Done Now

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Done Now

  • Member Type

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Done Now

    I dig the idea. I also get that source is, basically, everything... but, well... if the aim of source is (amongst all the other things) to experience itself, through a series of self-division and recombination... then it would make a good level of intuitive sense to wonder if 'source' is, in fact, essentially translating itself into an 'other', as an integral part of that recombination process. The self creates the other, the other eventually subsumes the self. Death and rebirth stuff. Source, as the abstract celestial concept, and self, as the corporeal concept, shape each other, and are shaped by each other in turn, making the two symbiotic. Essentially, both are creating an other, as part of the cycle of division and reintegration. The number of divisions of source, and thus the number of 'selves' has no real upper limit. To take that thought a bit further, we can say that, if all individuals are a fragment of source... well, we know that there are plenty of fragmentary instances of 'source' (individuals) who are unconnected and incompatible. Almost a majority of people are like that, I'd say. Little islands, little bits of source, created from source, but in many respects, isolated from it. Like... to make up a timeline, at point A in time, you have a woman. At point B in time you have a woman and her children. At point C you have the children, having their own children. At point D in time, you have the children and their children, the mother dead of old age. At point E, the children die of old age. So on. The self created the other, the other became its own selves (meaning created new combinations of the energy of source), those selves are entirely seperate and potentially even incompatible. Then the earliest of the selves, dies. Where once there was one 'self', there are now multiple. The original 'self' eventually ceases to exist. Eventually, at some point far off down the track, all selves cease to exist after a very, very long chain of divisions and recombinations. What is left over at the end is not the same as what started the process. An entity made of the same basic stuff, but also totally different. I'd consider that a bit of a microcosm of wider 'source'. 'Source' is the whole... but as part of the process of division, it ceases to exist as what we recognised it as, leaving each subsequent division as an equal part, not less than the original, but equal to it. With time and each division, the original is subsumed by what comes afterwards, as the energy is formed, divided and eventually recombined. Thus, depending on how you want to define source... yeah. Multiple instances of source, isolated from each other. At some points. Source is what we call everything, but everything is subdivided, after all. You could then call it basically a framing thing - you can then say that all the various selves are then, logically part of a whole. All part of the wider entity of 'source', with 'source' being the hypothetical root of all... but if spirituality's about anything, it's about not dismissing all the options. I've never seen an argument justify ruling anything in or out, when it comes to such abstract, all-encompassing things as source! Ah, there's some big definitional issues in that... but ohwell. First draft! No biggie.
  2. Done Now

    I've not been a fan of how it gets talked about for a long time in a lot of circles on social media, but... ohwell, can't control that! It brings up many lines of thought, regardless of anything else. I guess Scot's comment really hits on one of the big threads. The rejection of vulnerability and emotion, oftentimes in practice, seems to foster ignorance of the emotional aspects of the self. People can't learn things if they don't experience them honestly; emotionality and vulnerability are pretty alien concepts to someone who's spent their whole live rejecting them. Problem is, without experiencing those things honestly, a person doesn't really understand their impact upon others, and so fails to respect their significance. Won't see the need for them, or their place in the course of things. Their understanding is incomplete and fatally flawed. When Patriarchy's getting talked about, that's one of the big themes that usually comes up; the suppression of emotion, failure to respect the 'weak' feelings and ideas that are generally there for a reason. Leads to a lot of bad things; violence and lack of respect for life, is one of the big ones that come up. I'm quite a war buff, very interested in the psychology of war. Can't deny that the ideas that fuel patriarchy are there, very strong, in pretty much every war I've learned about; 'there's no place for weakness here; we kill or we die'. The reality of the needless tribalism and escalating violence is ignored, the 'weak' emotions are rejected, and there's only crushing the 'other' into death and submission, no matter who or what dies along the way, innocent or not. Negative, 'weak' feelings are just one more obstacle to be crushed and ignored, instead of being warning signs that... well, that things aren't right. Empathising with people you've not met is twisted into being wrong, because it's seen as 'weak'. Digust at killing strangers is twisted into being wrong, because it's 'sentimental'. Not seeing the value in sacrificing your own life for a cause that you don't agree with is twisted into 'cowardice'. And so on. War sucks, etc. It's definately as toxic for men as it is for women... but unfortunately many of the people who are most vocal about it, are paradoxically drowning in it, both in the 'for' and 'against' camps. In light of that, what you say is true too, Garnet: weakness and vulnerability don't really do much to stop the aggression that is their antithesis. Like is said in Lord of the Rings: what can men do against such wreckless hate? It's tough to oppose something without adopting it, at least in part. Which is a problem.
  3. @Scot even though I'm lazy beyond compare (sigh, one day I'll have overcome it...); Coursera: how good or bad did you find it? I've got a job interview coming up soon, if I get it I might *actually* have enough free time again for living a real person's life. I'm keen to start learning about non-tax stuff again. Crossed fingers on that one... god for the chance to be back in social services! @universoul double slit experiment... I've seen that one come up before around here but I've never really gone into it much, beyond the basic wiki trawls. I've definately never heard of doctor Stevenson, do you have any suggestions for a starting point for learning about that? My Google skills have always been amateurish at best, heh. All the best, everyone!
  4. Done Now

