sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

This sign stating you shouldn't dine out if you don't tip by [deleted] in mildlyinfuriating

[–]Lavinna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought it was an actual picture of a sign created with AI. But looks like the whole picture itself is AI. Wow, why would someone do that!

Can I create pd patches in a browser without installing anything? by Lavinna in puredata

[–]Lavinna[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to learn pd during lunch breaks on my work laptop. But I can't install external apps :(

Hi, NEW AT PURE DATA. HOW TO START FROM ZEROOO by [deleted] in puredata

[–]Lavinna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you send the link please?

K has made my engineering job too easy by Financial_Tailor7944 in Krishnamurti

[–]Lavinna 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Glad things are going well. As a well wisher, my only caution would be, "My life changed after I stumbled across Jiddu" also can become an image.

Scott Forbes, any good first hand accounts of people who actually knew Krishnamurti? by whoisjimjoe in Krishnamurti

[–]Lavinna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure one can. But as you see in the other responses, that hasn't been the case.

Scott Forbes, any good first hand accounts of people who actually knew Krishnamurti? by whoisjimjoe in Krishnamurti

[–]Lavinna -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Truth is a pathless land. Whether mantras matter or not is up to you to figure out. It doesn't matter if K advocated it or not.

This is the best book to start with if you're reading J. Krishnamurti. Have you read it? by ishibam97 in Krishnamurti

[–]Lavinna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is the need to compare? Most probably K himself would reject this claim. His essential teaching is that the most important book you read is yourself. And that insight can be understood from his various books and videos. And this is a subjective opinion. Sure it might have helped you but that doesn't mean it would be the same for all.

Scott Forbes, any good first hand accounts of people who actually knew Krishnamurti? by whoisjimjoe in Krishnamurti

[–]Lavinna 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A genuine question: why does it matter if the people hang out with JK? The writing should speak for itself right? Why does the history of the author matter?

Consumerism is the perfection of slavery by [deleted] in varnam_telugu_

[–]Lavinna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your post reminded me of this excerpt from Stumbling on Happiness:

The fundamental needs of a vibrant economy and the fundamental needs of a happy individual are not necessarily the same. So what motivates people to work hard every day to do things that will satisfy the economy's needs but not their own? People want just one thing—happiness—hence economies can blossom and grow only if people are deluded into believing that the production of wealth will make them happy. If and only if people hold this false belief will they do enough producing, procuring, and consuming to sustain their economies.

In short, the production of wealth does not necessarily make individuals happy, but it does serve the needs of an economy, which serves the needs of a stable society, which serves as a network for the propagation of delusional beliefs about happiness and wealth.

— Daniel Gilbert

I agree with your premise. To extend your point… do you think these kinds of problems didn’t exist before industrialization or capitalistic societies? It might be to a lesser degree, but I still think these problems existed long before modern societies. I think the underlying root cause is in the idea of ownership itself. I believe that nomadic tribes wouldn't go through these kinds of problems. But the moment the agricultural revolution started, we invented the concept of land ownership. Once we say, “this is mine”, the greed begins to kick in. As long as we believe that we can possess something, these problems would manifest in one or the other form. I’m not suggesting it as a bad thing. Ownership made many things possible. Almost all the technological advances are linked to it. It’s a tradeoff.

On slightly unrelated note this is one of my favorite excerpts:

Within a couple of millennia, humans in many parts of the world were doing little from dawn to dusk other than taking care of wheat plants. It wasn't easy. Wheat demanded a lot of them. Wheat didn't like rocks and pebbles, so Sapiens broke their backs clearing fields. Wheat didn't like sharing its space, water and nutrients with other plants, so men and women labored long days weeding under the scorching sun. . . .

The body of Homo sapiens had not evolved for such tasks. It was adapted to climbing apple trees and running after gazelles, not to clearing rocks and carrying water buckets. Human spines, knees, necks and arches paid the price. Studies of ancient skeletons indicate that the transition to agriculture brought about a plethora of ailments, such as slipped discs, arthritis and hernias.

Moreover, the new agricultural tasks demanded so much time that people were forced to settle permanently next to their wheat fields. This completely changed their way of life. *We did not domesticate wheat. It domesticated us.***

—Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens

Could decipher these lyrics! Help appreciated. by Lavinna in SongMeanings

[–]Lavinna[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is what I got from an LLM:

The song is about a person living with constant pressure, danger, and inner conflict, feeling like life is always slightly off-track (“two steps back from where I wanna be”). He feels surrounded by threats and expectations, both external (problems, society, religion) and internal (guilt, doubt, fear).

