|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 5, 2022 7:21:46 GMT -5
and how could you ever search for "what" never needs to find you?  And no you to find either ... weeeeellllll ...  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 5, 2022 7:24:12 GMT -5
When you reply to me, more than anyone else here, I notice that I then have about 10 further paths I might could explore with you. If I asked about all 10, I think I'm concerned that that 10 would then be multiplied by 10, and then I'd have a 100 paths I could explore with you lol  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 5, 2022 7:26:40 GMT -5
identifying the various components that comprise ones identity is interesting perhaps..  My question to Sree got 3 replies, all very different, and all very interesting. Your reply was actually the most abstract of the 3! Are you talking about a path of self-inquiry and investigation of the mind? If so, yeah I agree it can be interesting. For about 10 minutes lol It's only abstract if you take that perspective on it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 5, 2022 7:28:32 GMT -5
I might have asked you this already, but why don't you give yourself a broader or more expansive purpose? What would be the problem of doing that, for you? Back in my existential civilian days.  I used to try to shift to the big picture. And then try to keep zooming out. From what we can see of the Universe the Earth is quite rare. From a benighted personal perspective, we can use the lens that the Universe creates these playgrounds, islands of riotous life, probably billions or not hundreds of billions of them right now (although the concept of simultaneity itself, in the big picture is .. different .. no star you see in the sky is now, and all are at different times, looking out is looking back in time, and on massive scales ...). It's like "God is playing dice", on a cosmic scale. What eventually "works", is what eventually "works". Then, on the biggest scale, we can anticipate the eventual heat death of the Universe. If we are here so that the "Universe can know itself", then perhaps, we might extend the life of that Universe by outliving it? So, the existential civilian, with the most expansive picture, can see a sort of choice buried in a question. It is perhaps easier to perceive this underlying, core question, with a series of multiple questions: do I care if the human race survives, if Earth survives? Is it possible that something of this Universe might outlive it at the end? If so, do I want to be a part of building, of helping and working toward that eventuality? The easy cop-out, which probably is where most existential civilians land and get stuck is "well, I'm just one person. a speck of dust. it doesn't matter". Those are the grundoons (a term Steve Bannon uses to describe menial manual laborers). Or to use a different metaphor, these are the sticks-in-the-mud. The Hobbits who never leave the Shire.
Now, for those who get past that point, the next inevitable wall is Hamlet, or, a bit more explicitly and on the bright side, Arjuna. This is where the existential civilian either stays a civilian or enlists as an existential warrior. "What am I to do? And why?".
heh heh ..  .. the mind has all sorts of survival strategies. As E' used to say, there's no outsmarting the ego ... Thoroughly enjoyable read dude. I agree that 'I'm just one person, one speck of dust' is a really big one for some folks....the question, 'well what can I do?'. I have friends that raise this question, and I note that the sense of powerlessness can actually bring some level of comfort and security. After all, if we know that we can do something, then it becomes highly irresponsible NOT to. It's probably harder to live with oneself knowing that something could be done, but choosing not to.....than it is to believe that there's nothing I can do. To be clear, I find both positions of value depending on the context. If I feel something can be done, and it's appropriate for me to do it, then I will do. But equally, the higher path for me is sometimes surrendering the illusion of control, sometimes seeing beyond the whole control-no control thing entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 5, 2022 7:29:02 GMT -5
Interestingly, I just watched a film about the Devil, played by Claude Rains, and a guy, Eddie, who was just murdered by his best gangster friend Smiley, and ended up in hell, Angel On My Shoulder, 1946, on TCM. Mephistopheles makes a deal with Eddie to go back to ground level and get revenge and kill Smiley. But Eddie has to do a favor for "Nick", the Devil, first. He gets the body of Judge Parker so as to destroy Parker's career, basically by just being Eddie. Quite an interesting film. Eddie is quite ignorant and illiterate and doesn't know he's made a deal with the Devil, who calls himself Mephistopheles, or Nick for short. But Eddie falls in love with Judge Parker's fiancee, who loves Judge Parker. God is never seen, or is even seen in action, but we know from