Leo

[Monster Energy]

Leo is like Obi-Wan and @UnbornTao is Anakin. I like Anakin more, but Obi-Wan is probably right.

 

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@integral I agree - thanks for you wise words

I appreciate it! 

Edited 14 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Sincerity said:

I think it's a tad more complex than that.

Parents could care about you, for example, and yet still have a very limited love. The best they can do, which can be not very much.

The difference, colloquially, is in the degree. Love is fundamentally inclusiveness of identity. That which you include, accept, embrace, you love; that which you exclude, reject, deny, you don't. Colloquially, weaker identification might register as "care", stronger identification might register as "love".

 

4 hours ago, Sincerity said:

I'd argue that there could be a truthful enough model (which is still only a model, but hear me out) of levels of love.

I'd say that unimposing love is above imposing love, for example. Basing this simply on my own love realizations and insights into what God is about. Does God impose? (question is flawed from the start, but roll with it? )

Whatever you choose to do as a human is less than God's love. And that includes refusing to do something. If you refuse to do what you think and feel to shield somebody else from yourself, you lack love for the impulse to do that thing.

But yes, that's besides the point in a discussion about human love.

 

4 hours ago, Sincerity said:

Regarding tough love: I can share honest masculine feedback with my best friend, and he can do with me. But we both understand that we don't know what's best for each other, and this is always stated when giving our views. Maybe it's not "tough" love anymore, but then again: maybe the virtue of "true" tough love (that thinks it knows what's best for someone and imposes it) is not so high from the start.

Is this not what I'm actually saying though by saying "I can't know whether you actually need therapy, it's my guess, my feeling"? See how you're gotten caught up in a word game? This is what is called equivocating, @zurew will attest to this, he is a master at pointing it out. I have already said I don't know what is best for Leo. To then conflate this with what I "think" I know is best for Leo, that is equivocating.

Yes, I will say what I think is best for Leo, but I will also say I don't know what is best, so I'm having a "honest masculine feedback" like with your friend.

 

4 hours ago, Sincerity said:

Ultimately, I think imposing love lacks respect. When you think you know better than someone what's best for THEM, in a way you think you're above them. Also note: unimposing love can be expressed in both a feminine and masculine way. I realize it might sound only feminine, but I'd invite to question this assumption. With feminine/masculine, the question is indeed of style and both are good.

I don't see how in the discussion about therapy, I lacked respect for Leo. Maybe in the original topic and leading up to the therapy discussion, "exposing" his faults, it had a definite element of harshness and "lack of respect", but that I was fully aware of, the Machiavellian that I was in that moment. But then let me also not draw your attention back to why I thought that was a good idea and what the content of the post clearly contains.

Edited 12 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

@Eskilon I understand why you'd see it like that. But I've given up explaining myself at this point. 

[UnbornTao]

10 hours ago, Monster Energy said:

Leo is like Obi-Wan and @UnbornTao is Anakin. I like Anakin more, but Obi-Wan is probably right.

Easy there, young Padawan.

I have the high ground. 

Edited 3 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Monster Energy]

10 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Easy there, young Padawan.

You underestimate my power.

 

[Sincerity]

23 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

You underestimate my power.

Hahahahaha.  Brilliant exchanges.

I’m Jar Jar Binks. 💀

[Monster Energy]

5 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

I’m Jar Jar Binks. 💀

That might be the boldest confession I’ve seen all day.

 

[Sincerity]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The difference, colloquially, is in the degree. Love is fundamentally inclusiveness of identity. That which you include, accept, embrace, you love; that which you exclude, reject, deny, you don't. Colloquially, weaker identification might register as "care", stronger identification might register as "love".

I think I agree.  

A powerful thing for (some) parents to realize - that they never really loved their child, they just „cared” about it. That is, loved them only in the limited way they could.

I guess with love, I have a standard of it embedded in my definition. Which I acknowledge might be not correct on one hand. But on the other hand, there’s something true about that.

