The Purpose Of A Girlfriend Is To Dream Deeper Into The Matrix

[aurum]

11 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

If I REALLY cared about truth, I would just suck cocks (no biases!) 

The ultimate test from God 

[aurum]

There is more to awakening than ruining your cosmic cosplay.

[RendHeaven]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

There is more to awakening than ruining your cosmic cosplay.

anal-infinity

[Eskilon]

14 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

The cost for Truth is EVERYTHING. No exceptions. You only get everything by giving up everything. Naturally, it must be this way. You get what you give, because you are the progenitor and the receiver. It's just you giving to yourself. So whatever you're not willing to give will not be received. You are are cut off from infinity precisely by the degree to which you are not willing to give up finitude. 

And I couldn't do it. When I came face to face with the TRUTH, I ran away in terror... and here I am.

From this perspective, you are saying that those who are spiritual masters and awakened ones but still in form, they are in a sense afraid of infinity?

For example Ramana, Buddha, Sadhguru, even Leo, would you say they are afraid and that's why they stayed longer in form? 

[Schizophonia]

2 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

men want the sense of anchored rest that comes as a result of them asserting their will out into the world.

i.e. if the "kiss" (metaphorical or literal) feels earned and drops the breath deep into the gut, that makes it all worth it.

if the "kiss" is a participation trophy or free handout and the shallow breathing continues, then the man will keep searching

I like being kissed huged etc because it makes me feel strong, but in your sentence it seemed about being at the fragile place.

If you see what i mean.

Edited June 23 by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

2 hours ago, Puer Aeternus said:

Lol, here we go with this shit.

That was a lot of words to come up with in reaction to a single sentence. You don't really have an idea of what I'm saying. You're talking to yourself in the mirror.

Of course eheh.

Edited June 23 by Schizophonia

[RendHeaven]

7 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

From this perspective, you are saying that those who are spiritual masters and awakened ones but still in form, they are in a sense afraid of infinity?

For example Ramana, Buddha, Sadhguru, even Leo, would you say they are afraid and that's why they stayed longer in form? 

@Eskilon I don't think "afraid" is charitable

but certainly attached.

A zen/advaita master who claims to be completely liberated but has solid floor under his feet = consciousness being attached to form and solidity with a story about liberation nested on top

for you to have feet at all; for there to be a floor at all; infinity has to reject infinite possibilities and crystalize into a single partial instantiation, and crucially, it must forget that it's doing this.

If Infinity remembered how it was stitching together the floor out of thin air, you would stop believing in the floor, causing a chain-collapse of belief in all physical things, which taken to its ultimate conclusion, would terminate humanness altogether.

[Eskilon]

10 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

I don't think "afraid" is charitable

but certainly attached.

A zen/advaita master who claims to be completely liberated but has solid floor under his feet = consciousness being attached to form and solidity with a story about liberation nested on top

for you to have feet at all; for there to be a floor at all; infinity has to reject infinite possibilities and crystalize into a single partial instantiation, and crucially, it must forget that it's doing this.

If Infinity remembered how it was stitching together the floor out of thin air, you would stop believing in the floor, causing a chain-collapse of belief in all physical things, which taken to its ultimate conclusion, would terminate humanness altogether.

Couldn`t infinity do both though? You can have a feet, but at the same time not forget that's its making this up on the fly?

Couldn't infinity have form and at the same time not reject infinite possibilities?

Edited June 23 by Eskilon

[RendHeaven]

30 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

Couldn`t infinity do both though? You can have a feet, but at the same time not forget that's its making this up on the fly?

Couldn't infinity have form and at the same time not reject infinite possibilities?

@Eskilon This is a really good question that I don't fully know the answer to yet so I'll try not to make definitive claims 

In theory, you would think that yes - infinity should be able to do anything at all (by definition). There's nothing that infinity can't do (by definition).

This means that, in theory, infinity should be able to be fully lucid of its role as progenitor without collapsing the reality of solid finite structure.

And yet, here's the mindfuck/paradox - there actually are non-negotiable, hard trade-offs that come with finitude.

Finitude, by definition, involves the rejection/forgetfulness of infinity. You actually metaphysically cannot have any finite thing which has not rejected or forgotten infinity. The moment infinity is fully recollected and remembered, all finite things must perish.

And so in a really inexplicably twisted way - infinity DOES have a limit. Infinity is not able to simultaneously be infinite and truly finite.

Infinity CAN simultaneously be infinite and mock-finite, yes. But to ACTUALLY be finite necessitates the renunciation of infinity.

What distinguishes mock-finitude from actual finitude is whether or not infinity has memory of itself

So to answer your question: you would think it should be possible, but I'm not convinced.

Infinity has many tricks - it could conjure a semi-infinite hyperobject and split itself in crafty hybrid ways to feign simultaneous singularity and duality - but this would NOT resemble human life on earth which we so cherish.

