Forestluv

Well there is the answer my self identity would like to give: "I would help others and donate most of it away" And there is the an answer based on passed behavior. How much of my disposable income do I currently donate and use to help others? Not much. Would this necessarily change if I had much more disposable income? Maybe. I don't know. Part of me would likely feel overwhelmed and there would be a fear of losing the wealth. That part of me likes security, so I would probably invest a lot of it in something safe, like a money market. Also that part of me would be concerned about losing the wealth due to hyperinflation. What if the dollar loses value or collapses? It's not *real* physical wealth. It's only paper after all. So, I would exchange dollars for physical wealth. I wouldn't want to manage houses and know nothing of art or jewelry, so I would likely buy a bunch of gold bars and have them stored in several safety deposit boxes. Another part of me likes to ration and pace myself so I don't run out (e.g. water or food during a road trip, pacing myself during a marathon etc). That part of me would want it a goal to live off the interest, or mostly off the interest. Another part of me would feel an urge to spend money to help others. This would be a combination of empathy and obligation. I would likely feel a new sense that I can make a meaningful difference in people's lives - yet there would also be a guilt factor if I didn't spend on others. I'm sure there would be countless people and organizations asking for money - and I would need to learn how to say know. I would give some to family and charities of interest - yet, I would probably try to lay low and not wear the wealth on my sleeve. I've never been particularly motivated by money or titles and they aren't really part of my identity. I currently have the resources to buy fancier clothes, jewelry, car etc. yet I don't. So I don't see that changing. Part of me really likes traveling and desires to live with other cultures and learn their languages. I lived in South America for two months last summer and loved it. I would likely take a year or two off to travel the world and there is a good chance I would spend the rest of my life doing that. A few years ago, I read an article that the majority of Big Time lottery winners are right back where they were after 5-10 years of winning. (Due to poor investments, gambling, theft, general irresponsibility). So, although everyone has a great story of what they "would do", it doesn't pan out for the majority.

Sometimes spoken language sounds like music to me. I listen to a podcast of a Spanish woman with clear and beautiful pronunciation. Her tones and rhythm is like music. The clarity and detail of her thrills is amazing. When she talks, it is like listening to a guitar. She is like a highly skilled artist or musician. This only happens when I listen to certain foreign speakers, not my native English. Perhaps my perception changes because all the English words have meaning and I am unable to listen to only sounds without meaning.

@smd @aniss I agree three years of this sounds serious and it's probably best to take the focus off of her and put the focus onto oneself. Yet, I would recommend seeing a psychologist or councilor rather than watching those videos. I've experienced mentally-unstable periods and I think those types of videos could have caused me harm.

@Emerald Cool. It took me a while to sort through some old beliefs I had. This perspective is sitting better with me. Thanks for your help.

My mind has had some difficulty conceptualizing this point. In my head now is an analogy: That illusionary "you" is like a mirage in the desert. The mirage is an illusion and doesn't exist. Yet it still exists as an illusionary mirage. Awareness of this changes the perception of it. (As a sidenote: my ego is patting itself on the back for coming up with this analogy, yet I'm sure countless others have already thought of it. . . )

