Death

[sree]

Aug 9, 2022 13:35:21 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

Aug 9, 2022 10:48:14 GMT -5 sree said:

Living life, as a person, is like walking on wire. I walk it, and have been walking it as I watch others fall. Others are me. If one can fall, any can also. Why must we create a way of life where everyone is put at risk and forced to walk a wire? This is not a question of compassion. Compassion comes out of pity for the other guy. There is no other guy.

I'm not sure compassion is all about pity for the other guy either. It's about empathy which is about being able to relate and to put yourself in their position. I mean, sure you can frame that as pity, but it's probably a bit more nuanced than that. What I mean is, I don't think you can have empathy without first having some measure of compassion for yourself. It's interesting to note that those without empathy often tend to be the most self-absorbed, and narcissistic. I think at the very least real compassion can be said to come through relative selflessness. Through at least mentally walking in another shoes, rather than merely our own.

You did say you are not free of the self. Are you aware that your admission has no factual value? In other words, the monk who admits he is not enlightened is as deluded as the one who realized that he is. And both are silly.

I said that I am free of the self. What does that mean to you? Do you think that I am a fellow traveler on the spiritual path you are on? Are you imagining my claim that I am on that other shore of a river you are trying to but have not yet crossed?

The self, to me, is the minder of the body and that is its only role, only purpose for existing. The self, to you, is the seeker of the selfless state.

To me, the self must exist as long as the body is alive. Krishnamurti did talk about the ending (death) of the self while the body is still fully functioning and alive. "Living is dying", he said. In this regard, I am at odds with Krishnamurti.

What is the definition of the self? In conventional life, the self becomes the person, a role played in relationship. I am consciousness. In that state of awareness, using thought, I become the self to perform (act) that role as required in society. Alone, no role is necessary. Acting stops, the personality is shed but the self is till there, on call, to tend to the body in the manner stardust had to take care of his ailing parents. farmer, alone, with his pants down sitting on the toilet, is still in role as grand dad. And in what role are you also stuck playing till the body dies?

With a consciousness conditioned by science, stardust and others, are stuck in their roles as human beings living on planet Earth. Are you able to shed that role? I can. As the self, free of all roles, I still need to navigate through space and time as the objective observer at the center of observation to tend to the body. To do this, thought is necessary, as Krishnamurti said. When does the self vanishes, if at all? I can't consciously tell and never could. Most often, these days, it is when I had been in conversation with you guys. It has been three hours since I started writing this post. I just realized that. Amazing. In all that time, apart from making coffee and having it with a piece of chocolate cake, I was not here.   

[ouroboros]

Aug 10, 2022 14:37:05 GMT -5 sree said:

Aug 9, 2022 13:35:21 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

I'm not sure compassion is all about pity for the other guy either. It's about empathy which is about being able to relate and to put yourself in their position. I mean, sure you can frame that as pity, but it's probably a bit more nuanced than that. What I mean is, I don't think you can have empathy without first having some measure of compassion for yourself. It's interesting to note that those without empathy often tend to be the most self-absorbed, and narcissistic. I think at the very least real compassion can be said to come through relative selflessness. Through at least mentally walking in another shoes, rather than merely our own.

You did say you are not free of the self. Are you aware that your admission has no factual value? In other words, the monk who admits he is not enlightened is as deluded as the one who realized that he is. And both are silly.

I said that I am free of the self. What does that mean to you? Do you think that I am a fellow traveler on the spiritual path you are on? Are you imagining my claim that I am on that other shore of a river you are trying to but have not yet crossed?

The self, to me, is the minder of the body and that is its only role, only purpose for existing. The self, to you, is the seeker of the selfless state.

That's mainly all just mischaracterising where I'm coming from.

To me, the self must exist as long as the body is alive. Krishnamurti did talk about the ending (death) of the self while the body is still fully functioning and alive. "Living is dying", he said. In this regard, I am at odds with Krishnamurti.

What is the definition of the self? In conventional life, the self becomes the person, a role played in relationship. I am consciousness. In that state of awareness, using thought, I become the self to perform (act) that role as required in society. Alone, no role is necessary. Acting stops, the personality is shed but the self is till there, on call, to tend to the body in the manner stardust had to take care of his ailing parents. farmer, alone, with his pants down sitting on the toilet, is still in role as grand dad. And in what role are you also stuck playing till the body dies?