For you to be on this planet, you must, to some extent, have forgotten how you got here. That's my current understanding

but I could be wrong. this requires more testing

@Leo Gura would appreciate your input here if you have anything to add

Edited June 23 by RendHeaven
typo

[aurum]

2 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

anal-infinity

That's that Bonnie Blue awakening.

[RendHeaven]

@Eskilon if you take a water droplet and plunk it into the ocean, you lose it forever. you're never getting it back.

you're basically asking: why can't we have the water droplet in the ocean, but it's preserved AND we also get the whole ocean too?

the answer is: you just get the ocean. that's it. if you want to preserve the water droplet, it has to be cut out of the ocean.

the moment you drop it back into the ocean, it gets swallowed, and there's only the ocean left.

[Eskilon]

24 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

his is a really good question that I don't fully know the answer to yet so I'll try not to make definitive claims 

In theory, you would think that yes - infinity should be able to do anything at all (by definition). There's nothing that infinity can't do (by definition).

This means that, in theory, infinity should be able to be fully lucid of its role as progenitor without collapsing the reality of solid finite structure.

And yet, here's the mindfuck/paradox - there actually are non-negotiable, hard trade-offs that come with finitude.

Finitude, by definition, involves the rejection/forgetfulness of infinity. You actually metaphysically cannot have any finite thing which has not rejected or forgotten infinity. The moment infinity is fully recollected and remembered, all finite things must perish.

And so in a really inexplicably twisted way - infinity DOES have a limit. Infinity is not able to simultaneously be infinite and truly finite.

Infinity CAN simultaneously be infinite and mock-finite, yes. But to ACTUALLY be finite necessitates the renunciation of infinity.

What distinguishes mock-finitude from actual finitude is whether or not infinity has memory of itself

So to answer your question: you would think it should be possible, but I'm not convinced.

Infinity has many tricks - it could conjure a semi-infinite hyperobject and split itself in crafty hybrid ways to feign simultaneous singularity and duality - but this would NOT resemble human life on earth which we so cherish.

For you to be on this planet, you must, to some extent, have forgotten how you got here. That's my current understanding

but I could be wrong. this requires more testing

I see, thanks for the insight, I`m still grokking infinity too, so your input here is highly valuable.

[Eskilon]

17 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

if you take a water droplet and plunk it into the ocean, you lose it forever. you're never getting it back.

you're basically asking: why can't we have the water droplet in the ocean, but it's preserved AND we also get the whole ocean too?

the answer is: you just get the ocean. that's it. if you want to preserve the water droplet, it has to be cut out of the ocean.

the moment you drop it back into the ocean, it gets swallowed, and there's only the ocean left.

This makes things more clear, nice explanation.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

It was always my understanding the 'forgetting' of infinity, god consciousness, was to facilitate this reality. This reality could never exist if we didn't believe it to be so. There is no other way for it to be.

God as infinity as the creator. Us, as Gods manifestations, believing this illusion to enable it to persist. The choice to believe is essential.

So we can mine experience. So God can harvest experience. To escape the horror of the All Knowing. No surprises. Future certain. 

Edited June 23 by Natasha Tori Maru

[aurum]

13 hours ago, Emerald said:

For example... and to give a caveat... as Leo said in his post, there is evidence that women tend to be more aware of the emotional lay-lines of social situations and will tend to prioritize delivering things tactfully and maintaining harmony over sharing truth bluntly.

And that's because we're (on average) more aware of the social/emotional realities of experience than men are... picking up on vibes, facial expressions, and small gestures that communicate the nuances of a complex social/emotional matrix.

So, it's a dimension of relative truth that we tend to pick up on more easily than men do, generally speaking.

And it's usually much wiser to share truth tactfully and with awareness of these social-emotional lay-lines... unless you're literally in danger or simply have to do something SUPER fast.

Right, it's a tradeoff.

The shadow is that the same impulse to maintain harmony is what causes truth to get swept under the rug.

Women are not just sharing truth with more tact. It's a more social way of sense-making, based on consensus and prioritizing group well-being. In that sense, it's more collectivist. Like a hive-mind.

This might work if collective sense-making favored truth. But often it doesn't. Group sense-making almost always prioritizes survival of the group.

So truth will get sacrificed in these scenarios.

Autonomy of mind generally favors men. Men are often rewarded for breaking from the herd for the purposes of innovation, standing out and taking risks. And someone who is not as sensitive to the lasers and attached to connection is much more suited for cutting through group-think and delusion. But of course this also can come at the cost of rupturing social cohesion and connection.

Women’s truth mode: high-resolution sensitivity to emotional systems, but often pressured to suppress disruptive insight for social survival.

Men’s truth mode: lower sensitivity to emotional costs, enabling more autonomous sense-making and blunt truth-telling, but may lack the nuance to deliver that truth with sensitivity.

