# How "love" is a illusion



## William Howard 2

Richard Dawkins -
“Life is matter and only matter. We are survival machines — robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules of DNA known as genes. The only purpose of life is DNA survival: a person is nothing more than DNA’s way of making more DNA like itself.”

I just spent about 4 days sifting through research on data collected from dating sites. It was a good eye opener for me. It shows just how truly animalistic and false we all really are. 

Oh I shouldn't say false... Courtship rituals (called by humans "dating") selects for cognitive ability. If I want to fuck a girl, for instance, I can't just walk up and stick it in. On no, that only selects for physical strength. A man must undergo strict rules of engagement. Like a game, weeding out the ones who cant play. Darwin wrote some interesting notes on this in Descent of Man - woman are the gate keepers to evolution.

But I digress... It's really a wonderful science. Did you know they coined a saying? "10℅ of the guys get 90℅ of the women (on dating sites)." Alpha males don't exist? Ugh huh...

But you know what? This is all just nature's schemes. It's the Bell Curve - nature selection for extremes as the engine of change. What humans call "love" then must just be a aggregate of a bunch of selection mechanisms all veiled by that name.

Nature places her spell upon Man's mind
Like a magician who distracts to conceal her designs

As the poem goes..

Oh I could go on and on... But what's the point?


----------



## Odin

Such a pessimistic view.... shit... 



William Howard 2 said:


> woman are the gate keepers to evolution



What about the seahorse??


----------



## Desperado Deluxe

yea thats like only if your looking at it from a physical aspect, which sadly is very much the way our society is geared.


----------



## Odin

William Howard 2 said:


> “Life is matter and only matter. We are survival machines —





Life is mind... and only mind... we are imagination fluctuations gossamer vectors of force n ether blindly reproducing the selfish projected ego of a mad god sleeping at the center of a creation that never will exist as long it always will.


----------



## meatcomputer




----------



## William Howard 2

Oh good I'm glad to see those enchanted by Nature rush in to her defense. To describe or possess her? 

Yes that classic stock argument "all things mind". Nous, as Aristotle says "the FIRST mover" (and hence not anymore). But what does it matter if it's all mind or not? It's all lustful, hungry! For what? 

See me now, and behold eternal fire!
All consuming lust that all creation aspires!
Wroth through with turmoil and pain
Laying waste to be another’s gain

Hear me now! My sermon of woe and wrought
That gods and men with spilled blood so fought:

The passage of time corrodes and decays
All consuming fires set to Man's morays
The fire that burns the world forever new
Laying waste to what Man thought was true

Of good and evil its as if they are the same
The struggle of predator and prey is but a game
Formed by necessity to play in their own way
Being different in only what creatures they slay


Oh but what a coincidence for a academic aristocrat to claim kinship with divinity! As all the others have before and after him. "I think, just like God, so I'm a divine mediator between the filthy irrational stupid peasants and the rational thinking creator. Now bow down, slave". 

Oh Gaucho, how else are you to see your fellow potential sperm donor if not with your physical eyes? Gaging and weighing that wonderful cost to benefit ratio the Human monkeys so love? 

But I'm drunk. If only people could see that machinery at work! But it has to be this way. There has to be a tension of ideologies. Even this is staged for evolution...


----------



## William Howard 2

Hope you don't mind my poems. It seems so fitting to attack Love using its own weapons


----------



## William Howard 2

palmazon said:


> Agreeing with your premise - Love is an illusion - is it good? Meaning, does this illusion provide comfort/refuge/relief or whatever it is your desperate soul seeks?


The Germans have a wonderful noun in their language, Weltschmerz – the mental depression or apathy caused by comparison of the actual state of the world with an ideal state. So I say let’s not teach each other fantastical mythologies about an ideal love.

What I can see it’s a numbers game – probability. Sure, one out of a hundred people do end up living within the illusion of love, and for them, I’m sure the illusion brings them joy and comfort. But these are the lucky few blessed by chance (How many people truly find a “soul mate”?). For the rest of the planet we are woken up to the reality of it – conflict and COMPETITION, as Darwin so loved to say. So I would have to say no, the illusion brings only pain except for the very very few blessed by beauty, environment, genetics, or chance.


----------



## William Howard 2

Gaucho Deluxe said:


> yea thats like only if your looking at it from a physical aspect, which sadly is very much the way our society is geared.


 it's all of history and past cultures. 

Hum how many Greeks died at Priam's gates to take back Helen? 