With a consciousness conditioned by science, stardust and others, are stuck in their roles as human beings living on planet Earth. Are you able to shed that role? I can. As the self, free of all roles, I still need to navigate through space and time as the objective observer at the center of observation to tend to the body. To do this, thought is necessary, as Krishnamurti said. When does the self vanishes, if at all? I can't consciously tell and never could. Most often, these days, it is when I had been in conversation with you guys. It has been three hours since I started writing this post. I just realized that. Amazing. In all that time, apart from making coffee and having it with a piece of chocolate cake, I was not here.   

This is a bit more interesting. Although again perhaps somewhat contradictory in places. For example, you begin by positing "the self persists as long as the body is alive". Then go on to define self as a role played in conjunction with interaction, etc. What I mean is. Consider you were castaway on a desert island with the means to survive. In that scenario, the body would be alive but there would be no interaction with society. So could you exist in a no-self state or not?

Reading on it sounds like you are probably saying you could exist in a no-self state in that scenario. But hopefully you can see why that leads me to query your bolded line. My overall impression is that you are saying the self is merely necessary to function in normal society (certainly in the current status quo). That's what comes across in the bulk of your post setting aside that first line.

But then otoh you seem to hold open the possibility of a better world if there were somehow no selves. Can you see how once again that notion doesn’t fit with your bolded line. Perhaps you can clarify a bit for me. Perhaps you are saying self would still be necessary, albeit it to a lesser extent in order to function even in a better world. I'm not sure.

Building on that, I'd also like to ask some more questions if you don't mind. To see if I can glean a better idea of where you are coming from.

Firstly, is it your position that self is really just mind stuff. Basically, consisting of false thoughts/ideas arising about the body and it's place in the world which result in some measure of identification. So the construction of ego, identity view, self-image etc, which all point to the same sort of thing and are ultimately an empty 'house of cards'. That perhaps might have be a useful tool once, but has gotten out of control.

Secondly, if so, would you say that all that is pretty much incidental to the body itself, which under the right circumstance could function intelligently enough without all that going on.

As I'm raising those questions I have personality in mind too. Where does that fit in with all this. Is that really something that arises exclusively with the "self-role", you describe. I'm wondering, in the desert island scenario, say you were in a no-self state. It's just your body, so no need to even walk the line of selfing. Would there be any 'sree' personality worth mentioning, or would that be entirely absent. I mean, would a preference for cockles over limpets be 'sree' related, or merely of the body. Maybe there would be no preference at all arising in that state, other than they are good and nutritious and not poisonous to the body. Are you wearing a loin cloth or is there no need. What's going on there. You mention you  are having chocolate cake and no-selfing at the same time. Is that without preference or personality. Is that merely 'of the body'. 

What if I said chocolate cake, chianti, fine cheeses, high torque cars and wearing pants were all 'sree' related stuff. Preferences. What's interesting though is that even as a baby without self-image there might've been a preference for the flavour of one type of slop over another. Maybe some proto-personality of sorts. You certainly wouldn't have appreciated hot curry, but almost bodily so. You can see why it's hard to identify where the body ends and sree starts in these sort of considerations.

Maybe you think these are odd and unnecessary questions. But hopefully you can see that by getting into them we might be able to begin to glean an idea of what you think a better world might look like, and how we might go about initiating that. But also, don't be surprised if Tenka comes along shortly to ask you who's going to be wiping your backside in this eutopia. Can you see why it might be considered a valid question. I think you did acknowledge we'll prolly need to start from the ground up!



Edit. Having just reread I see you didn't claim to be no-selfing with the chocolate cake, the opposite. Apologies, I should pay more attention.

[sree]

Aug 11, 2022 10:43:49 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

Aug 10, 2022 14:37:05 GMT -5 sree said:

You did say you are not free of the self. Are you aware that your admission has no factual value? In other words, the monk who admits he is not enlightened is as deluded as the one who realized that he is. And both are silly.

I said that I am free of the self. What does that mean to you? Do you think that I am a fellow traveler on the spiritual path you are on? Are you imagining my claim that I am on that other shore of a river you are trying to but have not yet crossed?

The self, to me, is the minder of the body and that is its only role, only purpose for existing. The self, to you, is the seeker of the selfless state.

That's mainly all just mischaracterising where I'm coming from.

To me, the self must exist as long as the body is alive. Krishnamurti did talk about the ending (death) of the self while the body is still fully functioning and alive. "Living is dying", he said. In this regard, I am at odds with Krishnamurti.