the beginning that God is the Devil's adversary. So seemingly inadvertently, Eddie becomes a good man, and spoils all Nick's plans. Eddie eventually falls in love with Barbara, the fiancee. Near the end Eddie as Judge Parker realizes he has made a deal with the Devil, and backs out. In the end Nick looks up into the sky and recognizes he has been defeated. The only real hint of an actual battle is the title, which is almost a throwaway line from the film. Things just get worked out against Nick's plans. Basically, we learn that the Devil has very little power of his own, he only has lies and manipulation and deceit. Your analogy of the Devil as a supercomputer is way over the top. Yes, basically, the devil is the human conditioned mind, the conditioned mind. But we are not our conditioning. sree, you are never going to get anywhere here peddling your nihilism. Have you actually read The Moviegoer? Walker Percy was a existential philosopher who crafted novels to make philosophy palatable, and almost hidden. He succeeded pretty well with The Moviegoer. For anybody interested > this< is a pretty good synopsis. But it's not short. Because Binx's life works out does not mean he gave up the search. Why are you afraid to contact your parents after ten years? You got me! No, I had not actually read The Moviegoer. My mom read it, and we discussed it. She said that she was entranced by that book. Practically all the books that you have read had been read by her. I don't read and never had to. My mom read me to sleep every night from the time I was a baby and could listen to her voice. And when I was old enough to ask questions, the reading sessions evolved into conversations. From the time I was in high school till I went away to university, every evening with her was a "My Dinner with Andre". I was the dumbass. She was Andre
If you want to play "Andre" with me, you need to step up your game. We are our conditioning, and our conditioning is us. If this perception is wrong, how do you explain the separation between you and your conditioning? What are you?
I'm impressed nonetheless. When I read The Moviegoer I didn't know anything about Walker Percy except I had browsed his then just out new book, The Second Coming, and liked it, knew I wanted to read it. There was a fascinating character in it, a girl with a speech disability, the main character (from an earlier book, The Last Gentleman) chanced upon her, and they became friends. That was enough to grab me. So I knew nothing about Percy's background reading The Moviegoer. I was likewise entranced. The main character's of all Percy's novels are on some kind of (existential) search. But none were as good as The Moviegoer. And, now, tons have been written about the novel. I think I'll have to read it again after 42 years, just for the joy of it. ....Oh, I also learned along the way that the movie rights were bought pretty early, and they have been passed around a few times, bought out. The last I remember Robert Redford had the rights. But making a film from it would be difficult, as a great deal of it takes place in Binx Bolling's head. And the films Binx sees and talks about are of course very dated. .......I would be curious as to your Mom's reading list of the last 20 years, her top picks... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 5, 2022 7:43:10 GMT -5
Back in my existential civilian days. I used to try to shift to the big picture. And then try to keep zooming out. From what we can see of the Universe the Earth is quite rare. From a benighted personal perspective, we can use the lens that the Universe creates these playgrounds, islands of riotous life, probably billions or not hundreds of billions of them right now (although the concept of simultaneity itself, in the big picture is .. different .. no star you see in the sky is now, and all are at different times, looking out is looking back in time, and on massive scales ...). It's like "God is playing dice", on a cosmic scale. What eventually "works", is what eventually "works". Then, on the biggest scale, we can anticipate the eventual heat death of the Universe. If we are here so that the "Universe can know itself", then perhaps, we might extend the life of that Universe by outliving it? So, the existential civilian, with the most expansive picture, can see a sort of choice buried in a question. It is perhaps easier to perceive this underlying, core question, with a series of multiple questions: do I care if the human race survives, if Earth survives? Is it possible that something of this Universe might outlive it at the end? If so, do I want to be a part of building, of helping and working toward that eventuality? The easy cop-out, which probably is where most existential civilians land and get stuck is "well, I'm just one person. a speck of dust. it doesn't matter". Those are the grundoons (a term Steve Bannon uses to describe menial manual laborers). Or to use a different metaphor, these are the sticks-in-the-mud. The Hobbits who never leave the Shire.