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Is this not what I'm actually saying though by saying "I can't know whether you actually need therapy, it's my guess, my feeling"? See how you're gotten caught up in a word game? This is what is called equivocating, @zurew will attest to this, he is a master at pointing it out. I have already said I don't know what is best for Leo. To then conflate this with what I "think" I know is best for Leo, that is equivocating.

Yes, I will say what I think is best for Leo, but I will also say I don't know what is best, so I'm having a "honest masculine feedback" like with your friend.

Keep in mind, everything I was saying was mostly in reference to your statement „My wish for Leo to go to therapy is out of love”. In my replies, I was pointing to my belief that this is „imposing love” - meaning that you think you know what’s best for someone.

Also, since the word „imposing” can be understood in different ways (and I should have cleared this up earlier), I’d like to propose a distinction between soft vs hard imposing. In short, hard imposing would be you applying pressure on someone to do the thing you think is best. And soft imposing is even thinking that you know what’s best. All this to say, I’m not saying you were hard imposing. But when you say „my wish for him to do the thing is out of love”, I see that as soft imposing. So still imposing.

In my honest feedback with my friend, after he described his situation and I felt like I more or less understand it, I’d say something like: „Given the circumstances that you have, personally I’d go to therapy. But I acknowledge that I don’t have the full picture, and also this is your path, so the „advice” might not be valid”. I mean, first and foremost, notice that you don’t really know Leo, you don’t know his circumstances. Also, in the exchange with the friend, the assumption is that the friend is interested in advice.

But okay, you’re already saying you don’t know what’s best. So nevermind. This whole thing might be about minutiae at this point. 😆

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't see how in the discussion about therapy, I lacked respect for Leo.

I was just saying that I think „imposing love” fundamentally lacks respect in general. Even if it’s soft imposing. 

But again, nevermind. I think we basically cleared up everything. Thanks for the discussion - we went on a tangent, but it was interesting.

Edited 2 hours ago by Sincerity

[CARDOZZO]

13 hours ago, Eskilon said:

I agree with you, but I feel @UnbornTao is basically a Leo critic at this point. The irony is that he believes in Ralston so it's funny to watch the fights happening here. 

Like you said elsewhere. Who has the biggest spiritual dick contest.

Actually, we have to be more inquisitive if we do not agree with Leo. Getting his real communication should be our goal. Respectful disagreements should be a norm here on the forum - if we do not disagree, we can't learn. 

13 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This is why I repeat we eventually need to throw it all away. All seeking ends. Else you create another ground to identify with

100%

13 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I understand this also - but I think there are only tells from people and assumptions and inferences we make from their expression. In the end, I personally think it is my own arrogance to think I know what another person has directly experienced.

I think we should start on a not-knowing position, going beyond language and past interpretations. Imagine you do not really know what IS a Self, Consciousness, Mind, Emotion, Body.

When you read "Consciousness" - How are you doing this distinction? What do you think, feel, sense, imagine, postulate about it? What are your mental models to filter out spiritual knowledge?

Actually, we do not know. We can't know. It is inconceivable to language/human mind.

Apply this process to all your human knowledge.

Food for thought.

Edited 1 hour ago by CARDOZZO

[CARDOZZO]

Imagine you think you have become a boxing master just reading books. You think you know it all. YOU ARE THE MASTER, YOU KNOW! Right? No.

You go to a real fight. You are confident that you really know. You are the one. 

Your first opponent is Mike Tyson. Bells ringing. 

You receive your first punch.... Now you really know what fighting is - reality, direct experience, sensations, pain, fear, calculations.

That is our sin. We make linguistic distinctions without direct experience. Even if we get this "direct experience", language will NEVER do it for ourselves.

[CARDOZZO]

The distinctions Leo make are not your distinctions. There is a gap. You can't really know unless you get a direct experience. You are the only guru.

Teachers will not save you. The next 100 Leo's videos will not save you. The next Ralston's books will not save you. Whatever external will not save you.

Only having a direct experience of Truth/Absolute Consciousness will "do" the trick.

Edited 52 minutes ago by CARDOZZO