What is the definition of the self? In conventional life, the self becomes the person, a role played in relationship. I am consciousness. In that state of awareness, using thought, I become the self to perform (act) that role as required in society. Alone, no role is necessary. Acting stops, the personality is shed but the self is till there, on call, to tend to the body in the manner stardust had to take care of his ailing parents. farmer, alone, with his pants down sitting on the toilet, is still in role as grand dad. And in what role are you also stuck playing till the body dies?

With a consciousness conditioned by science, stardust and others, are stuck in their roles as human beings living on planet Earth. Are you able to shed that role? I can. As the self, free of all roles, I still need to navigate through space and time as the objective observer at the center of observation to tend to the body. To do this, thought is necessary, as Krishnamurti said. When does the self vanishes, if at all? I can't consciously tell and never could. Most often, these days, it is when I had been in conversation with you guys. It has been three hours since I started writing this post. I just realized that. Amazing. In all that time, apart from making coffee and having it with a piece of chocolate cake, I was not here.   

This is a bit more interesting. Although again perhaps somewhat contradictory in places. For example, you begin by positing "the self persists as long as the body is alive". Then go on to define self as a role played in conjunction with interaction, etc. What I mean is. Consider you were castaway on a desert island with the means to survive. In that scenario, the body would be alive but there would be no interaction with society. So could you exist in a no-self state or not?

Reading on it sounds like you are probably saying you could exist in a no-self state in that scenario. But hopefully you can see why that leads me to query your bolded line. My overall impression is that you are saying the self is merely necessary to function in normal society (certainly in the current status quo). That's what comes across in the bulk of your post setting aside that first line.

But then otoh you seem to hold open the possibility of a better world if there were somehow no selves. Can you see how once again that notion doesn’t fit with your bolded line. Perhaps you can clarify a bit for me. Perhaps you are saying self would still be necessary, albeit it to a lesser extent in order to function even in a better world. I'm not sure.

Building on that, I'd also like to ask some more questions if you don't mind. To see if I can glean a better idea of where you are coming from.

Firstly, is it your position that self is really just mind stuff. Basically, consisting of false thoughts/ideas arising about the body and it's place in the world which result in some measure of identification. So the construction of ego, identity view, self-image etc, which all point to the same sort of thing and are ultimately an empty 'house of cards'. That perhaps might have be a useful tool once, but has gotten out of control.

Secondly, if so, would you say that all that is pretty much incidental to the body itself, which under the right circumstance could function intelligently enough without all that going on.

As I'm raising those questions I have personality in mind too. Where does that fit in with all this. Is that really something that arises exclusively with the "self-role", you describe. I'm wondering, in the desert island scenario, say you were in a no-self state. It's just your body, so no need to even walk the line of selfing. Would there be any 'sree' personality worth mentioning, or would that be entirely absent. I mean, would a preference for cockles over limpets be 'sree' related, or merely of the body. Maybe there would be no preference at all arising in that state, other than they are good and nutritious and not poisonous to the body. Are you wearing a loin cloth or is there no need. What's going on there. You mention you  are having chocolate cake and no-selfing at the same time. Is that without preference or personality. Is that merely 'of the body'. 

What if I said chocolate cake, chianti, fine cheeses, high torque cars and wearing pants were all 'sree' related stuff. Preferences. What's interesting though is that even as a baby without self-image there might've been a preference for the flavour of one type of slop over another. Maybe some proto-personality of sorts. You certainly wouldn't have appreciated hot curry, but almost bodily so. You can see why it's hard to identify where the body ends and sree starts in these sort of considerations.

Maybe you think these are odd and unnecessary questions. But hopefully you can see that by getting into them we might be able to begin to glean an idea of what you think a better world might look like, and how we might go about initiating that. But also, don't be surprised if Tenka comes along shortly to ask you who's going to be wiping your backside in this eutopia. Can you see why it might be considered a valid question. I think you did acknowledge we'll prolly need to start from the ground up!



Edit. Having just reread I see you didn't claim to be no-selfing with the chocolate cake, the opposite. Apologies, I should pay more attention.

Great questions. You really are smart. Curiosity, a burning passion to find out. Focused attention, like a laser burning through obstructions. A desperation to find out because your very being is in danger. Without sensitivity to human suffering, not somebody else's suffering but your suffering, the desperation to find out will not be there. Unless you see that your own ass in on the line, you won't get to that other shore.