Now, for those who get past that point, the next inevitable wall is Hamlet, or, a bit more explicitly and on the bright side, Arjuna. This is where the existential civilian either stays a civilian or enlists as an existential warrior. "What am I to do? And why?".
heh heh .. .. the mind has all sorts of survival strategies. As E' used to say, there's no outsmarting the ego ... Thoroughly enjoyable read dude. I agree that 'I'm just one person, one speck of dust' is a really big one for some folks....the question, 'well what can I do?'. I have friends that raise this question, and I note that the sense of powerlessness can actually bring some level of comfort and security. After all, if we know that we can do something, then it becomes highly irresponsible NOT to. It's probably harder to live with oneself knowing that something could be done, but choosing not to.....than it is to believe that there's nothing I can do. To be clear, I find both positions of value depending on the context. If I feel something can be done, and it's appropriate for me to do it, then I will do. But equally, the higher path for me is sometimes surrendering the illusion of control, sometimes seeing beyond the whole control-no control thing entirely. well said guy |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 5, 2022 7:56:50 GMT -5
Not much relating can be done over the internet. I learned this the hard way, 40 years ago. Very short version. My former wife, I had known her for 4 years. I've told part before. Her husband left her on Mother's day, pregnant and with a small son, he was then about 16 months old. We talked on the phone, I was looking forward to dating. Before I could ask, she said she would not date until legal separation, which I already knew took a year in NC, minimum. So we talked on the phone, twice a week. Our longest conversation by phone was 5 hours. After about 14 months, we dated. We say each other every day. Before very long I realized she was an entirely different person, in person, than just talking over the phone. So I will somewhat equate phone conversation with internet conversation, except you can obtain even more information via phone conversation than words on a screen. After knowing her for a few months, I was getting to a coin toss considering a future, 50-50. I can't go into all the factors. She also came to know I wasn't exactly ideal material for a husband. And then we got married, 15 years, until it became unbearable. After marriage things got worse, that is, we got to know each other better. In reading something a couple of weeks ago, ZD said something that impressed me. It was he and someone else's conversation. They asked him, in general, about some else's realization. He said to really know he would have to be around them for a while, to see how they interacted with people and how they acted in general. My recollection of his words, I think that's the gist of what he said. So I'm saying, don't count on any "the mirror of relationship" over the internet. The other, you can define spirituality any way you please. But if you're not on the same page as the majority of people here, you're not going to get far in conversation. People here are not too much interested in psychology, philosophy, politics or religion. Jesus put it this way, My kingdom is not of this world. The focus here is on nonduality. Your tree, nature, is the real world. Any and all conceptualization of the actual, are just copies, or copies of copies. Most people don't live in the actual but in the copies. Most people live most of their lives mediated through words, which are but copies. This ends, as I have to watch Devils on TV. In the spirit of sharing, I've said before that me and Jenn met online in 2006. Like your experience it was intense, first online, and then on the phone. I agree that 'in person' is a whole other kettle of fish, though I'm not sure if it's because the individual that we have gotten to know on the phone is much different from 'the reality', but because reality demands so much more from individuals, than a phone call does. Real life situations bring up different aspects of our personality and conditioning. In the first couple of months of being with Jenn, in person (in America), I think I drove to the airport 3 times to leave. It was all just too hard, too much to deal with, for both of us. But each time I'd get near to the airport, a powerful force within me DEMANDED that my physical body return back to Jenn. At these times, it was absolutely clear to me that 'my choices' or 'my will' were irrelevant. There are much bigger forces at play. In a very real sense, we were stuck with each other to work out our sh/t together. Which we did (mostly...still doing it 15 years later lol). Oh yea, I can agree. Our journey was a curious