Many years ago, I began to be an observer of my thoughts during meditation. I identified with this "observer". It felt more like the "real me". I considered this space as "awareness" or "mindfulness". This concept generally went over well during discussions in my Buddhist groups. I might say something like "My ego hinders me from expressing my true nature". It seemed fairly normal to talk of the ego / self as a distinct entity from the observer. Recently, this view of consciousness doesn't seem right. This weekend I was hiking solo and at times it seemed I was in the awareness space. Yet, it felt odd to identify awareness as the observer. . . It's like 20 years ago during meditation, I realized I was not the actor in the movie. I was the observer of the movie. But recently, that observer seems like part of the movie. I became aware that the movie is actually about a person watching a movie. I was observing this spectator watching the movie. Then, there was awareness that the movie is actually about a person watching a person watching a person watching a movie. Then, more and more levels arose into infinity. Then, the concept disappeared into nothing and I am left with not knowing. . . Is this observer also an illusion? Conceptually, I have this thought/belief that "there needs to be an observer for observation". How can there be awareness without "something" or "someone" being aware of it? Is "awareness" just the sensory input and processing without the need of an observer? Yet, how can it exist without an observer? So now, phrases like "My ego hinders me from expressing my true nature" don't make sense. Who is the "me" and the "my"? It used to be the observer in my mind, yet now the observer seems like an illusion. So now many blogs, posts and videos on "spirituality" don't make sense to me. I recently heard someone say something like "You need to delete you to find yourself". Yet, who is the "you" and the "yourself"? I.e. who is the "you" trying to find "yourself"? And who is the "yourself" this "you" is trying to find"? I have thoughts that "this is just semantics. Don't get all philosophical about it". Yet sometimes I am uncertain about what people are referring to when they write about consciousness.

Thank you. For the past few months, there have been some glimpses of awareness that seem nondual. Would you recommend pursuing teachings on nonduality / teachings from a nondual perspective? Or, is it more effective to continue with duality teachings with an awareness that it's from a non-dual perspective?

Today I admired a butterfly dancing among the flowers. There was a moment of awareness that I am the same as the butterfly.

Not quite. The creepy mailman that was attracted to my girlfriend was NOT in the "Friend Zone" / "Default Zone". He was in the "Stay-The-Fuck-Away-From-Me Zone". Based on my experience, the Friend Zone is when a male believes he has been elevated into the "prospect zone" and subsequently gets demoted to a "lower" zone (rather than elevated to the "Romance Zone"). The belief of being in the "prospect zone" can be illusionary or real. Illusionary: Bob asks: "Have you seen the way Sarah has been smiling at me? I think she may like me.". . . Yet, the fact is that Sarah smiles like that to all her friends and our fella is under the illusion that he is in the "Prospect Zone". A couple days later. Bob asks Sarah out for a few drinks and to "see what happens". Sarah surprisingly replies: "Of course not Bob, we're just friends". Bob interprets this as being demoted from the "Prospect Zone" to the "Friend Zone" - when in fact he was always in the "Friend Zone". Real: Sarah and Mark have a Tinder date. Sarah swiped right and has been messaging with Mark for several days. Sarah and Mark both express interest in each other and have texted about what they are looking for in dating/relationship. They seem to be on the same page and Stacey texts that they seem to be compatible and there could be some potential here. Mark asks Sarah out for a few drinks and to "see what happens". Stacey replies that she would love to. The morning of the date, Stacey texts Mark that she is looking forward to meeting him. Mark believes he is in the "Prospect Zone" and I would agree. Mark and Bob are NOT both in the "friend zone" / "default zone". Sarah is relating very differently to Mark than to Bob. Mark is in the "Prospect Zone". Stacey has clearly expressed that she is considering him as a potential Romance/Relationship partner. . . She arrives at the restaurant in a nice dress with her hair styled, makeup on and nice jewelry. She feels nervous. Mark is attracted to her and does his best to get elevated to the Romance Zone. Yet, Sarah notices that Mark is not nearly as tall as he said he was. She wonders: "if he would lie about height, would he also lie about more important things if we were lovers?". She notices Mark embellishes his stories and seems to be "trying too hard". Sarah is disappointed that she is not feeling chemistry. Yet, they do have some in common and he is fun to hang out with. She decides Mark seems more like a friend than a lover. After a few drinks, Mark asks Sarah if she would like to come back to his place. Sarah is honest and says she was really hoping they would hit it off, but she isn't feeling chemistry. She says she would rather "just be friends". . .Mark has just been demoted from the "Prospect Zone" to the "Friend Zone".

It boils down to awareness for me.

@Leo Gura Since the traditional "you" is an illusion and does not exist, why use the traditional "you" while communicating on this forum as if that "you" does exist? Doesn't that give comfort and validation to the illusionary "you" that it really does exist?

