Reasons for Marriage

[BeTheChange]

Ten, I appreciate the support. And like you said we differ in our world view on certain topics but I respect your grind.

Legend is literally the typing definition of lack of substance. When you make an assertion suggesting I am running away from challenge the onus is on you to provide support for that. Nothing in this thread suggests this at all. I would not choose to take LiveFree's path but I respect it because he has chosen to take action to change his circumstances based on his own value judgements.

Now I could type you a 5 page essay explaining how I'm anything but feminised, how my devoted 22 year old HB8 gf of three years adores me, cooks, cleans, hits the gym everyday and supports me in everything i do despite knowing i will never marry her (you will probably shame me for not marrying knowing your logic). Or about how I've knocked every challenge I've come across out the park through hard work, sheer force of will and a bit of luck. But I'm not a fan of justifying myself to strangers on the Internet. Especially one who has zero credibility on this forum and is getting torn apart logically by most posters in this very thread.

And FWIW there was no silver spoon (there was barely even a wooden spoon) and my non response was based on the fact I have better things to do then debate with someone (legend) who clearly has a massive blindspot on this topic. I'm not Danger (massive respect to the guy). When someone is clearly wrong I can't go pages and pages "debating" with them. Life is too short. Have a nice day.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

ChangeBox, your testimony of "embracing challenge" belies your attack on my contention of the same. Truth cannot exist in contradiction. Accordingly, absent a reconciliation of the two, your above testimony cannot be given consideration and must be stricken. Ergo, my whipping upon you was warranted.

Samspade:

IF I am reading between the lines correctly, outside of a personal vested interest in the topic, I understand your hangup with my participation in this thread is my discrediting--or in some posters' opinions, my shaming--LiveFree for moving to a third-world country without all the facts as to form a legitimate basis for my appeal. Correct?

1) Since it is a recurring theme in this thread, where some posters are unable to differentiate between "intent" and "action," I will explain the difference in rudimentary fashion.

I take a gun and shoot a random stranger in the head ... because I was in the mood. (Cold-blood murder)
I take a gun and shoot a random stranger in the head, because he was about to kill me. (Self-defense)

Same action. Different intent.

LiveFree's act of moving was never the subject matter. His intent was:

Now IF his change in location were not "escaping," nor "to find a traditional woman," then his move could have merit. His intent is the pickle

"Escaping from" and "avoidance" are loaded words, which carry deep connotations, and if used recklessly can give readers the wrong understanding. Just as if a poster were to come into the W&S forum and state in a perfunctory manner, "Invest into penny stocks," I would crush him.

Not one poster in this thread has yet to rebut how "embracing challenge" within the definition described in Posts 141 & 143 is ill-advised.

Tangentially:

It follows that if the person chooses to accept or reject a challenge, he should do so based on what is best for him, not others

I find a person "should" do what's best for him and others, not only what's best for him, as self-serving intent alone does not produce lasting fruit.

 

[Tenacity]

ChangeBox, your testimony of "embracing challenge" belies your attack on my contention of the same. Truth cannot exist in contradiction. Accordingly, absent a reconciliation of the two, your above testimony cannot be given consideration and must be stricken. Ergo, my whipping upon you was warranted.

Dude WTF. I remember in my "anger" thread, how you were promoting this "positivity movement". Here you have a young man (BeTheChange is only 25 - 26) who is doing very well in his life in all areas, and you are smacking down his accomplishments for absolutely NO reason other than to try (keyword is try) to win an argument.

You have no damn integrity and for you to get up here on a male self-improvement site, and shyt on another man's accomplishments, is just disgusting.

1) Since it is a recurring theme in this thread, where some posters are unable to differentiate between "intent" and "action," I will explain the difference in rudimentary fashion.

I take a gun and shoot a random stranger in the head ... because I was in the mood. (Cold-blood murder)
I take a gun and shoot a random stranger in the head, because he was about to kill me. (Self-defense)

Same action. Different intent.

LiveFree's act of moving was never the subject matter. His intent was:

And this is why they use "jury of peers" for cases like that, rather than one sole idiotic "judge". Because there is also something called manslaughter, which should be in the middle of the two examples you provided, with the first listing being that of 1st degree murder. Many cases come down to a manslaughter v.s. self defense type of situation, which is when a jury of peers comes in to look at all evidence on the table to make the final determination.

LiveFree's "intent" could have been in self-defense (self-defense plee), or it could have been intentional (1st degree), or it could have been an over-reaction based on an unfortunate situation he was going through at the time (manslaughter), it really doesn't matter at the end of the day. He made the choice to live his life however the hell he wanted to, and to pursue his own definition of happiness. As LONG AS he's not stepping over anybody else's freedoms in the process, he can choose whatever life he wants for himself...be it here in the US or outside of it, be it with US women or Canadian women.....

Legend you are one of the main reasons men go MGTOW and opt out of everything. Folks get tired of having the morality police wag their fingers at them about what they "should do" and what a "real man" would do. Take your "real man" shyt and shove it up your a.ss, this is my life and as long as I don't step on the freedoms of others, I'll DEFINE it however I like.

 

[LiveFreeX]

You could also argue Legend, that you are avoiding the challenge of marriage. The odds of having a successful marriage are about the same as navigating an asteroid field.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Dude WTF. I remember in my "anger" thread, how you were promoting this "positivity movement". Here you have a young man (BeTheChange is only 25 - 26) who is doing very well in his life in all areas, and you are smacking down his accomplishments for absolutely NO reason other than to try (keyword is try) to win an argument.

You have no damn integrity and for you to get up here on a male self-improvement site, and shyt on another man's accomplishments, is just disgusting.