one. I will give a brief version of how we missed each other. Terri's parents had best friends with the same names as my parents, both, first and last. About once a year my parents even got some of their mail, delivered to the wrong address, that's how we even knew about them. (Our address was Route 3 Matthews, NC, period, no house number, no street name, no zip code). Also, two houses up from mine was a very fascinating family. The husband was a trapper and a kind of handy man. His base income came from installing steel wire fences. A creek ran about 75 yards from my house, and Mr. Turner trapped Muskrat. Their front yard was full of pine trees. But the wife's mother lived with them, she was a _______, same name as me, but a wholly different set of ________, not related. But later we discovered that Mrs. _______ was the mother of the other _____ and _____ _______, the best friends of former wife's parents. Former wife had even come to their house before to rake pine needles and collect them for free. Another thing. My sister went to Mars Hill College, which was about 3 hours away. My parents had told me I could go there also, but a lot more costly than UNCC and commuting. Former wife also went to and graduated from Mars Hill. If I had gone there she would have been a freshman as I was a senior. There were other overlaps we later learned. But to wrap it all up, my youngest daughter reminds me from time to time, she wouldn't be unless me and former wife had gotten together. So it was all basically pretty inevitable. And even going into it I knew it was not going to be easy, but I also knew Socrates had said, being married to Xantippe, "If you want to become a philosopher, marry a contentious woman". Truly... |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Oct 5, 2022 8:50:20 GMT -5
They were interviewing a tribe of hunter gatherers in Tanzania. They asked them the meaning of life. The answer was "macaco," meat. What kind of meat? Baboon, elephant, rhino, even lion. What was their greatest fear? Lions. What happens to them after they die? They get buried in a cave.
They hate the herding tribes that encroach on their domain and scare away the game.
No different than modern man, nothing changes. A bit more zen-like, practical, literal. So unlike Sree and me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 5, 2022 9:43:50 GMT -5
Yeah, he regularly talks himself right into despair. And for no reason (he seems to live in relative comfort, as far as I can tell), except for some kind of unhealthy intellectual narcissism. He has turned self-pity into an art. Sure, that's one way to use your mind, but I'd call that using your mind to your disadvantage. This is an ad hominem attack. Shame on you, Reefs. Take apart what I am saying if my spiritual stance is wrong. Don't psychoanalyze me. It has no benefit to anyone who wants to die and needs clarity. If I need help, I have the money to get professional help from the best therapist in NYC. I don't need free armchair telemedicine doled out to the poor.
My point exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 5, 2022 9:45:13 GMT -5
Yeah, just conversation for him I guess. And money can't buy happiness or peace of mind.. but it sure can take a few of the more unpleasant aspects of life out of play, which is fine but doesn't matter.. and focus on the body is a double edged sword perhaps, absolutely fine.. but also potentially the work of a narcissist the modern world is too much to handle these days, people overwhelmed, stressed out.. seeking momentary comfort by losing themselves to soothing distractions And what are you here for if it is not for conversation? This forum, as all spiritual forums are, is a talk shop. Reefs dismisses me as a talk addict. Why me? Are we all not talk addicts? I am not the worst addict here. I don't think you are that bad as well because your posts are not long-winded. My posts are not either. Reefs can talk up a storm and have much to say. This is an observation, not a criticism.
Talk is a soothing distraction. I don't come here to sooth or distract.
I said addiction to thinking, not talking. Big difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 5, 2022 9:46:52 GMT -5
A question worth pursuing, especially for Sree, would be: Will a purely intellectual approach to life inevitably lead to a predominantly pessimistic perspective on life? If yes, why? If no, why not? What do you mean by an intellectual approach to life?
The Collins dictionary says "intellectual" means involving a person's ability to think and to understand ideas and information. Are you questioning sree's ability in this regard?
And what do you mean by "life"? Are you referring to things that people do and experience that are characteristic of a particular place, group, or activity?