    I feel like Scot has covered all the bases here, so I have very little to add. Other than to just say: that's lovely! Speaking as someone who's usually the first to suggest caution: Take the caution with the celebration. Life is to be lived for these lovely little moments, where something good can happen, where wonderful feelings can occur, but carry with them risks.
  5. Done Now

    There's so much here it's overwhelming. I can't take it all in, that's for certain. Whatever happens, I hope you can find some peace and happiness. This is quite a story.
  6. Done Now

    I feel that! There's always both, it's very frustrating. In the spiritualist vernacular, being fragmented is pretty normal, don't stress it. Everyone else is there too... but that you can be aware of both is good. It's the things we aren't aware of that are the real problem: not knowing your own dark side, or denying that it exists is what tends to cause the really big issues in life! Self-awareness is very, very good, even if it sucks a bit at various points. To answer your question: sorta. I sorta know myself, much better than I did last year, or the year before that, or the year before that too... it's an incremental process. It's never over, but that's how it is for almost everyone. Anyone can look at it as a glass-half full thing, or half empty, or however you feel. Growing means always seeing the shortcomings of yesterday. Luckily it also means being able to try to change or avoid them tomorrow. I also didn't feel much of anything when my grandparents died. That's not uncommon... in my case, it was simply down to me not having any emotional bonds with them. One I'd never even spoken to since the age of 6, one was about as emotionally avaliable as a brick, the other... well, okay, bit different there, he was nice, but we were still never close. He was ready to go, had said his goodbyes and was cheerful and proud of his life, so I didn't really see that as a thing to be sad about, he died happy, that's all that matters really. Point is, if someone who's not a part of your life goes through something that will mean they continue to not be part of your life forever more... to feel no big emotional impact isn't an unreasonable response. To feel upset is the socially expected response, sure... but people aren't so simple irl. For me, decision making with the conflicted nature of the self and the world... well, that's a tough question. I suppose all I can say is: there are no hard rules. Everything is conditional and subject to invisible variables and complexities. I use fun stuff like tarot when I'm really stuck on big things, I have a few trinkets and talismans to complement the cards... mostly though, go with what seems best, try to generally be nice where you can be, try not to stick around people who feed the bad bits of yourself too much. And don't put yourself into situations you don't want to be in. There's no hard and simple advice on this one. Choices are hard, any advice will be completely subjective. Mistakes will always be made, the trick is learning how to overcome them and avoid repeating them, rather than not making them at all.
  7. Done Now

    That's really cool! The blood moon is about an hour and a half away, where I am... I'm going to make sure I'm awake for it and present. I don't think I've seen one since I was very, very young... Kind of wish I had something deep and meaningful to say, but I guess I'm just going to enjoy it while it lasts. I enjoy your sentiments though, I'll try to keep that in mind while watching it! Thank you for posting that
  8. Tricky. I call my dogs names all the time, so I guess I feel qualified to comment? What I mean by that is that I think it's quite common behaviour to say unkind things to pets, because A) they can be incredibly difficult, destructive and frustrating at times, and B) they only understand tone and body language, not so much words. Some words, but pretty basic ones. They don't have human egos to hurt or the language to understand, so namecalling doesn't mean anything to them. What you say doesn't matter to them, only how you say it. Sadly for my explanation, I wish I could actually use some tone and body language, because this topic seems like it could lead to misunderstanding very easily. Anyway: If they enjoy spending time with the cat, then I wouldn't worry much about that bit, at least bot from what you've said so far. I would ask though, what makes you feel like insults towards the cat are directed at you?
  9. Done Now

