This is another side to your writing altogether. Highly cerebreal and specific - the interview with dear Heinrich goes too far off our common track, for me, I apologise, especially since you touch upon things that are very exciting but do not really come alive for you yet - that heartfelt and holistic understanding of systems, which opens up an entirely new way of seeing, I call "belief" (not in a churchy or new agey way). It was helpful to me (a former Nihilist!) to discover we have 12 senses and how we are trapped in loops, circles and endless cycles. Only in spirals and through metamorphosis can we transcend our unknowing. Yes, we need a brain to know that, but no less so a three part soul with its higher faculties of thinking, feeling and willing (which are not brain steered, but independent and can only be harnassed by an overviewer who is completely objective in their independence (The I Am). We are saying the same thing, I believe, when it comes to the danger of abstraction.
I admire your academic prowess, and make a note to self, that I am fast fading in comparison!
Then again, I think I agreed a while back with myself that I could give up such methodical thinking at menopause, to allow the etertnally feminine to shine, at last. I am a little older than you, and this helps me very much to accept I really may be arriving at that point that Ican put all my arguments to one side and simply sit with a calm smile. (No way near that stage, yet!). It might help me much to know I can leave the philosophising to you for now!
somehow this comment of yours went under.
But I want to reply as it is worth it:) - yes, it's somehow funny how one perceives the other. When I talk from my heart and feelings I got the response that I should argue more analytical. When I am rational and logical I get the response that it's cerebral. I feel like a bridge between the disciplines and I let people walk on that bridge as I am capable of more than just one language. In the sense of picking people up where they stand. To some people, it's really confusing and they don't believe me when I appear to one person as an academic and to another person as a working-class human.
It could be taken as a "lie". Of course, it's not as every human is having different facets and can be in resonance with different people and their facets.
I can curse like a horse-drawn carriage driver and I can have a sophisticated dialogue with an academic. Nothing really special about that. When I am in the presence of a woman, like you, I can be the younger one and learn from your already gained wisdom. In fact, I believe one should stay in touch with the younger and the older ones and not so much only with peers.
But the roles must nevertheless be in order (which is a systemic view and also, I guess, a Buddhist one). It is out of order when I compete with younger males. That feels inappropriate. I can give them my experience and also I feel to have the right to point my advantage of life experience in years. I like to direct young males to other, older or younger males. I am careful not to be too sassy in front of the elderly because that again is inappropriate. This mistake I made in my youth and it caused many heart- and headaches.
So what you read here contributes to the scientific realm as I think it's good at times to mingle with the respected faculties and stir them a little. They wouldn't take me seriously when I publish in "life" or "love" or "spirituality". But of course, you know that and I write that also down for other readers who might have scrolled down the comment section.
So actually, we cannot compare us to one another but take on what we have to offer in exchange.
I am all for a fruitful friendship. :)
This is another side to your writing altogether. Highly cerebreal and specific - the interview with dear Heinrich goes too far off our common track, for me, I apologise, especially since you touch upon things that are very exciting but do not really come alive for you yet - that heartfelt and holistic understanding of systems, which opens up an entirely new way of seeing, I call "belief" (not in a churchy or new agey way). It was helpful to me (a former Nihilist!) to discover we have 12 senses and how we are trapped in loops, circles and endless cycles. Only in spirals and through metamorphosis can we transcend our unknowing. Yes, we need a brain to know that, but no less so a three part soul with its higher faculties of thinking, feeling and willing (which are not brain steered, but independent and can only be harnassed by an overviewer who is completely objective in their independence (The I Am). We are saying the same thing, I believe, when it comes to the danger of abstraction.
I admire your academic prowess, and make a note to self, that I am fast fading in comparison!
Then again, I think I agreed a while back with myself that I could give up such methodical thinking at menopause, to allow the etertnally feminine to shine, at last. I am a little older than you, and this helps me very much to accept I really may be arriving at that point that Ican put all my arguments to one side and simply sit with a calm smile. (No way near that stage, yet!). It might help me much to know I can leave the philosophising to you for now!
somehow this comment of yours went under.
But I want to reply as it is worth it:) - yes, it's somehow funny how one perceives the other. When I talk from my heart and feelings I got the response that I should argue more analytical. When I am rational and logical I get the response that it's cerebral. I feel like a bridge between the disciplines and I let people walk on that bridge as I am capable of more than just one language. In the sense of picking people up where they stand. To some people, it's really confusing and they don't believe me when I appear to one person as an academic and to another person as a working-class human.
It could be taken as a "lie". Of course, it's not as every human is having different facets and can be in resonance with different people and their facets.
I can curse like a horse-drawn carriage driver and I can have a sophisticated dialogue with an academic. Nothing really special about that. When I am in the presence of a woman, like you, I can be the younger one and learn from your already gained wisdom. In fact, I believe one should stay in touch with the younger and the older ones and not so much only with peers.
But the roles must nevertheless be in order (which is a systemic view and also, I guess, a Buddhist one). It is out of order when I compete with younger males. That feels inappropriate. I can give them my experience and also I feel to have the right to point my advantage of life experience in years. I like to direct young males to other, older or younger males. I am careful not to be too sassy in front of the elderly because that again is inappropriate. This mistake I made in my youth and it caused many heart- and headaches.
So what you read here contributes to the scientific realm as I think it's good at times to mingle with the respected faculties and stir them a little. They wouldn't take me seriously when I publish in "life" or "love" or "spirituality". But of course, you know that and I write that also down for other readers who might have scrolled down the comment section.
So actually, we cannot compare us to one another but take on what we have to offer in exchange.
I am all for a fruitful friendship. :)
P.S. Good, that you gave up on nihilism