If spiritual discourse is meant for illuminating the way to live in freedom of disharmony, then you need to be clear about the question you are posing to me.
I look forward to this exchange. Intellectual in the sense of solely guided by reason. Ironically, that's what they sell you as 'wisdom' in the West. No wonder that, traditionally, most philosophers in the West have had a predominantly negative outlook on life and humanity. Life in the sense of your general, day-to-day experience. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 5, 2022 12:26:36 GMT -5
You got me! No, I had not actually read The Moviegoer. My mom read it, and we discussed it. She said that she was entranced by that book. Practically all the books that you have read had been read by her. I don't read and never had to. My mom read me to sleep every night from the time I was a baby and could listen to her voice. And when I was old enough to ask questions, the reading sessions evolved into conversations. From the time I was in high school till I went away to university, every evening with her was a "My Dinner with Andre". I was the dumbass. She was Andre
If you want to play "Andre" with me, you need to step up your game. We are our conditioning, and our conditioning is us. If this perception is wrong, how do you explain the separation between you and your conditioning? What are you?
I'm impressed nonetheless. When I read The Moviegoer I didn't know anything about Walker Percy except I had browsed his then just out new book, The Second Coming, and liked it, knew I wanted to read it. There was a fascinating character in it, a girl with a speech disability, the main character (from an earlier book, The Last Gentleman) chanced upon her, and they became friends. That was enough to grab me. So I knew nothing about Percy's background reading The Moviegoer. I was likewise entranced. The main character's of all Percy's novels are on some kind of (existential) search. But none were as good as The Moviegoer. And, now, tons have been written about the novel. I think I'll have to read it again after 42 years, just for the joy of it. ....Oh, I also learned along the way that the movie rights were bought pretty early, and they have been passed around a few times, bought out. The last I remember Robert Redford had the rights. But making a film from it would be difficult, as a great deal of it takes place in Binx Bolling's head. And the films Binx sees and talks about are of course very dated. .......I would be curious as to your Mom's reading list of the last 20 years, her top picks... I don't know what her top picks were. She was concerned about my lack of love for reading. Like a mother bird feeding food to her chick, she would regurgitate the gist of the books she read into my head at dinner as we ate. The only way she could get me to "swallow" was by provoking me to question the ideas she put before me. It's what I do to you guys. Same method for waking a dead mind. Below are the books I recall:
Mikail Bulgakov Master and Marguerita
Graham Greene Quiet American
Alan Bloom Closing of the American Mind
Nietzsche God is Dead.
Michel Foucault Madness and Civilization
Fyodor Dostoevsky Crime n punishment
Tolstoy War and Peace
V S Naipul An Area of Darkness
Hemingway Old Man and The Sea
Krishnamurti
F scott fitzgerald The Great Gatsby
Phillip Roth The Human Stain.
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 5, 2022 12:57:28 GMT -5
I appreciate your question. Give myself a broader purpose? I had a broader purpose before I embarked on my spiritual quest. I was like you guys with a job and a family (girlfriend, and parents).
Wondering about what life is all about has always been a burning question. Even as a kid, I didn't think being President was such a big deal. They all create a mess, die, and are forgotten. Nothing endures. And yet, I felt that some thing good must and does. And the only way to find out is to cut out the noise and distraction of the immaterial and transient. Toss out everything that is inessential. In that bareness, an objective observation is possible; otherwise, it's just speculation.
The problem of doing what you are suggesting is living the same life that has been lived a zillion times before, in vain. However, I am not a Bourdain seeking a high in an existential tomb. He suffered the same fate of highly sensitive, talented people who had a similar disdain for their admirers. My empty tomb is not unpleasant. I go about my daily tasks minding the body in a comfortable setting. It's similar to a house-sitting job that includes caring for a living body.
It seems you have given up your search, your burning question, your spiritual quest. It seems you have committed a kind of suicide, without the messiness. Why have you given up? (Have you given up?) No, I have not given up. Seems like a stalemate. One can never tell. A spiritual journey is not a discernible movement.