There is a interesting book I read back in the day. It was a collection of all the investigations of the Catholic Church of sexual misdeeds during the medieval period. Oh so much lust! The whole system was falling apart. 1000 years later we are not any different


----------



## William Howard 2

Oh yes and my favorite story of lust - from the Old Testament! That of king David sending his own soldier to his death in "service to his country" so David can pork his super hot widow Bathsheba. How many wives did David have? 8? 10? 

Yes! Let's give all the women to our alpha males! Within time ALL the population will have their superior DNA. Us? The peasants? The weak? The broken? We die. But this is the way it has to be.


----------



## Hillbilly Castro

Dawkins should be shot.... 
we aren't goddamn machines, dealing with "resources"... 
the reason you don't force your cock on an unwilling woman isn't because "the gene you'd propagate would only select for physical strength"..... it's because if you're an asshole, no one wants to help you, or worse, everyone wants to kill you. More than that, you don't do it because a woman ain't just a goddamn orfice, unless you're a killer robot (or temporarily made into a robot by a machine-like culture, in which case, get help)
not to open up a nasty can of worms with that one..
but the machine-like view dawkins has is irresponsible.. it plays into the cosmic pessimissm of the young, sexually frustrated male, possibly suicidal... it's composed of the smegma of Descarte, soaked into the carpets of Oxford's dormitories and smeared onto the term papers of spiritually retarded anglos who never had their heart flutter when eyeing a crow or a cricket. He's in it for pageviews likes and shares, an existential poverty pimp for the ultra-domesticated patrons of BDSM clubs that smell like piss and office-rat pencil-pusher masturbation tears.... where university department chairs pay good money to be whipped and referred to as a "human resource" by big-boned faux pochahontas mannequins...

good god, just thinking of all those milquetoast cynical pieces of university excrement makes me pine for another beer... 
and pine for a world where the ego-trip of saying "I know absolutely" doesn't completely fuck up any sense of our larger-than-life origins or mythos...


----------



## William Howard 2

Hillbilly Castro said:


> ...
> the reason you don't force your cock on an unwilling woman isn't because "the gene you'd propagate would only select for physical strength"..... it's because if you're an asshole, no one wants to help you, or worse, everyone wants to kill you.


oh you. I was wondering when those lovely triggered moralists would show up. HA your proving my point! That anger you get... That "righteous indignation"... its all so designed to enforce the games oh you archaic religious throwbacks to stoning men. 

But I can't be mad though at you. Your just doing what your designed to do with that monkey brain - feel rage. Man needs people like you, otherwise evolution has no engines..

The old man lusts upon youth in her prime
Desire denied only by conventions of time
Any fool knows that love must be hard won
For no struggle at all would leave all life undone

To every wealth there is a poverty unknown
And every poverty lies wealth that is thrown
A beautiful maid so stuns with her flesh
Forcing the men to grow minds that enmesh


----------



## William Howard 2

Oh and not to mention the anti academic garbage going on now... Yes. Those NASTY universities! What do THEY know? The geneticists and sociologists... They now NOTHING. But I do right? 

You accuse them of Absolutism but your making absolute statements... oh you. 

Well maybe next time you get sick, you should go to your neighbor for help! Haha


----------



## William Howard 2

But really... This has nothing to do with Dawkins. The institutions/behaviors that protect female preference goes back to Darwin – sexual selection. It’s also cross confirmed by decades of research by anthropologists, biologists, geneticists, social sciences, ect. Ect. 

Look at the bigger picture and not pick straw mans


----------



## Beegod Santana

While I disagree with pretty much every generalization here I just wanna put my two cents in. Ultimately we are biological machines dealing with resources but part of our programming is ideology and emotion. Even if love is just a numbers game determined by some kinda DNA lottery it doesn't mean the feelings those individuals have is valueless, or that love itself has no value from an evolutionary/societal stand point. Love is a very real emotion very much so tied to not only our species' survival, but also our quality of life.

Basically, I think you're both right and wrong.


----------



## William Howard 2

Beegod Santana said:


> Even if love is just a numbers game determined by some kinda DNA lottery it doesn't mean the feelings those individuals have is valueless, or that love itself has no value from an evolutionary/societal stand point.


Yes I tried to cover that idea already. Guess people don't like bad poetry? I was being inconsistent though by committing the naturalistic fallacy - confusing an "is" and an "aught". 