I will come back to your questions. Right now, there are two things on my mind: 1. my front step needs a coat of paint; 2. farmer seems to be ailing.  

[sree]

Aug 11, 2022 10:43:49 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

Sree said: "To me, the self must exist as long as the body is alive. Krishnamurti did talk about the ending (death) of the self while the body is still fully functioning and alive. "Living is dying", he said. In this regard, I am at odds with Krishnamurti. "



ouroboros reply: This is a bit more interesting. Although again perhaps somewhat contradictory in places. For example, you begin by positing "the self persists as long as the body is alive". Then go on to define self as a role played in conjunction with interaction, etc. What I mean is. Consider you were castaway on a desert island with the means to survive. In that scenario, the body would be alive but there would be no interaction with society. So could you exist in a no-self state or not?

Even though you are alone (one self) and not relating with another self, you are still in relationship with the observed (things of significance in your world) as the observer. Situational awareness is the self in action. The castaway scenario is a state of unrest and insecurity. Consciousness, in such a state of stress, would drive the self to work desperately to seek security.

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2022 16:05:11 GMT -5 sree said:

Aug 11, 2022 10:43:49 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

Sree said: "To me, the self must exist as long as the body is alive. Krishnamurti did talk about the ending (death) of the self while the body is still fully functioning and alive. "Living is dying", he said. In this regard, I am at odds with Krishnamurti. "



ouroboros reply: This is a bit more interesting. Although again perhaps somewhat contradictory in places. For example, you begin by positing "the self persists as long as the body is alive". Then go on to define self as a role played in conjunction with interaction, etc. What I mean is. Consider you were castaway on a desert island with the means to survive. In that scenario, the body would be alive but there would be no interaction with society. So could you exist in a no-self state or not?

Even though you are alone (one self) and not relating with another self, you are still in relationship with the observed (things of significance in your world) as the observer. Situational awareness is the self in action. The castaway scenario is a state of unrest and insecurity. Consciousness, in such a state of stress, would drive the self to work desperately to seek security.

I never did watch that movie even though I figured I'd like it. That was a good scene. Thanks

[sree]

Aug 13, 2022 17:16:24 GMT -5 @cobb said:

Aug 13, 2022 16:05:11 GMT -5 sree said:

Even though you are alone (one self) and not relating with another self, you are still in relationship with the observed (things of significance in your world) as the observer. Situational awareness is the self in action. The castaway scenario is a state of unrest and insecurity. Consciousness, in such a state of stress, would drive the self to work desperately to seek security.

I never did watch that movie even though I figured I'd like it. That was a good scene. Thanks

The world we live in is heartless, farmer. Humanity is like that container ship. People everywhere but no one cares.

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2022 17:26:19 GMT -5 sree said:

Aug 13, 2022 17:16:24 GMT -5 @cobb said:

I never did watch that movie even though I figured I'd like it. That was a good scene. Thanks

The world we live in is heartless, farmer. Humanity is like that container ship. People everywhere but no one cares.

I'm sorry you feel that way, that doesn't sound healthy. You sure it's them and not you?

[sree]

Aug 13, 2022 17:44:15 GMT -5 @cobb said:

Aug 13, 2022 17:26:19 GMT -5 sree said:

The world we live in is heartless, farmer. Humanity is like that container ship. People everywhere but no one cares.

I'm sorry you feel that way, that doesn't sound healthy. You sure it's them and not you?

You can bet your sweet ass that it's them and not me.

By the way, I did ask if there are any fat members here. You can't be fat and spiritual. You are five ten and weigh 200 lbs after some serious weight loss, you said. I have another thread called "Spirituality and the Art of Living". It's about self-examination: looking for evidence of a screwed up way of life. We can't bring about a better world if we are fat. Have you idea how many fat people I see when I go to the stores to buy my groceries? It's not just fat. It's serious fat.

I am the only one here who will tell you the truth because I am spiritual. Folks here will say I am being cruel. I want you to be as spiritual as I am, farmer. I am one inch shorter at 5' 10" and weigh 135 lbs.

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2022 20:05:15 GMT -5 sree said:

Aug 13, 2022 17:44:15 GMT -5 @cobb said:

I'm sorry you feel that way, that doesn't sound healthy. You sure it's them and not you?

You can bet your sweet ass that it's them and not me.