Or perhaps integrate my daily life into those glimpses?

I've never been married and never had kids. So, your commitment level is higher than mine was in this example: A dated a gal for over a year. We had several key things in common, yet she lacked the spirit of introspection, a seeker of The Truth. It wasn't much of a problem as long as I kept it to standard meditation and Yoga stuff. She had a strong negative reaction the use of psychedelics and I didn't tell her about these experiences. Last June, I did an Ayahuasca retreat in Peru - it was perhaps the most profound experience of my life. It felt like the nearest I have been to The Truth. I tried to share this part of me with her and communicate the experience. She immediately flipped out about dangerous drugs and how I am using drugs to escape and could ruin my life. She pleaded for me to promise that "What happens in Peru stays in Peru". I'm thinking "this is just the beginning". She did not evolve the next couple of days and it was clear how far apart we were in this key area. I broke up with her that week and have never regretted it. Again, your commitment level is higher. I don't know how I would have behaved the same if we were married with a kid.

Leo, is it possible to get a glimpse of The Truth without being enlightened? Occasionally, with and without psychedelics, there is a moment beyond explanation or conceptualization.

In your original post you state: "Everyone is in default mode to begin with, and only a guy who really sparks her interest or has chemistry with her gets magically and inexplicably bumped up to romantic-mode.". I think this is an overly simplistic binary model and there is at least one zone missing. Everyone is in the "default zone" is a very soft interpretation of a "friend zone". That would put the mailman in the same zone as going out with a guy for drinks on a Tinder date. I'm not buying it. When a gal heads out for drinks with a guy she met on Tinder - he is in a different zone. This could be a temporary "prospect zone" - but he is not still in the default zone with the mailman. The prospect for potential romance / sex / relationship is front and center on the Tinder date. Both people know it. She selected him as a potential lover/partner when she swiped right, messaged him and agreed to go to the bar for drinks on a date. He is no longer in the "Default Zone", he has been elevated to the "Prospect Zone". The interaction on the Tinder date is very different than noticing the mailman drop off the mail. She hardly knows the Tinder guy. He isn't in some "friend zone" or "acquaintance zone ". She doesn't have enough information. During or after the date, she could choose to elevate him from "Prospect Zone" to "Romance Zone". Or she could put him in a wide variety of zones. If she thinks he could be a friend, but not a lover, he could go into the "friend zone" with her other friends. Or, he could go into the "Creepy Zone" never to be seen again. Or, she could sneak out early, put him in the "Psycho Zone" and be grateful that she didn't give him her phone number. Furthermore, there is a continuum with many shades of grey. You stated a guy is magically and inexplicably bumped up to the Romance Zone. . . What if during the date, she kind of likes him, but unsure. She wants to get to know him better. She lets him kiss her goodnight. Is he still in the "Default Zone" or was he magically bumped up to the "Romance Zone"? or maybe it's a semi-magical "Pre-Romance Zone"? And whatever answer is given, one could dial up or dial down the intensity of interaction so the zones are ambiguous. What if they were just flirting with each other as they checked each other out? Still "Default Zone"? There is an area between "Default Zone" and the "Magical Romance Zone" which includes anticipation, curiosity, butterflies in the stomach and getting all dressed up in nice clothes and make-up. That doesn't happen for some guy in the "Default Zone".