    I think that's a great contribution Michael, thank you for posting and sharing too! Increasingly lately I've been thinking about the dynamics of argument and opposition, and you put it to words nicely. Not much can be done when so much mental effort goes towards defense, it just drains away energy and thought, leaving no time for anything else. It's such a waste, and leads nowhere. Just looking at the waste of space and energy that the local troll here leaves in his wake... it's hard to not want to say something, to point out the painfully obvious. It puts the idea of moving past inanity and fear-fuelled hatred to the test, really. Creates an impetus to put those words into action, rather than just talk big about them like so many spiritualists often do, myself included. As tempting as it is to do otherwise, it's better to just try and move on and leave the hateful little devil to his own fear, jealousy and paranoid delusions, rather than try to correct the lies and attempts at manipulation that are painfully, glaringly wrong and oftentimes, outright malicious in nature. People like him might put all their energies into trying to create and foster fear, mistrust and hatred into the people around them, but like the story suggests... those attempts are all just nothing in the end. Fear can be appropriate sometimes, but most of the time... it's of no substance whatsoever. Why even consider letting someone else's fear and hatred rule over your own choices? That said, we're all human, I'm sure there'll be times when, for me, it's more suitable to fight than to move on past things people do or say that seem wrong, albeit uncontrollable... but while I can, it's better to just dismiss the worst people, and focus on the best. We are emotionally powerless when our hands are occupied with sword and shield (I really like that analogy). Anger is a reaction to fear. To let anger rule means fear already dominates you. That's not a good situation to live out, I feel.
  10. I'm probably just agreeing with the others, but I'm happy to say I use Tarot. I see them both ways at once. They can help you see the future, because they're a cipher: you read into them what you feel, and what you feel is what you will generally bring about, conciously or otherwise. They spell out what can be for you, depending on what you ask, and that's basically reading your future, if you choose to let that future be so. They're made to be vague enough that you'll see only yourself in them. When you're asking them for advice, you're actually asking yourself... and nobody knows your potential future better than yourself. That said, there have been many occasions where they spell out something that happens exactly... synchronicity happens too.
  11. Whilst I don't judge people for doing it (it's downright reasonable and relatable oftentimes), it's always a little bit sad to see people's comments disappear for whatever reason. People's words are always more interesting than silence. An opinion, even if it's one the poster doesn't want to stand by any more, is something to be treasured. It's valuable. The time taken to say it makes it worthwhile. Silence benefits no-one. The value of an idea is great.
  12. Done Now

    Heya Scot. I like the story. I like the message. Defensiveness and self-protection are, most of the time, not necessary. Ah... it's tough to keep them down though. So many people are so hatefilled, paranoid, vicious and judemental. The more you keep your guard down, the more those little dings and dents accumulate with time. The more you become primed to see them coming and anticipate them. The more you think about them. Like the hedgehog's dilemma: the closer people get (that is, the more they are authentic and without pretense), the more easily they can emotionally hurt each other, amd the more that hurt stings. So instead, people keep their distance. Because then they can't be hurt any more. It feels easy to do. Easy to see why some people think it's better to keep those walls up, however incredibly unhealthy, damaging, and ultimately impossibly difficult that is in the long term. You can't get strong without doing the work, you can't grow without pushing through the barriers. You can't be forged without pressing on through the flames. You can't be strong without first being weak, you can't feel safe without first being hurt. Everything has its turn, everything is there to be learned from. You can't learn from things you don't experience, and you can't experience if the walls are up. Got to have the barriers down unless they have to be up. But boy does it drain everything out of you at times. (Ps hedgehogs do fine getting close to each other though irl though, they snuggle right up just fine. It's not a well named idea... makes intuitive sense though, heheh)
  13. Done Now