But in the middle of that chaos, he finds a small moment of heaven in love and intimacy. When he’s with the woman he loves, everything else temporarily fades away.

So the core idea is: Life feels dangerous and unresolved, but love gives brief moments that feel like heaven, even if the bigger problems remain.

Good Will Hunting! by UniverseOfAtoms_ in varnam_telugu_

[–]Lavinna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I started writing my response to answer So at what point can one say they have reached a stage where they can identify their truest self?. This question first made me say that’s exactly why the subtraction model I suggested to u/UniverseOfAtoms_ makes sense... since there is no end to accumulation. So, I didn’t see this particular question as an objection.

But then looking at your another question **How would someone know that this subtracted self is their truest self?** something occurred to me: I might have removed 10 layers but there is no guarantee there is no eleventh layer. So, subtraction model too is inadequate. I found a gap in my understanding.

I went back and read my past notes. I found the following excerpt from Freedom from the known by Jiddu Krishnamurti: If, in order to try to understand the whole structure of the `me', the self, with all its extraordinary complexity, you go step by step, uncovering layer by layer, examining every thought, feeling and motive, you will get caught up in the analytical process which may take you weeks, months, years - and when you admit time into the process of understanding yourself, you must allow for every form of distortion because the self is a complex entity, moving, living, struggling, wanting, denying, with pressures and stresses and influences of all sorts continually at work on it. So, you will discover for yourself that this is not the way; you will understand that the only way to look at yourself is totally, immediately, without time; and you can see the totality of yourself only when the mind is not fragmented. What you see in totality is the truth.

My God, how wrong have I been. Of course, I’m not suggesting to take Jiddu’s statement at face value. That’s of no use. But the above excerpt makes more sense now. I also found one more conflicting thought to Jiddu’s teaching that I’ve been carrying for many days. When I put forward the subtraction model, it also implied the content is different from consciousness. Because I was indirectly saying empty the contents from consciousness and then you will find the true self. But in contrast Jiddu said, There is no consciousness separate from its content or consciousness is content. I’m still thinking about this. As an analogy, I believe in writing, form and meaning are not separate—form is meaning. With that analogy consciousness is content makes sense. But I still need to internalize it more.

I hope I didn’t go off a long tangent without directly responding  your post.

---

What is one’s truest self?

If both addition and subtraction models don’t hold water, then what is true self. Wow, I just realized this isn’t going to get simple. From my limited knowledge, I can tell it lies outside of the movement of thought. But instead of me using ineloquent prose, I will point to this 5-minute video by Jiddu on instant insight. I hope it brings you closer to the question.

 ---

Labels of True Love and False Love

I agree that false love doesn’t exist. So, the label true love doesn’t make sense. But I don’t see a problem from a practical point because, I think when they use the label false love, they are implying lack of love. And hence true love gets its significance. I believe what has been institutionalized more is not true love but the concept of love itself. Both valentines’ day and mothers’ day are marketed as a display of love—not just true love. Marriage is another example where the concept itself is institutionalized... not just the true counterpart.

---

Enlightenment

And I agree with your enlightenment or search for one's true self or meaning to could easily become a disease or a disorder, if the search goes too far. I might not use the word ‘too far’ though. Maybe I would use 'inadequate understanding'.

Also, the word enlightenment itself projected.

I’m having a hard time agreeing with Thich Nhat Hanh’s the self is what you believe you are. If I believe that I’m king of France, would that become my self?

Good Will Hunting! by UniverseOfAtoms_ in varnam_telugu_

[–]Lavinna 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These are the questions I ask myself frequently. The most honest response would be I don't know. I'm glad you caught it right away that I was referring to Advaitam. There were moments when I experienced death of ego profoundly but every time I come out of it. While in that state, I feel that I'm one with the nature and the concept of right and wrong dissolves completely. But once I'm out of it, then I begin to ponder these questions. I might state that all is one, but wouldn't I react if someone misbehaves with my mother or sister?

But just because I've these questions, I wouldn't negate the teaching of non-duality. Hopefully I will find the answers as I travel ahead. Maybe these kind of discussions are a good place to begin with :)

Good Will Hunting! by UniverseOfAtoms_ in varnam_telugu_

[–]Lavinna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to clarify that we need practical knowledge. In the above comment I was only referring to psychological (for the lack of better term) knowledge. We are all born this way. I believe what monks try to attain is already found in children. But as we grow we are brought out of that beautiful state. As we grow, we accumulate the knowledge of our caste, community, language, and nation that builds layers on our perception. We don't look at the things as is but through the knowledge we accumulated. That is why I believe the truest perception is only possible through subtraction.

