Philosophy of love

I don't know what you put into "above" or "under" in this context, but I am satisfied with your agreement that it exists. And I do not really believe you are liable to go out looking for unicorns

Thank you for sharing The Zeitgeist Movement Orientation Presentation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnVi8Rn4FqI

Sure, I see what you mean. I try to expand my horizon by only differentiating between sensing and knowing, organism and environment. The rest should follow naturally. I try to justify my view on my site and before I am accused again, this is not to be self-promotional but to seek falsification and hopefully keep what I thought up.

I don't see how you can differentiate between sensing and knowing. I can see how sensing is not the same as wording the knowing but not knowing itself. There is inarticulate knowledge. Art tries to express it. Especially music.

Expanding horizons by making the differentiation should be, it seems to me, an improving skill at the wording more knowing into articulation, in quantum theory, shedding off one more layer of skin, but, hopefully, with a recognition that the process is never to be completed and there are certain dangers in pursuing the objective obsessively.

I continually remind Queenie that exhausting the realm of the possible is a fruitless quest for a well brought up young English lady. Anything that can be articulated is yesterday's cold potatoes when bent on exhausting the realm of the possible, an exhausting process in itself, and there is no chance of doing so.

And I'm not sure what you mean by differentiating between organism and environment.

Have you never melted into the environment?

I am not sure either how exactly I can differentiate between knowing and sensing. It occurred to me that my environment 'produced' me and as a sensing organism I am thus instinctively connected to it. Inversely, I 'produced' the environment I know and as a knowing organism I will or should thus always be intellectually connected to it.

It also seems to me that we all live in the same reality and have an intuition of this. Realization imho is close enough to 'knowing what we sense' and intuition close enough to 'sensing what we know'. That to me is a first layer. A second layer would then be 'realizing what we intuit' and 'intuiting what we realize'. At this level I believe people are so involved that they mainly stick to one of these, as their role, and hook up to others who articulate the other role. The interaction would guarantee that obsessive pursuing of the objective (apart from the other as 'object') would never halt the unfolding of these layers.

And I believe I do nothing but melt into the environment, especially when people don't seem to be seriously responding, unlike you BTW.

You are welcome, rl.

I think their ideas are worth serious consideration.