By the way, I did ask if there are any fat members here. You can't be fat and spiritual. You are five ten and weigh 200 lbs after some serious weight loss, you said. I have another thread called "Spirituality and the Art of Living". It's about self-examination: looking for evidence of a screwed up way of life. We can't bring about a better world if we are fat. Have you idea how many fat people I see when I go to the stores to buy my groceries? It's not just fat. It's serious fat.

I am the only one here who will tell you the truth because I am spiritual. Folks here will say I am being cruel. I want you to be as spiritual as I am, farmer. I am one inch shorter at 5' 10" and weigh 135 lbs.

I see. Huh

I'm not really seeing the correlation between spirituality and physical attributes but then I'm from the South as you know, and we eat well here when we eat.


Protein shakes and some weight lifting? Might get your confidence up if it's lacking.

[sree]

Aug 13, 2022 20:19:33 GMT -5 @cobb said:

Aug 13, 2022 20:05:15 GMT -5 sree said:

You can bet your sweet ass that it's them and not me.

By the way, I did ask if there are any fat members here. You can't be fat and spiritual. You are five ten and weigh 200 lbs after some serious weight loss, you said. I have another thread called "Spirituality and the Art of Living". It's about self-examination: looking for evidence of a screwed up way of life. We can't bring about a better world if we are fat. Have you idea how many fat people I see when I go to the stores to buy my groceries? It's not just fat. It's serious fat.

I am the only one here who will tell you the truth because I am spiritual. Folks here will say I am being cruel. I want you to be as spiritual as I am, farmer. I am one inch shorter at 5' 10" and weigh 135 lbs.

I see. Huh

I'm not really seeing the correlation between spirituality and physical attributes but then I'm from the South as you know, and we eat well here when we eat.


Protein shakes and some weight lifting? Might get your confidence up if it's lacking.

Physical attributes are natural features of the body when it is in a state of order. Spirituality is a state of natural order. Fatness is a state of disorder and not a natural attribute. It is a sign of disorder, a symptom of a disease. Americans are misguided and led to believe that being fat is not your fault. It’s genetic. God’s fault.

Why do you recommend protein shakes and weight lifting? Do you think I am emaciated? I am at my “fighting weight” at 135 lbs, the weight I was training at when I was 20 and going for my black belt in tae kwon do. Asians have a lighter bone structure. I needed to launch my body to execute flying kicks to your head even if you are a big guy at 6 ft 4 in. when I young and silly.

Martial art - hand to hand or nation against nation - is not spiritual. 

[Deleted]

Aug 14, 2022 10:19:18 GMT -5 sree said:

Aug 13, 2022 20:19:33 GMT -5 @cobb said:

I see. Huh

I'm not really seeing the correlation between spirituality and physical attributes but then I'm from the South as you know, and we eat well here when we eat.


Protein shakes and some weight lifting? Might get your confidence up if it's lacking.

Physical attributes are natural features of the body when it is in a state of order. Spirituality is a state of natural order. Fatness is a state of disorder and not a natural attribute. It is a sign of disorder, a symptom of a disease. Americans are misguided and led to believe that being fat is not your fault. It’s genetic. God’s fault.

Why do you recommend protein shakes and weight lifting? Do you think I am emaciated? I am at my “fighting weight” at 135 lbs, the weight I was training at when I was 20 and going for my black belt in tae kwon do. Asians have a lighter bone structure. I needed to launch my body to execute flying kicks to your head even if you are a big guy at 6 ft 4 in. when I young and silly.

Martial art - hand to hand or nation against nation - is not spiritual. 

OK that explains it better, thank you. I guess you view your body as a temple, which certainly sounds fine to me.

Body/mind/spirit.. yeah?

[sree]

Aug 14, 2022 10:56:15 GMT -5 @cobb said:

Aug 14, 2022 10:19:18 GMT -5 sree said:

Physical attributes are natural features of the body when it is in a state of order. Spirituality is a state of natural order. Fatness is a state of disorder and not a natural attribute. It is a sign of disorder, a symptom of a disease. Americans are misguided and led to believe that being fat is not your fault. It’s genetic. God’s fault.

Why do you recommend protein shakes and weight lifting? Do you think I am emaciated? I am at my “fighting weight” at 135 lbs, the weight I was training at when I was 20 and going for my black belt in tae kwon do. Asians have a lighter bone structure. I needed to launch my body to execute flying kicks to your head even if you are a big guy at 6 ft 4 in. when I young and silly.

Martial art - hand to hand or nation against nation - is not spiritual. 