Just curious, what generations did you think I failed at? I won't be a jerk. I'm gonna lay of the booze and just take a break from people for awhile... Just want something to think about.


----------



## ScumRag

William Howard 2 said:


> Richard Dawkins -
> “Life is matter and only matter. We are survival machines — robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules of DNA known as genes. The only purpose of life is DNA survival: a person is nothing more than DNA’s way of making more DNA like itself.”
> 
> I just spent about 4 days sifting through research on data collected from dating sites. It was a good eye opener for me. It shows just how truly animalistic and false we all really are.
> 
> Oh I shouldn't say false... Courtship rituals (called by humans "dating") selects for cognitive ability. If I want to fuck a girl, for instance, I can't just walk up and stick it in. On no, that only selects for physical strength. A man must undergo strict rules of engagement. Like a game, weeding out the ones who cant play. Darwin wrote some interesting notes on this in Descent of Man - woman are the gate keepers to evolution.
> 
> But I digress... It's really a wonderful science. Did you know they coined a saying? "10℅ of the guys get 90℅ of the women (on dating sites)." Alpha males don't exist? Ugh huh...
> 
> But you know what? This is all just nature's schemes. It's the Bell Curve - nature selection for extremes as the engine of change. What humans call "love" then must just be a aggregate of a bunch of selection mechanisms all veiled by that name.
> 
> Nature places her spell upon Man's mind
> Like a magician who distracts to conceal her designs
> 
> As the poem goes..
> 
> Oh I could go on and on... But what's the point?




Clearly, the majority of the respondents are under 40 years of age & haven't yet experienced the level of rejection you speak of. I'm there, bro. Feel ya.


----------



## Forrest

Odin said:


> Life is mind... and only mind... we are imagination fluctuations gossamer vectors of force n ether blindly reproducing the selfish projected ego of a mad god sleeping at the center of a creation that never will exist as long it always will.


AMEN
All is Mind.


----------



## Beebers

My wife just walked out on me, so call me biased. I have always had my own peculiar, idiosyncratic view of human behavior, though.

Anybody in here like Julian Jaynes? He might be gaining in pop awareness from that cable tv series version of Westworld. It was a cheesy movie in the 70s, ignorant young people.

Anyway, and I'll follow up on this if anybody cares because this is a drive by posting; a big part of the way people act or choose to act has to be largely hidden from their conscious process. We choose to do things because of drives or impulses that are always there and acting on us, but we are only aware of them when they are acute. We can be led by that, trapped, herded, caught. And we are.

The majority of men are probably alone more often than the majority of women. So men look for women in vulnerable states; they hover, they wait, and they take advantage of vulnerability.

Women take advantage of men, too; by collectively behaving a certain way either in reaction to men's behavior or out of their own desires, they force men into competition with each other whether they consciously want to do that or not; their choices reward competitive and adversarial male behavior toward other males.

The whole socioeconomic reality of any culture, but especially the west, can in my view be traced to an abusive sexually rooted mindset.

Look at the structure of western suburban life and compare it to the medieval separation of the landed class and the peasantry. Modern "reproductives" in our evil ant colony construct the institutions of harm and repression a lot of the people here hate- police, real estate shit, the educational system- all to give their own offspring an advantage. The divisions between rich and poor and haves and have nots look a lot to me like a feudal castle, with soccer yuppie parents on the inside of a socioeconomic mafia and people who have been excluded from that on the outside. People are not only conditioned to think they need wealth in order to bring up children, the society ACTIVELY harms and abuses their children if they don't have that wealth. It's the same malicious neglect that has prisoners attacking one another and making their own situation worse- that is encouraged, that is the desire of the institution.

If you spend 30k a year sending your kids to a private school, wouldn't you be happy if kids in the public schools were getting hurt, having terrible experiences? It would justify the expense to you, make your decisions seem more rational and good. Come to think of it, how many school shootings have been at private schools?

I want to have a family. More than anything, I want to be a part of a family. Both because in my heart I know I am a valid human being and I have the right to want a full human life and because I know I have something to offer someone and future generations through my children that should exist in this world. But any woman looking at me has this barrier to seeing me that way, from the culture and from the real obstacles that she would face bringing up children with me. It would be tantamount to accepting in her imagination that her children would be born as lepers, practically. There would be real things that would help nurture them or help them in life that I could never help them get access to, that other people would have. She has a right to want those advantages for her offspring. But, how do her choices affect reality, in that space? I think that is where the system is most horrifically gamed.

