Hehe…

but more rarely does anyone just ask “what do you mean by that?”

Too much verbal diarrhea...I tend to no longer want long verbal discourses... at least not with the general public. If I find someone who is open to discuss things more (one on one or small groups) I will engage.

I'm also aware of wasting breath on those who are "not open" or who are "defending a particular stance" etc

Now, it's know when to speak, share or "hold my tongue". I don't always get it right 🕊

Thousands, I think, tens of thousands? Forgot. I mean, any group or institution that somehow wants to manipulate people doesn’t stand on the street corner with leaflets anymore or bribe filmmakers or what. They go online, of course.

Yeah...I have compassion for people who don't want to stop and listen to someone. The situation got full of dregs because the best parts are constantly imbibed by the fuzz or the AI machine.

@L'intrus

Surprisingly, the few who agree to debate are mostly on the opposite side to me…

this comes as no surprise. The advancements proposed in the video come from listening, and so often a debate is about proving each other wrong. The fewest people can realize that our words come from emotional expressions which intellectual arguments, no matter how right, will never ever solve.

@L'intrus my transcendental approach is to advocate for the existence of transcendentals. however not to approach them directly all the time. dignity is an example of something that must be approached, reached in estimation of each other, before we are truly capable of founding a worthy society. however transcendental truths require settling the stirred pot of emotions and convictions until the resonance of what remains, our truest essence, can sound out of us and find the path of best fit. so these are not accessible by force or in many cases even by word.

therefore i tend to see the "many paths" perspective as a derived truth which misses the point that we all walk the way, but the way walks back -- there are paths more accommodating of, for lack of a better word, natural law. and as in the case of dignity, there are human paths better than others, which are to be followed for the sake of our larger intentions, like community or society.

However growth requires the will to change:
how can we remain the same person, if the impulse to grow came from a state of following the energy.<

In one of Alan Watts's talks, he states that, "nature abhors a vacuum"... hence the saying, "change is the only constant"...?

💟🙏

@L'intrus Much more recently I started contemplating how the biosphere operates, beyond limited current scientific thinking, this does not mean to say what scientists are discovering is not valuable, just limited... until they discover the next new bit of information which opens the box of "limitations" again.

What I currently realize is, that every life-form - trees, animals, fish, fungi, bacteria (I'm not sure where viruses slot in), from the "bigger picture" are all vitally important to the harmonious unfolding of the future of this Earth, except humans seem to be the ones who are "out of tune" (so to speak).

@iam-elegance thinking about the nature of the non-dual baseline reality can give people a lot of ideas--i try to propagate the principle which leads us to convictions, but not necessarily convictions themselves...unless they are based in this categorical imperative: that the manner in which I come to them is itself reproducible by my species (as they are human with intellects and as they are living beings in a nature-dependent world). So the will to change is relative to my static neurology (and my spirit's acquisitions in past lives--for those who believe), either way I need to choose to let change become a force in my life, therefore the will to change.

I don't know if nature abhors a vacuum--it seems to fill them rather...even the void is really just quantum potential fluctuations. vacuums are relative.

Looking back my "same person" comment seems naive 😀 but in this light, the self as a vacuum held apart in a manifestation space, with energetic decisions as rafters... 🍐 🍋‍🟩

@unmittelbar maybe we are different species within human bodies and because we find ourselves embodied within "human casings" - that causes us to "limit ourselves to the human dilemma as a human body"?

Have you ever looked into the "scientific concept" of ABIOGENESIS??? How did life on Earth begin??? Utterly fascinating!!!

The other more contemporary "imaginarium" is the movie "Lucy" (quite a few years old and yet, because we are ultimately dreamers, whether we realize this or not, it is all relevant... 🖖

Both polarities currently being morphed 💚

@L'intrus the video suggests older people to listen to younger people, because they have knowledge. You inspire me to extend it based on my knowledge.

I listen to religious people, because they express symbolic wisdom which is soothing for the religiously evolved brains of humans: for the sake of emotions and in case there is a deeper significance to symbols.

I also listen to atheists, because they often focus on real-world problems, which informs me about worldly concerns. In short, atheists often know better where the problems are, but also usually blame religions or stupidity for the problems. I think religious symbols help people with emotional issues, and so I benefit from listening to both sides...what you misinterpret as dictatorial will is really the attempt to remind people that underneath our activity is a powerful source-consciousness which helps us find the paths of best fit, and that these paths are for more than just individuals since they come from the same source. Meditation offers a way to access this by resolving to remain still, dissolving our minds for a time and letting everything go. Religious people do something similar so often, they are rightly criticised as abiding the terrorism of the present society in manufactured bliss. However consumers and atheists do it too, they just melt themselves further and further into their own minds, rather than into the symbolic layer which exists over the source consciousness. This is how I understand it...I am trying to point out a categorical approach to common enlightenment which does not hate individual paths, but rather reminds them to tune themselves regularly to a higher will, and also abide in the knowledge that oneself is not to be taken so seriously as to get offended or angry.

the attempt to remind people that underneath our activity is a powerful source-consciousness which helps us find the paths of best fit, and that these paths are for more than just individuals since they come from the same source.