    I'm interested to see if anyone has any answers. Could be an interesting topic. I don't really understand what you're saying though, Aquarian.
  14. @MistaRender It's very childish that you choose to keep bringing up your own issues with me to other people with this highschool gossip game instead of either dealing with them directly or growing up and moving on. @Paula For your context here though: He's like that with everyone he talks to, best not to take it personally. I've said to him a few times in the past that I think he has Narcissistic personality disorder. You might be able to see why. You get used to him. Anyway. Enough of his drama for me. It's all he's here to create. Back to topic. It's definately the conventional wisdom to not engage. Like one of my favourite Youtubers points out: without other people around to engage in the posturing games with and fixate on, most narcissists will emotionally de-compensate. It's part of why the behaviour follows certain lines; getting people engaged and responding in order to feel validated. Which again, is normal behaviour, but taken to an extreme. There are shortcuts for getting attention and engagement, and ultimately negative attention is stronger, more recognisable and easier to get than positive attention. Ultimately it's a learned behaviour that's used as a self-protective mechanism. Gaslighting, baiting, blame and judgement are all tools used to that end. It's interesting to me that you say that the general behavioural patterns are the same across cultures and environments... but I guess maybe that does support the idea that it's instinctual at its core. Certain needs result in certain behaviours... I have a whole bunch of Youtube videos I can link you to, if you'd like. I find the mechanisms *fascinating*, because I've been subject to a number of quite extreme narcissists in life (and they are *so* common), and learning about them was one of those times when I had a whole series of 'oh, shit, that makes so much sense now!' moments. My wife's father was a textbook narcissist, was horribly emotionally abusive. Some of the things he did defy reason and belief. I feel it's important, and interesting, to learn about. Only through learning and engagement can anything harmful be disempowered! I'm not such a fan of avoiding people who exhibit it, though. That's the prevailing wisdom. But, heh, like I said, I'm interested in it to my own detriment. I'm not a fan of the idea of not engaging with something that's so... detrimental to the people around it. Feels like turning a blind eye, ignoring something instead of learning from it. Denial and avoidance, to me, are parts of the problem. I prefer integration, even where it seems impossible. I think a solution to unconstrained Narcissism is important to aim for, because I agree with what you say about our economic society; it seems designed to keep us fighting, competing and creates an environment overall that encourages and fosters Narcissism (amongst a whole host of other personality disorders), and creates few (if any) social defenses against it. But, heheh, case in point, directly engaging results in... Nothing too positive. Something to learn from, probably, but not positive or constructive. Like the saying goes; don't wrestle with pigs in the mud. You just get dirty, and the pig enjoys it. I'm sure there's a third path of sorts, but whatever it is doesn't seem apparent. One of Teal Swan's videos ('Fuck balance') seemed quite relevant though... but that one is very, very messy in practice, I feel. I mean, ultimately the behaviour comes about as a result of having unmet needs (it's hard to not empathise with that), but in practice, the needs are impossible to meet, so... it's tricky and often very frustrating.
  15. I notice huge similarities too. I'm always fascinated by narcissists, probably to my own detriment! There's a lot of material out there that talks about the underlying drivers of the condition. A lot in particular, revolves around the amygdala. I've been learningg from my wife's work (with abused and/or neglected kids) that the amygdala is a real lynchpin of the fight/flight/freeze reflex. It's what comes active and takes ovet when we're in survival mode. I've also learned from online materisls that most of the cluster B personality disorders (which i cludes narcissism) tend to, basically, be in survival mode most of the thime that they're dealing with others. As in, their amygdalas are firing off, trying to induce the fight/flight reflex. The socialisation that tends to make narcissism tends to favour 'fight', although not necessarily literal, physical fighting. I suppose there is truth the the fact that they tend to behave very similarly to each other. There's something to be said in that as to what it means about most people's responses to most things: do we all fit into lottle boxes of how we behave, and its just that most of those boxes are benign enough to not be identified? Maybe. At the same time, we know that narcissists tend to work off instinct: instinct is always limited and reasonably predictable once established. One of my favourite youtubers who talks about narcissists likens them to trees that got split apart when they were very young: the different fragments keep trying to work together, but can't. They're broken, split, fragmented people who cannot function like non-narcissists. Maybe that means they're fundamentally different tk the rest of us, maybe not. Everyone, after all, has some narcissistic traits in them. That's how personality disorders work: everyone has some bits, the problem is just when someone takes them to an extreme.