Elon Musk said he could never tell if his life was moving ahead in the right direction. What he does was look backward to see if his present state was better than before. And that's the only clue one has for staying on course.
Looking back to where I was, I feel like a climber on a vertical face of a mountain at 20,000 feet above base camp. Frankly, I don't even know why I am climbing this damn mountain. There is no going back.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 5, 2022 13:26:50 GMT -5
I'm impressed nonetheless. When I read The Moviegoer I didn't know anything about Walker Percy except I had browsed his then just out new book, The Second Coming, and liked it, knew I wanted to read it. There was a fascinating character in it, a girl with a speech disability, the main character (from an earlier book, The Last Gentleman) chanced upon her, and they became friends. That was enough to grab me. So I knew nothing about Percy's background reading The Moviegoer. I was likewise entranced. The main character's of all Percy's novels are on some kind of (existential) search. But none were as good as The Moviegoer. And, now, tons have been written about the novel. I think I'll have to read it again after 42 years, just for the joy of it. ....Oh, I also learned along the way that the movie rights were bought pretty early, and they have been passed around a few times, bought out. The last I remember Robert Redford had the rights. But making a film from it would be difficult, as a great deal of it takes place in Binx Bolling's head. And the films Binx sees and talks about are of course very dated. .......I would be curious as to your Mom's reading list of the last 20 years, her top picks... I don't know what her top picks were. She was concerned about my lack of love for reading. Like a mother bird feeding food to her chick, she would regurgitate the gist of the books she read into my head at dinner as we ate. The only way she could get me to "swallow" was by provoking me to question the ideas she put before me. It's what I do to you guys. Same method for waking a dead mind. Below are the books I recall: Mikail Bulgakov Master and Marguerita
Graham Greene Quiet American
Alan Bloom Closing of the American Mind
Nietzsche God is Dead.
Michel Foucault Madness and Civilization
Fyodor Dostoevsky Crime n punishment
Tolstoy War and Peace
V S Naipul An Area of Darkness
Hemingway Old Man and The Sea
Krishnamurti
F scott fitzgerald The Great Gatsby
Phillip Roth The Human Stain.
Thanks. Have only read these. Have these but they have not been a priority. I have another obscure book by Foucault, he seems like a very smart dude. I may get to it some day. I have browsed Nietzsche but have not read. You would probably like him. Did your Mom ever mention Simone Weil? Sounds like she might have liked her. Weil is virtually unique. She was a philosopher-teacher-writer-mystic-political philosopher-laborer-WWII Nazi resister in France (laborer to understand the common man/woman). Albert Camus loved her work, her life. He basically "resurrected" her and made her known to the public. She died to early, she did not take care of her body, died in 1942 or '43. Gravity and Grace is my favorite book of hers. I'll try to find a couple of quotes. Read 13. Simone Weil is your kind of spirituality. 4. " Absolutely unmixed attention is prayer." - Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 5. "Justice. To be ever ready to admit that another person is something quite different from what we read when he is there (or when we think about him). Or rather, to read in him that he is certainly something different, perhaps something completely different from what we read in him. Every being cries out silently to be read differently." - Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 6. "He who has not God in himself cannot feel His absence." - Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 7. "The world is the closed door. It is a barrier. And at the same time it is the way through. Two prisoners whose cells adjoin communicate with each other by knocking on the wall. The wall is the thing which separates them but it is also their means of communication. … Every separation is a link."- Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 8. "Electra weeping for the dead Orestes. If we love God while thinking that he does not exist, he will manifest his existence." - Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 9. "Stars and blossoming fruit trees: Utter permanence and extreme fragility give an equal sense of eternity." - Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace Gravity and Grace Quotes. 11. "The man who has known pure joy, if only for a moment ... is the only man for whom affliction is something devastating. At the same time he is the only man who has not deserved the punishment. But, after all, for him it is no punishment; it is God holding his hand and pressing rather hard. For, if he remains constant, what he will discover buried deep under the sound of his own lamentations is the pearl of the silence of God."- Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 12. "Time’s violence rends the soul; by the rent eternity enters." - Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 13. "If we know in what way society is unbalanced, we must do what we can to add weight to the lighter scale ... we must have formed a conception of equilibrium and be ever ready to change sides like justice, 'that fugitive from the camp of conquerors'."- Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 14. "Man only escapes from the laws of this world in lightning flashes. Instants when everything stands still, instants of contemplation, of pure intuition, of mental void, of acceptance of the moral void. It is through such instants that he is capable of the supernatural." - Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 15. " The mind is not forced to believe in the existence of anything (subjectivism, absolute idealism, solipsism, skepticism: c.f. the Upanishads, the Taoists and Plato, who, all of them, adopt this philosophical attitude by way of purification). That is why the only organ of contact with existence is acceptance, love. That is why beauty and reality are identical. That is why joy and the sense of reality are identical." - Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace quotes from this website: www.aamboli.com/quotes/book/gravity-and-grace |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 5, 2022 13:31:57 GMT -5
Not much relating can be done over the internet. I learned this the hard way, 40 years ago. Very short version. My former wife, I had known her for 4 years. I've told part before. Her husband left her on Mother's day, pregnant and with a small son, he was then about 16 months old. We talked on the phone, I was looking forward to dating. Before I could ask, she said she would not date until legal separation, which I already knew took a year in NC, minimum. So we talked on the phone, twice a week. Our longest conversation by phone was 5 hours. After about 14 months, we dated. We say each other every day. Before very long I realized she was an entirely different person, in person, than just talking over the phone. So I will somewhat equate phone conversation with internet conversation, except you can obtain even more information via phone conversation than words on a screen. After knowing her for a few months, I was getting to a coin toss considering a future, 50-50. I can't go into all the factors. She also came to know I wasn't exactly ideal material for a husband. And then we got married, 15 years, until it became unbearable. After marriage things got worse, that is, we got to know each other better. In reading something a couple of weeks ago, ZD said something that impressed me. It was he and someone else's conversation. They asked him, in general, about some else's realization. He said to really know he would have to be around them for a while, to see how they interacted with people and how they acted in general. My recollection of his words, I think that's the gist of what he said. So I'm saying, don't count on any "the mirror of relationship" over the internet. The other, you can define spirituality any way you please. But if you're not on the same page as the majority of people here, you're not going to get far in conversation. People here are not too much interested in psychology, philosophy, politics or religion. Jesus put it this way, My kingdom is not of this world. The focus here is on nonduality. Your tree, nature, is the real world. Any and all conceptualization of the actual, are just copies, or copies of copies. Most people don't live in the actual but in the copies. Most people live most of their lives mediated through words, which are but copies. This ends, as I have to watch Devils on TV. In the spirit of sharing, I've said before that me and Jenn met online in 2006. Like your experience it was intense, first online, and then on the phone. I agree that 'in person' is a whole other kettle of fish, though I'm not sure if it's because the individual that we have gotten to know on the phone is much different from 'the reality', but because reality demands so much more from individuals, than a phone call does. Real life situations bring up different aspects of our personality and conditioning. In the first couple of months of being with Jenn, in person (in America), I think I drove to the airport 3 times to leave. It was all just too hard, too much to deal with, for both of us. But each time I'd get near to the airport, a powerful force within me DEMANDED that my physical body return back to Jenn. At these times, it was absolutely clear to me that 'my choices' or 'my will' were irrelevant. There are much bigger forces at play. In a very real sense, we were stuck with each other to work out our sh/t together. Which we did (mostly...still doing it 15 years later lol). Yours is a love story. I would really like to find out what that powerful force was if you are willing to take a cold hard look at it.
Your situation and stardust's bring to mind this movie below:
|
|