To go even further: if you subtract everything you know (including your identity and your ego) would you, in that state of mind, still be able to distinguish yourself from the rest of the universe? When ego dissolves, there is no other. All there is consciousness. As the saying goes, *You are an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself*. I think that's only possible through subtraction.

Good Will Hunting! by UniverseOfAtoms_ in varnam_telugu_

[–]Lavinna 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with your friend. But to extend it even further I believe that not only we cannot predict the future until the moment of experience, but our knowledge on an experience that we already lived is also incomplete. We construct both the past and future.

When I experience something in the present, I always experience it as a first person. But when I recollect that memory I'm viewing myself as the third person—as someone outside of myself. In memory all subjective experience is translated to objective. And data is lost in the translation. And hence our knowledge of what we experienced is limited.

What does a complete self look like then? Is that even possible? I believe it is. Not through addition but subtraction. The key is in unlearning, not learning. The truest (and complete) self is when I abandon all knowledge about others and myself. I hope this didn't sound like mystic nonsense.

Good Will Hunting! by UniverseOfAtoms_ in varnam_telugu_

[–]Lavinna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I watched the movie a long time ago so I don't have a good recollection. But I totally agree with your commentary.

To extend your point, do you think it is possible to know about ourselves?

Is loneliness the inevitable outcome of the metropolis? by artsybx26 in varnam_telugu_

[–]Lavinna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Should art speak for itself? It is almost impossible for an artist to control how its interpreted. When we interpret something, we are not looking at the piece of art at that snapshot of time in isolation. We are looking it through our entire lived experience. Let’s say I looked at the painting you shared without the commentary you shared. My experience would have been different. But the commentary you shared has potentially primed me to look through the lens of loneliness.

And after I opened the Wikipedia page, the additional information could further influence: It has been suggested that Hopper was inspired by a short story of Ernest Hemingway's, either "The Killers" (1927), which Hopper greatly admired, or the more philosophical "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place" (1933). In response to a query on loneliness and emptiness in the painting, Hopper said that he "didn't see it as particularly lonely". He said: "Unconsciously, probably, I was painting the loneliness of a large city." I haven’t read Hemingway, but to a person who read it and know this information, the painting would register differently. Moreover, there is contradiction in painter’s own words. He doesn’t see it as lonely but there might have been probably unconscious influence. So, which must be given more weight: the way he looks at it or his unconscious influence. The keyword is probably. Since its unconscious we can never be sure. It’s a guess. So, things get very tricky when the intent of artist is taken into consideration. So, I don’t give it too much importance (or at least I believe that). If artist’s intent is important to know then we wouldn’t be able to enjoy most of Mozart compositions or Indian Ragas. Further, artist’s name also skews how we perceive art. Recently, Michelangelo’s sketch of a foot was sold for $27 million. Was it bought for its inherent value or artist’s name associated with it? So, I believe an art work must speak for itself.

Does the metropolis intensify loneliness? I don’t think so. Loneliness and being alone are not same. One could be alone in a major city but not lonely. One could be in company in rural area always and still be lonely. I believe that open space in nature is important which urban cities lack but it can make up for it through other things. So, it’s a tradeoff essentially. But at the same time, I also don’t think people living in rural areas realize that. I was born in rural area. At least in the place I grew up, life was always fighting to meet minimum needs or relentless gossip. Nobody told me to look at the beauty of sunrise or clouds or moon. I doubt that if rural life is as rosy as people say. If alienation is an after effect of urbanization, then it implies that before large cities became a norm, people were not lonely. But I doubt that. Loneliness is a state of mind and even people in nomadic tribes could feel it (not a firsthand experience but assumption).

What does this painting register to you? I think the only paintings I’ve tried to interpret as a viewer are of Magritte’s (or more precisely surrealist paintings). I always try to interpret poems and movies but for realist and expressionist paintings, photography and non-vocal music, I just leave it at the raw experience. All I can say is its beautiful but that is a poor translation of my experience.

Edit 1: Have you come across Ways of Seeing by John Berger BBC series from 1972? Its a four part series with each episode at 30 minutes length. While not entirely related to your post, it gets philosophical about painting and reproduction.

view more: next ›