Blah blah blah, western notion of romantic love is the lynchpin of abusive capitalist society, yadda yadda yadda. A marxist utopia would have to be an asexual eunuch society, etc. Please subscribe to my newsletter for details.


----------



## Dagonshucks

Dorothy Parker may not be as old as Aristotle, but I'm with a dumb guy because she has convinced me it makes my grandma happy.

"Never love a simple lad,

Guard against a wise,
Shun a timid youth and sad,

Hide from haunted eyes.

Never hold your heart in pain

For an evil-doer,

Never flip it down the lane

To a gifted wooer.

Never love a loving son,

Nor a sheep astray,
Gather up your sheets and run

From a tender way.

Never give away a tear,

Never toss and pine,
Should you heed my words, my dear,

You're no blood of mine!"

-"For A Favorite Granddaughter"

I love Dorothy Parker.


----------



## Origen

Beebers said:


> My wife just walked out on me, so call me biased. I have always had my own peculiar, idiosyncratic view of human behavior, though.
> 
> Anybody in here like Julian Jaynes? He might be gaining in pop awareness from that cable tv series version of Westworld. It was a cheesy movie in the 70s, ignorant young people.
> 
> Anyway, and I'll follow up on this if anybody cares because this is a drive by posting; a big part of the way people act or choose to act has to be largely hidden from their conscious process. We choose to do things because of drives or impulses that are always there and acting on us, but we are only aware of them when they are acute. We can be led by that, trapped, herded, caught. And we are.
> 
> The majority of men are probably alone more often than the majority of women. So men look for women in vulnerable states; they hover, they wait, and they take advantage of vulnerability.
> 
> Women take advantage of men, too; by collectively behaving a certain way either in reaction to men's behavior or out of their own desires, they force men into competition with each other whether they consciously want to do that or not; their choices reward competitive and adversarial male behavior toward other males.
> 
> The whole socioeconomic reality of any culture, but especially the west, can in my view be traced to an abusive sexually rooted mindset.
> 
> Look at the structure of western suburban life and compare it to the medieval separation of the landed class and the peasantry. Modern "reproductives" in our evil ant colony construct the institutions of harm and repression a lot of the people here hate- police, real estate shit, the educational system- all to give their own offspring an advantage. The divisions between rich and poor and haves and have nots look a lot to me like a feudal castle, with soccer yuppie parents on the inside of a socioeconomic mafia and people who have been excluded from that on the outside. People are not only conditioned to think they need wealth in order to bring up children, the society ACTIVELY harms and abuses their children if they don't have that wealth. It's the same malicious neglect that has prisoners attacking one another and making their own situation worse- that is encouraged, that is the desire of the institution.
> 
> If you spend 30k a year sending your kids to a private school, wouldn't you be happy if kids in the public schools were getting hurt, having terrible experiences? It would justify the expense to you, make your decisions seem more rational and good. Come to think of it, how many school shootings have been at private schools?
> 
> I want to have a family. More than anything, I want to be a part of a family. Both because in my heart I know I am a valid human being and I have the right to want a full human life and because I know I have something to offer someone and future generations through my children that should exist in this world. But any woman looking at me has this barrier to seeing me that way, from the culture and from the real obstacles that she would face bringing up children with me. It would be tantamount to accepting in her imagination that her children would be born as lepers, practically. There would be real things that would help nurture them or help them in life that I could never help them get access to, that other people would have. She has a right to want those advantages for her offspring. But, how do her choices affect reality, in that space? I think that is where the system is most horrifically gamed.
> 
> Blah blah blah, western notion of romantic love is the lynchpin of abusive capitalist society, yadda yadda yadda. A marxist utopia would have to be an asexual eunuch society, etc. Please subscribe to my newsletter for details.


I’m fascinated by your thoughts on relationships and the idea of asexuality as a path. I’d like to see your newsletter


----------



## Deleted member 25220

William Howard 2 said:


