Ges

Not "who".. but "what" I disagree with your opinion/point of view.

@Mandy Join us, seriously. It's super fun doing it collectively.

Well, I can't speak for you. I can only speak for myself, and there's absolutely no suffering from assuming two points of view. Whether it's ignorance or not is a matter of opinion, and I respectfully disagree.

I am investigating with Phil. Join us if you like. That's like saying if you're really fit and healthy, I'm not really sure what you're getting out of going to the gym. If you're fit and healthy, go away, avoid gyms at all costs and everyone/everything that reminds you of them, eat junk food, then go fall off a cliff, maybe have a car accident, whatever, be creative, just don't be here. Is this your message, Mandy?

A very vital, and useful one, too. As well, that there is an assumption, is also an assumption.

All questions that start with "what are" have the same ultimate/rock-bottom answer. Same as above. Another linguistic convention/expression.

No. An "I" is also a linguistic convention/expression for ease of communication between two points of view. I'll save us both some time and say in advance that all questions that start with "what is" have the same ultimate/rock-bottom answer, grounded in language, which is just a bunch/web of self-referential conventions/expressions, which equals groundlessness. What is language? Just another linguistic convention that points to itself. Self-reference. Groundlessness. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Can you clarify this question? About what context in particular are you asking? If any.

I don't understand this part. A linguistic convention/expression for ease of communication between two points of view (or two points of you, if I may add this pun).

I remember back in the day when smart phones first became popular, and we would send SMSs back and forth between each other. It was fun back in the day, except every time we received the text: "Partially missing text". I don't disagree with the message. I'm just saying it's not complete. And if it's not complete, then it's not perfectly reliable for further use/distribution. And it might be worth it to entertain the suggested missing part. The thing is in real life we don't get that same text to let us know the message is partially missing. Or don't we? That's exactly what I'm here for. I'm ready to dissect if you are.

Everything's great! I'm not sure I get the difference, it's just language to me. I have no problems with being a "person", if that's what being alluded to. Sometimes I make mistakes, sometimes I even fail. I'm just a man after all, and it's just natural. I don't take things personally. If there's an undesired experience for either of us (participants), I try to make it more desirable. All I need is clear communications, not necessarily in the form of guidelines or instructions (I am not a robot, I solved 4 captchas today lol), but more of something like: "I like this", "I appreciate that", "I don't like this", "I don't appreciate that", "This is okay with me", "That is not okay with me". For example, when you said you appreciated my "thank you", I understood more deeply how much effort you're putting in here. This made me more careful with what I am saying, because I don't want to throw away what you value and cherish and deem as precious, which is your guys efforts. I became more appreciative of your efforts.

I understood what you meant. What I'm saying is that you can't really separate concepts from actuality, can you find the line between your mind and reality? Exactly, but why demonize the thought and treat it as false or irrelevant? That's what I mean by accepting the paradox. If you accept it, you'll see the paradox in actuality, otherwise known as God. After all, it's just another thought that says to discard thoughts, so why isn't it discarding itself? You see how tastily paradoxical this is? Acceptance is an allowing that comes from understanding. I can't tell anyone how they should feel. All I can do is share my perspective and hope it makes our connection stronger.

Well, yeah. If you remove time from the equation, there's only the color white. Like if you take a snapshot of life at a particular point where the color white is being experienced, there certainly aren't any other colors there. BUT, in practice you can't remove time from the equation. And so here we are. Truth and illusion cannot be separated. If they could, there would be separation, which defeats the entire thing. Unless you accept the paradox, then there's no problem whatsoever.

@Mandy Hi Mandy, it's been a long time. Hope you're doing great. I've received similar complaints in real life as to my attitude, but they weren't very clear or helpful since the person giving the feedback wasn't very articulate. Can you elaborate on this so I can work on it on my part? Like what causes some people to get allergic to it and others not? For example, I've had a very wonderful conversation with @Jonas Long in this very thread. I've learned something from him, and I like to think he learned something from me. We don't know each other, and this is our first serious interaction. It's been a really good conversation in my opinion, even though both of our attitudes can be adjusted, as suggested before for both of us. We got along just fine; no allergies, no complaints. Don't let Phil give me a warning for this post too lol. Let him let me breathe for a second, I'm trying to reach a resolution.

I was hesitant about using the word "argument" at first, as I anticipated you would divert the meaning of that simple/clear statement into this. But then I decided to go with it anyway, exactly because I knew this. I get it dude. You don't want anyone to challenge you. You must hold the absolute authority here. You're not very different from Leo in this regard. Keep cleaning up, I will no longer stand in the way. Anyone who wants to keep in touch can talk to me on Whatsapp or Telegram here: +—————————-. I hope that's not against the guidelines, but if so, please remove. No biggie. Much love. Take care.