And where does this statement come from? What is this source?
I don't understand much of your mysticism.
You seem to pigeonhole people into a very small number of simplistic categories: religious, atheist, consumer... When there are lots of other ways.
I don't believe in a higher will.
Sorry, but I'm totally impervious to your religiosity.
My example is Diogenes, my practice is Cynicism (kunicism), the opposite of all that.

good to know! there are some philosophies which will always be true for themselves, and I underestimate their ability to self-convince.

to me the categories are for your benefit as they are said for the purposes of discursive reason, which relies on arguments. to me these are patterns on the quilt which covers all humanity. we can only dignify what we know, so i open up to discursive reason the comparing and contrasting of different life-choices by humans, but it is very hard to release people from the bondage of categories -- for this reason I spend some necessary thought-energy in every sociological sphere bringing the knowledge back to the base of our common humanity.

the base of our common humanity.<

Is there even such a thing, except by consciously agreed upon "beliefs" (cynicism, religious, atheist, religious, philosophical, mystical, sociological etc) or "tolerance" - ideologically we don't agree and maybe it is better for you or me to sidestep each other, except we can still INTEND that we each have-experience the most beneficial lives we each can experience.

i think the only proof of common humanity comes when we pause abiding by reason and experience silence, stillness, and other forms which transcend discursive intellect. It’s not something which I would seek to argue by example, but rather indicate as accessible by other means than reason. If we share the notion, we can begin to gather evidence – but it is indeed a basis one reaches by prerequisite.

Even if we can see how symbols recur in different human cultures, the pure knowledge of our commonality does not need to be believed by humans to make them human: it is accessed by transcending or sublimating what distinguishes us as humans: our intellect. So paradoxically the basis of our common humanity is divinity, and by definition this is common. I resolve the paradox by stating: it is our privilege to have knowledge, for by virtue of releasing ourselves from its burden we return to a “naturalness” which is oneness with existence: this common basis I call divine, yet the unique human aspect I call transcendent knowledge. So what binds us together is the ability to return from source to and with knowledge and develop it in the collective experience transcendence–which retains and reminds us of our connection to source and allows us to develop it individually.

when we pause abiding by reason and experience silence, stillness, and other forms which transcend discursive intellect<

Only for this self... I can no longer do this, "common humanity stuff"... Because we have to dissolve all those boundaries - human and other... That's why our world "feels" so "human-centric" (ego-centric), .and is in the mess that it is in... Of course this too is passing, changing, morphing and I don't expect intellectuals to comprehend non-intellectual methods of migrating through difficulties...(personally or globally).

I'm sorry... I don't want to lose this "Self" in words that only move it further and further away from the Heart of Wisdom within this self. So this will be my last comment on this post 🙏💚

when we pause abiding by reason and experience silence, stillness, and other forms which transcend discursive intellect<

On the one hand:

Heaven is eternal, earth is everlasting.
The reason they can be eternal and everlasting
is that they do not foster themselves;
that is why they can live forever.
For this reason sages put themselves last,
and they were first;
they excluded themselves,
and they survived.
Was it not by their very selflessness
that they managed to fulfill themselves?

So I mean accessing transcendent knowledge is not our privilege, but rather our responsibility is to use appropriate words when discussing them. Nevertheless, there can also be self-full reasons given to avoid the possibility of appropriate terms. That would be the belief in the #endofphilosophy.

I can no longer do this “common humanity stuff”… Because we have to dissolve all those boundaries

So on the other hand:

Good construction does not fall down,
a good embrace does not let go;
their heirs honor them unceasingly.
Cultivate it in yourself, and that virtue is real;
cultivate it in the home, and that virtue is abundant;
cultivate it in the locality, and that virtue lasts;
cultivate it in the nation, and that virtue is rich;
cultivate it in the world, and that virtue is universal.
So observe yourself by yourself,
observe the home by the home,
observe the locality by the locality,
observe the nation by the nation,
observe the world by the world.
How do I know the world is as it is?
By this.

The selfwards look is always in the same direction, even if its contents are different. Selflessness is meaningful if it is able to transcend itself, but only to the degree it can to simultaneously contain itself. Dissolving the borders in a belief of no-self is an example of transcending and containing, but it also requires belief--I try and contain the same experience and report on it with words, but do not require belief. Hence I can agree with parts of your speech while still keeping firm to what I say: we return to the same when we experience selfnessness. The reason it seems otherwise is the simultaneous existence of co-incident boundaries which should not be dissolved: self, home, place, people, world. The ability of any language-speaking nation-like group of people to become the people of world depends (1) on them conforming to the prior three qualities and (2) on their accessibility as a culture for other peoples to become one with.

(1) is the coincident simultaneous culture along the necessary spheres of life: otherwise we would have nothing but our values and beliefs to transcend to: a marketplace of ideas depends on a currency of attention, full of paupers begging for nihilism, and no chance of fostering the foundation for ideas to grow.

(2) nothing accessible. Today we are at the mercy of ill-defined intellectual values like selflessness as "selflness-less" or "common humanity" as "come-on humanity!" I try to rigorously define everything I say, but if you use your own definitions for things then you will return to your own opinions, as I hear from

I’m sorry… I don’t want to lose this “Self” in words that only move it further and further away from the Heart of Wisdom within this self.

or if your values are more resilient as I hear in

cynicism

or if my reasons are unsound and I cannot listen to you, then certainly we will disagree. But I continue to listen, and my heart also says to protect its wisdom.

For no heart of wisdom can be toppled by reasons and there is no risk, but it can refuse to beat to others drums.

when we pause abiding by reason and experience silence, stillness, and other forms which transcend discursive intellect<

also I would use the word sublimate rather than transcend...another reason to avoid social media debates is the lack of real-time correction...good day!