> Richard Dawkins -
> “Life is matter and only matter. We are survival machines — robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules of DNA known as genes. The only purpose of life is DNA survival: a person is nothing more than DNA’s way of making more DNA like itself.”
> 
> I just spent about 4 days sifting through research on data collected from dating sites. It was a good eye opener for me. It shows just how truly animalistic and false we all really are.
> 
> Oh I shouldn't say false... Courtship rituals (called by humans "dating") selects for cognitive ability. If I want to fuck a girl, for instance, I can't just walk up and stick it in. On no, that only selects for physical strength. A man must undergo strict rules of engagement. Like a game, weeding out the ones who cant play. Darwin wrote some interesting notes on this in Descent of Man - woman are the gate keepers to evolution.
> 
> But I digress... It's really a wonderful science. Did you know they coined a saying? "10℅ of the guys get 90℅ of the women (on dating sites)." Alpha males don't exist? Ugh huh...
> 
> But you know what? This is all just nature's schemes. It's the Bell Curve - nature selection for extremes as the engine of change. What humans call "love" then must just be a aggregate of a bunch of selection mechanisms all veiled by that name.
> 
> Nature places her spell upon Man's mind
> Like a magician who distracts to conceal her designs
> 
> As the poem goes..
> 
> Oh I could go on and on... But what's the point?


Common knowledge that approximately 18 months after the “flame” is gone relationships fail- that is when conscious relating must be engaged-& the work begins. A very high % of relationships fail at that point
Cocreating takes strength,intelligence and willingness.Until we climb the next rung of consciousness DNA will rule.


----------



## onandonward

If love is an illusion, so what? I know that when a person looks at me intently in a crowded room, and I feel that spark of interest and flattery, both their attraction to me and my reception to their attraction have nothing to do with who we each are individually. "Love," if defined as something based upon attraction, is not tentative, sensitive or intelligent. It is about usage. Whenever I have approached a person based upon attraction (mine or theirs) there has been an utter vacancy or toxicity to our relationship. Unfortunately, we live in a time in which attractiveness has become monetized and the main credential by which we judge possible partners.

However, I have many friends. Friendship, in my opinion, is love. It is not rooted in attraction. It is about conversing, philosophizing, laughing, high, in a field and staring at the moon. Every person that I have met who I have been with romantically based upon our friendship has been the right person: has known me, respected me, and valued me beyond the bodily.

What I mean is, you see "love" as being chosen as a sexual partner. There has never been a beauty to humans rutting against each other, or any type of mental connection. We've been fucking since before we could speak or know each other. Fucking is not love, even if it feels nice. Of course the idea that fucking is "love" is an illusion.

Love is close friendship, and close friendship, the exchange of actual mental understanding, is, in my opinion, the most advanced skill humans have. Every animal fucks. But only humans are able to truly wonder at a pensive face; _what the hell are you thinking about? _

And, to all of you folks looking for love:
1. Lower your standards
2. Approach them as friends, in person
3. Make the first move

if this handy-dandy list doesn't work for you:
Take no for an answer, and pursue someone else

and you _will _ find a partner.


----------



## salxtina

I'm pretty sure that, no matter *what* level of consciousness we're on, our desires and actions are expressions of our DNA, reading and continually modifying/being modified by its ecosystems...

I'll take a pass
on all the claims of 'seeing through the veils', this-and-that revelation, seeing the universe as having some unified 'intention,' supposed readings of 'manifestation,'
That supposedly lead men to see deities, constellations, rocks and rivers as sentient beings
Maybe after a hundred more trips they'll even start seeing women that way


----------



## roughdraft

salxtina said:


> I'm pretty sure that, no matter *what* level of consciousness we're on, our desires and actions are expressions of our DNA, reading and continually modifying/being modified by its ecosystems...
> 
> I'll take a pass
> on all the claims of 'seeing through the veils', this-and-that revelation, seeing the universe as having some unified 'intention,' supposed readings of 'manifestation,'
> That supposedly lead men to see deities, constellations, rocks and rivers as sentient beings
> Maybe after a hundred more trips they'll even start seeing women that way



If you're serious on making such a rash generalization of "men" not seeing women as sentient beings, it doesn't surprise me you are seeming to express a lack of interest, lack of faith in more abstract ideas of the mysteries of the world.

At the same time, it's a good point, many men are sexist and ignorant, most people fuckin suck. I want to see a lot of things change.


----------



## Deleted member 24782

I've been married for 5 years, pretty fuckin' happy most of the time. But I still don't believe love is real. I believe its a word we use to associate other deeper parts of human emotion and needs. Love for men = sex/respect. Love for women, is showing care through symbolic acts, like cleaning the house, paying attention, cooking dinner. Totally generalizations, but thats how I feel about it at the moment.