[Alexop]

There is a bias towards the feminine modus operendi because we mostly experienced the toxic expression of masculinity. Comparing the somewhat healthy femininity we notice raising with damaging masculine energy of Stage Orange, I rather pick femininity to lead my government.

My favourite politician in Sweden is a woman. I'd rather have her leading me than some disfunctional man. The problem with our politics is not that we need more analysis and autistic shit. We need more love and empathy towards others. And paradoxically you can even outcompete the more masculine countries on the global economy by being more feminine. You will have very strong public-private partnerships and happier, better paid citizens who will be more creative and engaged. Work smart not hard. 

Edited June 23 by Alexop

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, aurum said:

Autonomy of mind generally favors men. 

I can see why you would believe that at first blush, because women are more pro-social.

But I actually haven't observed this to be true, at all. And that's because men seem to be more highly motivated by securing social status and social pressures than women are.

If you look around in the world, you'll see that men tend to put a lot of social pressure on each other to perform Masculinity a specific way while women are less likely to police other women in the same way.

Many women will shout you down or give you the bird if you try to tell them to conform to Feminine expectations (and rightly so), while most men are actively trying to conform to societal expectations of manliness. 

So, the pressure that men commonly feel to perform Masculinity for social purposes keeps them cosplaying as the 'strong independent men who doesn't give a hoot what anyone thinks'... because it's the cultural short-hand for what being an admirable man means.

But it isn't a true divergence of perspective. Nor is it a reflection of actual truth-telling... as not all truths are blunt, straightforward, or brutal.

For example, let's go to the extremes to explore what's common in men.

Let's take an Andrew Tate type of guy who is seen by many as an "independent thinker" who is "escaping the matrix" by being a tough balls-to-the-wall Masculine guy. And he has "no tact" and has a "no bullshit" approach and he just tells the "brutal truth"... so just deal with it and stop being a pussy.

And honestly, he is what many men aspire to be. It's a great many men's vision of what being a divergent thinking no-bullshit Masculine "truth-teller" is like.

But even though our culture understands these types of Masculine behaviors as the short-hand for "brutal truth telling" and "independent thinking" it's just more social conformity in disguise.

And it's just competition within a social hierarchy... which behooves all the men to compete in that hierarchy to conform and try to be the best at performing certain Masculinity rules. Or there are social consequences of being called mean Feminine names and losing the respect of other men.

Ultimately, most men are too focused on inter-male competition and living up to standards of Masculinity to be truly autonomous with their mind or to be focused on truth in some kind of un-biased way.

If you look with your eyes at how the world functions (or even just this forum), you will recognize that men are far more geared towards conforming to set social standards than women are.

And most men will sacrifice divergence and truth to avoid looking like a pussy and to be respected by other men... like soldiers taking marching orders.

Edit: Also, NO ONE is socially rewarded for breaking form the herd.

True divergence ALWAYS comes with a social beat-down and rejection.

And if you're getting socially rewarded for something for being divergent, it isn't actually divergent. It's just the cultural shorthand for divergence.

It's just Andrew Tate "escaping the Matrix" by conforming to Masculine standards that society set for him the very best... and earning more social capital from within the social matrix.

Edited June 23 by Emerald

[aurum]

@Emerald you're making valid points.

We are painting broad strokes here and trying to identify general trends. You could splice things in many different ways.

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, aurum said:

@Emerald you're making valid points.

We are painting broad strokes here and trying to identify general trends. You could splice things in many different ways.

But I do mean as a general trend... in the broadest strokes possible.

I'm not talking about any particular person... nor exceptions to the rule that are really into truth seeking, inner work, or personal development.

I'm just thinking about your average group of women versus your average group of men. (Of course, with both having major blindspots towards truth)

And I just haven't observed any evidence that men are more geared towards truth than women are... nor are they more independent of social pressures towards conformity than women are.

In fact, they usually seem more swayed by social pressures and seem more anxious about fitting a Masculine ideal because there's such a high degree of social punishment in many male circles for men who deviate from Masculine expectations... all the way to the extremes of violence in certain social circles.

I think that the notion of "being the independent truth-seeking renegade" is a culturally Masculine aspiration that many men try to conform to. But the driver towards "being the brutal independent truth-teller" is usually just for the sake of conforming to Masculine social norms for the sake of social status.

It's not real divergence and not real truth seeking... its just cosplaying as such for the sake of conforming.

Real divergence and truth seeking are things that will make you unpopular in the eyes of 95% of people.

And if one's truth seeking and personal development path is giving them more mass appeal, then chances are that it's just more conformity in disguise as divergence.

[aurum]

17 minutes ago, Emerald said:

In fact, they usually seem more swayed by social pressures and seem more anxious about fitting a Masculine ideal because there's such a high degree of social punishment in many male circles for men who deviate from Masculine expectations... all the way to the extremes of violence in certain social circles.

Why do you think that is?