Below is the most common definition of "Friendzone" I've found: "In popular culture, friend zone refers to a platonic relationship wherein one person, most commonly a man, wishes to enter into a romantic or sexual relationship, while the other does not. It is generally considered to be an undesirable or dreaded situation by the lovelorn person." This is how I've used the term and how my male friends have used the term. A guy is courting a gal and she doesn't see him as a lover and puts him in the "friendzone". To avoid getting "friendzoned", guy tries to impress her by promoting his positive characteristics. I acknowledge that there are underlying power dynamics in play and one person could take advantage of another, yet adding highly manipulative/abusive stuff so that the friendzone is some manipulative/abusive trap seems like an extreme usage of the term "friendzone". On the other hand, it's not like women are naïve/innocent and after several dates suddenly realize: "Oh my gosh! You are interested in sex?! I thought we were just friends!". I've dated women who liked the attention of being courted and the idea of a successful guy providing for her and her child. She didn't have a real desire for romance or sex, yet led me on that romance was more of a possibility than it was. . . . Just right around the corner. . . I saw this a lot when I lived in South America. On the other side, guys lead women on about long-term prospects and providing: "I don't have any kids, yet I like kids and could see myself being a father figure if I found the right woman and her child to settle down with". Yet, the real motivation is more immediate romance or sex. So there could be a "fuckzone" for guys - you want some romance/sex from a gal, but not a committed relationship with her.

@Emerald Emerald, thanks for your patience during my long-winded posts. You exposed a long-held belief that isn’t holding up to scrutiny in this thread. I don’t even know where that belief came from or why I was defending it. I’m going to re-read your posts now with a more open mind, then head to bed. Have a good night!

This is one of those threads I start off thinking I know the deal, yet the belief crumbles under scrutiny. By the end I realize I didn’t know what I was talking about and the issue goes much deeper than I had thought

I think I see your point that “zone” is unnecessary. One could simply say “I better make a move soon, I don’t want to be just friends” or “I was hoping for more and made an advance, yet we are staying just friends” btw, I don’t mean to be a PIA. I really like detailed conceptualizing, yet it can annoy people at times

@username I don’t understand your question. My point is there is an event here that guys call the friend zone. Saying the friend zone doesn’t exist does not mean that the event didn’t happen. Fine, let’s not call that event the friend zone. What should we call it? ”Striking out” is more for attempts in bars for one-night stands - not after 4 dates of getting to know someone. How about: “stayin’ in the default zone” “rejection zone” , “no seed zone” I prefer ”stayin in the friend zone” since it acknowledges the failed attempt and that friends is the default

Ok, how would you term this event: A guy asks out a gal he sees on Tinder. He is primarily motivated to spread his seed. During their dates he is on his best behavior and tries to impress her in hope of spreading his seed through sex. By the third date he starts to get worried that things might not turn physical soon, since they haven’t even kissed yet. His buddies at the gym tell him he better make a move soon. She, on the other hand, starts off seeing him in the default zone, as a potential friend. Yet, she is also open to the possibility of things developing to romance for a guy with certain characteristics: a good sense of humor, caring, affectionate, long term prospects etc. During dinner on the fourth date, he makes his move. He tells her she is attractive, how well they go together and asks her to come to his apartment for a few drinks and fun. She is a bit startled as she realizes there is a clear intent for sex. She tells him that she enjoys spending time with him, yet doesn’t see him as a lover. She says she wants to just be friends. I acknowledge that there is different psychology between them. Yet, there was an event that took place at that dinner table. We create words and short phrases to communicate events to each other. Here, he made a move for sex after a few dates and she replied lets be friends. This is a common event and it’s handy to have a word or short phrase to communicate it. If we had to create a term between one to four words to describe it, what could we call that event?

In my early 20s I was a college droupout waiting tables at Village Inn. After two years the fear of never doing anything meaningful or reaching my potential, I found a way to get back to schhol. The fear of regressing back to a waiter was the primary motivation that got me through school. I’ve had a successful career, yet I have not reached the same levels regarding consciousness/ actualization.

@rush Who is trying to “achieve” happiness? Where I’m at now, the sense of happiness is a product of my physiology and interpretation of external input. I wish I understood the underlying mechanism better so that I could tweak the settings

@username I think they’re all just stories our ego/self creates. I wonder if realizing that “I” doesn’t exist would resolve a lot of problems.

If one accepts the self/ego does not exist and there is no free will, it becomes necessary to define the terms “I” and “you”. To me now, responsibility is accepting that personal physiology, shaped by genetics and life experience, and external input produced a specific output. Yet I also acknowledge that this concept is based on very lttle understanding of factors that influence human behavior.