actually - and you mean it - then better to leave that unanswered. Many will claim it, though. And hopefully it is true. Let's just keep at it and not rest on our laurels, even if we think we've already figured it out, whatever it is we think we may know.

It would be cool to look at manipulation-based human endeavors in that light. It might help reframe how we approach them in our minds. But honestly, what isn't based on manipulation? Not that that's necessarily bad, though. The best option is to be straightforward. "Pass me the ketchup." Some incoherent sentences.

Guys, I'm afraid to admit that I actually liked this song: I must commit seppuku now. -- joking, just in case.

Whenever language is thought about, what is it that comes to mind? I suspect we're still a bit dizzy about what it really is - hard to pin down. As said elsewhere, it's likely that language is still being conflated with words or symbols. Point to anything that is language. Where is it in your experience? How does it show up? In what way is it experienced?