OK that explains it better, thank you. I guess you view your body as a temple, which certainly sounds fine to me.

Body/mind/spirit.. yeah?

Not really. I view it more as a dud detector, the self being the dud. As I have said, the self is the minder of the body in the same way we view the President as the minder of the USA. If the USA is a mess, then Joe Biden is a dud. It's that simple. However, when you have been sold a lie and you swallow it, then you can neither tell if your fat body is sick or the nation is in trouble. You get the drift, Southern guy?

 

[Deleted]

Aug 14, 2022 11:16:57 GMT -5 sree said:

Aug 14, 2022 10:56:15 GMT -5 @cobb said:

OK that explains it better, thank you. I guess you view your body as a temple, which certainly sounds fine to me.

Body/mind/spirit.. yeah?

Not really. I view it more as a dud detector, the self being the dud. As I have said, the self is the minder of the body in the same way we view the President as the minder of the USA. If the USA is a mess, then Joe Biden is a dud. It's that simple. However, when you have been sold a lie and you swallow it, then you can neither tell if your fat body is or the nation is in trouble. You get the drift, Southern guy?

 

I'm starting to, yes.



"As I have said, the first thing is to be honest with yourself. You can never have an impact on society if you have not changed yourself"

“One cannot be prepared for something while secretly believing it will not happen"

"I had no epiphany, no singular revelation, no moment of truth, but a steady accumulation of a thousand slights, a thousand indignities and a thousand unremembered moments produced in me an anger, a rebelliousness, a desire to fight the system that imprisoned my people. There was no particular day on which I said, Henceforth I will devote myself to the liberation of my people; instead, I simply found myself doing so, and could not do otherwise"

"I never lose. I either win or learn"

"A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones."


- Nelson Mandela


...which was my first time reading his quotes actually.. do any work?

[sree]

Aug 14, 2022 11:29:27 GMT -5 @cobb said:

Aug 14, 2022 11:16:57 GMT -5 sree said:

Not really. I view it more as a dud detector, the self being the dud. As I have said, the self is the minder of the body in the same way we view the President as the minder of the USA. If the USA is a mess, then Joe Biden is a dud. It's that simple. However, when you have been sold a lie and you swallow it, then you can neither tell if your fat body is or the nation is in trouble. You get the drift, Southern guy?

 

I'm starting to, yes.



"As I have said, the first thing is to be honest with yourself. You can never have an impact on society if you have not changed yourself"

“One cannot be prepared for something while secretly believing it will not happen"

"I had no epiphany, no singular revelation, no moment of truth, but a steady accumulation of a thousand slights, a thousand indignities and a thousand unremembered moments produced in me an anger, a rebelliousness, a desire to fight the system that imprisoned my people. There was no particular day on which I said, Henceforth I will devote myself to the liberation of my people; instead, I simply found myself doing so, and could not do otherwise"

"I never lose. I either win or learn"

"A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones."


- Nelson Mandela


...which was my first time reading his quotes actually.. do any work?

No, nothing has worked so far because they are words of foolish desire, not acts of intelligence. Before fixing the world, let's deal with the messed up situation at a manageable scale: the body.

Why did your body get fat and mine didn't? If we can find the cause, then we can proceed to fix the nation and the world.

  

 

[Deleted]

Aug 14, 2022 14:18:54 GMT -5 sree said:

Aug 14, 2022 11:29:27 GMT -5 @cobb said:

I'm starting to, yes.



"As I have said, the first thing is to be honest with yourself. You can never have an impact on society if you have not changed yourself"

“One cannot be prepared for something while secretly believing it will not happen"

"I had no epiphany, no singular revelation, no moment of truth, but a steady accumulation of a thousand slights, a thousand indignities and a thousand unremembered moments produced in me an anger, a rebelliousness, a desire to fight the system that imprisoned my people. There was no particular day on which I said, Henceforth I will devote myself to the liberation of my people; instead, I simply found myself doing so, and could not do otherwise"

"I never lose. I either win or learn"

"A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones."


- Nelson Mandela


...which was my first time reading his quotes actually.. do any work?

No, nothing has worked so far because they are words of foolish desire, not acts of intelligence. Before fixing the world, let's deal with the messed up situation at a manageable scale: the body.

Why did your body get fat and mine didn't? If we can find the cause, then we can proceed to fix the nation and the world.

  

 

Ok this is better. I mostly drifted thru life without any clear focus, food included, so I got fat.