Insights

Post your insights here

I’ll start with one.

When you stare into another person’s eyes, this is a recollection of the parent-child bond, namely between mother and child. So the longer two people, strangers or familiar, stare into each other’s eyes, represents the trust as it would between parent and child. Obviously, typically, women and mothers spend more time with their children. So the act of staring into somebody’s eyes is more often associated with femininity than with masculinity and men.

For example, if two men stare each other in the eyes, then this most probably an act of aggression and intimidation. This same aggression is unnecessary within the mother child bond.

A man staring you in the eyes is generally bad. A woman staring you in the eyes is generally good.

This is a universal insight into all pathology, so this doesn’t apply just to humans, but all other animals and existent lifeforms.

Staring into eyes is not gender biased. What the stare means depends upon body language including facial expression.
A reason for so many misunderstandings on internet texting is just using text. Without accurate use of emoticons, words are misinterpreted. Add to that, how we are taught to read, skimming through text not absorbing all words. Often skimming over a few words in a long text changes intent/meaning.

You’re flatly wrong, because different people stare at different people for different reasons.

A father looking into his child’s eyes does not do it for the same reason or with the same intent as the mother.

Don’t doubt or question my insights, just accept them without hesitation.

lmao.

I am certain of this. Kriswest has not considered the possibility that a father loves his children more than the mother, she does. This is why Kriswest is wrong. She cannot imagine alternative possibilities outside of her mental scheme. She’s close minded. If she was open minded, then she’d consider that a father loves his children, more than the mother, and also, more than a woman possibly can.

Now, you will respond with, “Why are you bringing gender into this?” It doesn’t have to be gender. It can be infinite different reasons. And it doesn’t matter which reasons.

Because different people have different reasons, different intentions. So when you split the cause to stare at somebody, to look somebody in the eyes, by its origin in infancy, then you’ll know the truth. Mothers tend to care for infants, not the fathers. This is due to breast feeding, by the way.

LMAO. You are funny.

Many people have been mislead by the promise of magical transformation. It’s misleading to glamorize self-growth and transformation as something pleasant, divine and supernatural, as is seen especially in New Age/Eastern philosophies, as if all one has to do is to walk in regal procession and have a crown placed on his head, a magic ritual involving some otherworldly divine blessing.

I see change as more organic and visceral. The new comes out of the dead or the dying. Not the pristine and clean/undisturbed/forgotten dead, but the rotting decaying, stinking dead, like a new seedling coming through the manure. Consider the birthing process: people want to look only at the beautiful, often choosing to overlook the blood, piss/shit and pain/screams that come with it. The transformative processes are not pretty or pleasant, but that is how changes and the birth of the new often happen.

Hallelujah, I believe I’ve been saved by this insight. I’m born again!

I always considered this to be a southern thing, not an eastern thing, but I guess that’s the nature of relativity.

Seriously though, it’s a pretty universal thing, this wishing for instant success and some kind of paradise. Nonetheless, “I see change as more organic” surely ought to count as common sense, even if such organic change can manifest suddenly or, if viewed in such terms, dramatically.

All behavior of all living things is merely an issue of Perceived Hope and Threat.

Very good

Moved to the Sandbox.

That is not very insightful, please respect the OP contribute to the thread, provide some of your own insights.

An insight into this may be simply that it doesen’t really matter one way nor the other since all of it is probably determined anyway, in the genes. Or maybe not absolutely.

I had a great insight earlier, but I forgot it, which is kind of typical of me.

Nature never forgets.

God never forgives.

There are reasons which persist, reverberate, and echo throughout all existence in everything.

In essence every organism simply remembers such a thing and at least at one point in time.

It is this remembrance that must bind all matter together. Because forces of light, sound, and sensation penetrate through all things no matter how hard nor invincible it may seem.

All is mutable except an impossible, ideal, maybe.

Nothing is possible until something is impossible.

Presumption is the seed of ALL sin/“error in judgment”.

Mo’ money, less problems.