To Chris Duff:

• If presence is losing all will to react emotionally, and if desire is too an emotion, what is left to do?

If acting on desire impedes presence, then can you say that is still avoidance? Would it make any sense to call that 'escapism' when it's not based on feelings of fear? I guess you could call a lot 'escapism', that has anything to do with will. So in a context of non-action, then perhaps you can have complete presence, without any 'distraction'. Thinking can also be a relief from fear of missing out in the moment. So if you're doing what you want, how can that be considered work without interest? To pre-suppose, super-impose, leads to compelling pressure. So if presence is a state, given, of consistent non-reaction to emotions and thoughts, then you essentially become a sensory automaton--any movement could be considered random or by another's intent--so what is 'better' to be drawn or to push? It seems like preference. Maybe you don't understand wanting to think. Would it be accurate to say what you know what I want, to call it 'fear', 'escapism', and 'distraction?

• Chris Duff If you're going to say 'I'm just using those duality processors and going in circles and it's in none of your interest' and not read this, I have lost all purpose in communicating with you for now. That would be dismissive, would it not? I guess what do I expect, if you're already claiming to know, how could anyone convince you otherwise? So I won't bother. We don't have to claim, convince, suspect, and or expect for conversation, do we? At least, I'm working on it, since it's so easy for judgments, accusations, etc. to slip into what I write.

My mind is a muddled, erratic place. I know that much. It's triple layered. But talking quiets those parts of it, and brings me more in the moment. Do you see, how social isolation–no human contact–does to someone? Thoughts rebound off emotions to create characters for comfort. Monologues are created by stark solitude.

Can you stay in a room for days and days and months and years, without thinking to yourself? That's how I survive this place.

Anyways,

I practice mindfulness–everyday–not chasing thoughts, moreso, just allowing them to happen. That's not the same as full-on presence, but it's a step towards less emotional reaction. The reality is, I like to discuss, so I don't believe this is purely out of fear.

There is some temporary satisfaction. And I would be so grateful, if you could deal with the words I am using. That would make me happy, but you don't seem to understand that. You've said before that it would be 'validating the process'. Be assured, that when talking to a person–the mechanics are different to thinking alone–I actually don't have to think, nearly as much, to write any of this. Most of it is fairly intuitive and automatic, because the act of communication isn't the same. So irregardless, of whether I think, would these words point anywhere more accurately or not? You seem to say very often, that is not so accurate.

There would be no thoughts without observation, 'cause they rely on its contents, to deduce and infer–also–to guess, judge, abstract via imagination, etc. There would be no mechanic to avoid, ignore, distract, block out, intimidate, skew, extort, coerce, maim, torture, kill, etc., if there weren't–too–something that hurt a sense of identity, will to live, protect, and take. My difference in viewing, is that thinking cannot be pure illusion–yes–most definitely approximation and errors, but usually some hint of truth, even with those who don't know how to describe what they're pointing at with their words. It's all context, which at best, is explained indirectly–according to–juxtapositions and contrasts between different sensory inputs and outputs. You cannot write the word "I", without knowing the reality of geometry (lines).

I can lose the questions. I still have the will to ask them. To fight will with will wouldn't equal no will, would it? I want to talk about them, with you, because there's some uncertainty–in me–that I don't think you can answer. Of course, silence does not require answers, but I still want them. If you don't, that's OK. I'll stop.

You have lots of helpful things to say for those who want to give up reacting to their wills, so your posts are very effective at that, minimally. I just like to tackle your ideas of 'truth', because that's what I'm most interested in.

An example from you: "The ego creates the subjectivity you suffer in the illusion that your seeing that has you suffer your own mind is accurate even though it's you experiencing your own convincing just because you believe your opinions and judgements are accurate."

"Subjectivity" / "objectivity": There's no reason to assume and no reason to proclaim. This is the fundamental uncertainty principle: You can't know what you don't know. Socrates said, “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing", but I don't take his words for face value. My own would be more like: There's no reason to say anything exists, but there's no reason to assume feeling is all that is–either–and it doesn't have to be important to you.

There's the theory of spontaneous generation–that your memories–aren't indicative of causes, moreso, just a part of a flux. It's a non-explanation–to say–'it all just is', with no prior-determining factors, random, and incomprehensible. Of course, there's no reason to assume anything beyond a feeling, that there are 'independences of observation' or that the 'apparentness is all'. I do, however, prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, in regards to their consciousness–'cause–we can't see our own seeing, I would want to be treated the way I treat them. It's preference.