----------



## roughdraft

Brodiesel710 said:


> I've been married for 5 years, pretty fuckin' happy most of the time. But I still don't believe love is real. I believe its a word we use to associate other deeper parts of human emotion and needs. Love for men = sex/respect. Love for women, is showing care through symbolic acts, like cleaning the house, paying attention, cooking dinner. Totally generalizations, but thats how I feel about it at the moment.



it's interesting, I would say sex, respect, paying attention, cleaning the house, cooking dinner all fall into one category "gestures" and as it's said, Actions speak louder than words.

I believe love is just honestly being your best self as often as possible and accepting when you fail, then doing the same for others. Accept when they fail, resolve things.

Love is magical and practical, these are not mutual exclusive


----------



## salxtina

Lol, I actually know when I'm being read and treated as a fully human being and when I'm not. And when entrenched social structures encourage my treatment as fully-human or not.

No one has any reason to have "faith." And as for my interests, well, why on earth would I share anything so precious with you?


----------



## Honey Crust

Gonna throw a wrench into all of these conversations but I just wanna know how y’all feel The Gays fit into all of this absolution of binary genders and Love Chemicals As Survival Tools cuz uh
As a known gay
I think most of everything in this thread here is a load of baloney


----------



## onandonward

Honey Crust said:


> Gonna throw a wrench into all of these conversations but I just wanna know how y’all feel The Gays fit into all of this absolution of binary genders and Love Chemicals As Survival Tools cuz uh
> As a known gay
> I think most of everything in this thread here is a load of baloney



Would you mind specifying said baloney?


----------



## salxtina

They don't. The two genders concerned here are Men and Fleshlight With A Post-It Note Attached


----------



## roughdraft

salxtina said:


> Lol, I actually know when I'm being read and treated as a fully human being and when I'm not. And when entrenched social structures encourage my treatment as fully-human or not.
> 
> No one has any reason to have "faith." And as for my interests, well, why on earth would I share anything so precious with you?



I don't care about your interests, notice I did not *ask* you what your interests are - what i care about is that you want to generalize men as not seeing women as sentinent beings - because as a man, I see women as sentinent beings, so I take offense to the content you're posting here. Does that make more sense?


----------



## Honey Crust

onandonward said:


> Would you mind specifying said baloney?


Most if not all of the posts here come from a largely uncritical understanding of gender, and bio-essentialism, that is to say, they think that gender is important because it’s how we know who to procreate with, and most commentary on the differences between the two supposed genders discussed seems like it could’ve been quoted 30, 40 years ago.

The notion of love not actually existing because it’s tantamount to a survival tactic that means nothing deeper than a drive to procreate between man and woman to further the species, completely unravels and is meaningless once you actually include people who cant or won’t procreate, such as gay people, trans people, sterile folks, asexual people, etc.

These kinds of people find something that most folks would call “love,” entirely outside of a capitalist, hetero-normative, cis-normative society, usually without any kind of procreation in mind.


----------



## Deleted member 21429

Love is ... The unconscious thought of anothers well being. 

Told to me matter of factly by a 98 year old woman.
~ peace


----------



## salxtina

We need a world's-smallest-violin icon up in here...
[Tfw you want to form relationships of love, which REQUIRES JUSTICE, with people who've been marginalized in a way you haven't, but it ~hurts too much~ to hear about common forms that objectification takes 😿😿😿]


----------



## salxtina

Anyway. As we all know. If we love someone who's faced a kind of exploitation that we haven't. Then we LISTEN TO THEM, about how common and structurally encouraged it is. And we put EFFORT into demonstrating, with our ACTIONS, that we won't treat them that way, _and won't turn a blind eye when it's happening_. Instead of whining about how *harsh* they sound when they talk about it. Actually that's, like, way before you ever get to love - that's really just basic decency.


----------



## WyldLyfe

Forrest said:


> AMEN
> All is Mind.



This is kinda a interesting quote, yea people have said the all is mind, everything or things that manifest in this "physical" world (plane of effects) must first exist in the mind (plane of causality) but what about trees and rocks and natural things whos mind did these come from? the quote all is mind can also be used by some to mean perspective all is perspective or perception I mean.. but perception is not reality, the goal is to align perception with reality to be able to perceive it correctly, even if that does mean perception is reality, it is to an extent yea, but if someone believes they can jump off a cliff an fly but they don't have the ability too then its out of alignment and wrong, there are natural laws in the universe that do not care about your beliefs or what you think, and still stand regardless. Also im not saying that human beings are not capable of understanding an working with these laws or even having "super natural" abilities.. im just mentioning them, just chatting.


----------