1) I know many accomplished men who I don’t respect. Your presumption is if a man is accomplished, he should be respected. So under this very line of thinking, if this accomplished man were a pedophile, I should still respect him? Do you see how your rhetoric is unqualified and lacks merit?

2) ChangeBox’s accomplishments are not confirmed by his post-facto attestation, as he contended against “embracing challenges,” so how does one accomplish greatly with an impetus to avert challenges? The contradiction is irreconcilable absent a qualified, meritorious explanation, and so accordingly, his attestation lacks verity.

LiveFree's "intent" could have been in self-defense (self-defense plee), or it could have been intentional (1st degree), or it could have been an over-reaction based on an unfortunate situation he was going through at the time (manslaughter), it really doesn't matter at the end of the day. He made the choice to live his life however the hell he wanted to, and to pursue his own definition of happiness. As LONG AS he's not stepping over anybody else's freedoms in the process, he can choose whatever life he wants for himself...be it here in the US or outside of it, be it with US women or Canadian women.....

News flash Pal: In any act, somebody’s freedom will be compromised. If I support men’s rights, women will be compromised; if I support women, men will be compromised. If I sell you a stock and that stock goes up, I get hurt; but if the stock goes down, you get hurt. It’s a zero sum game champ. Somebody wins, somebody loses.

Legend you are one of the main reasons men go MGTOW and opt out of everything. Folks get tired of having the morality police wag their fingers at them about what they "should do" and what a "real man" would do.

I’m the moral police and your diatribe is how I am “immoral” to ChangeBox? LOL.

Take your "real man" shyt and shove it up your a.ss, this is my life and ... I'll DEFINE it however I like.

You can define your life as you like. And so can the pedophile who also believes he is living life only by his rules. Guess what? I will give him shvt too. You don’t like when I denigrate someone who runs from challenges? Too bad. Live with it.

You could also argue Legend, that you are avoiding the challenge of marriage. The odds of having a successful marriage are about the same as navigating an asteroid field.

For the record, I was already married. I am not married now, and am with a great girl. My challenge is not marrying her.

 

[LiveFreeX]

Not getting her to marry you, no... the challenge is getting over your own defense mechanisms to enter into marriage and roll the dice. I feel you increase your odds of success by finding women from the 3rd world who aren't born into entitlement. Now there are no guarantees in life but its still a challenge nonetheless. You could tell me to fvck off and that you have a lot to lose (more than I) if your marriage goes south but for the same reason you don't enter into marriage the second time is the reason I choose to avoid western women and culture completely (or as much as I possibly can).

Just today I was listening in on a conversation between two trades men. It went something like this:

Dude 1:"I can't pack my girlfriend's lunch with that, she's totally allergic and gets really pissed when I include anything with that in it"

Dude 2: "You pack your girlfriend's lunch? Wow, that's really awesome of you, sometimes I do too, but not as much as I should. "

Dude 3: "Man just be happy with anything she does for you, mine made me a porkchop once, it was really good"

Cool Dude: "WTF, my wife cooks and cleans and ties my shoes for christ sake, why the fvck would you want to be with a woman that demands you do this sh1t for her. "

Dude 2 " You make your wife tie your shoes?"

Cool Dude "I don't make her tie my shoes, I allow her to do it" (couldn't resist)

Dude 1 'Rolls his eyes' "I bet she folds your laundry too right?"

Cool Dude: "You must be psychic, you know if you are considering marrying this girl you should at least tes...... "

Dude 1: 'Puts in his ear phones and tunes out'.

Something tells me, I may not be very well liked in the lunch room.

Anyway, its the average conversation like this that gets me terminated from my job... I don't fit into the West. Maybe you don't understand LEGEND, a conversation like this in Canada can progress into 'hate speech' very quickly which is met with jail time in some cases. The other thing about our culture is that Canadians like nothing better than white knighting for women in front of other men. They LITERALLY brag about how much of a b1tch they can be to their girlfriends/wives, its disgusting really. I don't know what life is like in the USA but other Canadians can confirm, this sh1t goes down on a daily basis and men here are programmed to accept backtalk, bad behavior and temper tantrums as normal. Canadian men are some of the most docile wanks I've ever met, if I had stayed, I would likely have turned out just like Dude 1 and 2.

That's just women right? Wrong.

 

[ZTIME]

ChangeBox, your testimony of "embracing challenge" belies your attack on my contention of the same. Truth cannot exist in contradiction. .

Is it possible that we call this paradoxical truth? Just asking. I believe some truth can exist in contradiction.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

I feel you increase your odds of success by finding women from the 3rd world who aren't born into entitlement.

I agree to the extent of "being easier" due to lack of first-world entitlement. The question is would I be happy or have enough in common with a woman from a 3rd world country? Will she be able to challenge my mind and thinking and keep me interested in her? Will she remain a 3rd-world woman once she is indoctrinated with the values of the 1st world?

Again:

Marry, bang, molest as many 3rd world woman as you like. I care not. But if your intent were to "escape" challenges that were brought before you, I will give you crap for it. You told a story. You clarified your intent, though it was a bit different than your earlier intent; but, notwithstanding, because you were a gentlemen, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. And so, I stated, "Carry on."

Is it possible that we call this paradoxical truth? Just asking. I believe some truth can exist in contradiction.

ZTIME, I respect your spiritual predisposition. Please give an example so I may ponder.

 

[LiveFreeX]

@l_e_g_e_n_d

I wasn't finished editing my post.

My challenge is trying to find guys I can bring over to the 3rd world 'safe spaces' to train them to be real men and take control of the women they are with, this grows our strength as a tribe. Really, I don't have to 'teach' anything, just the act of getting men to travel over to these destinations, opens their eyes to a world of possibilities that the West would rather you not see. Its impossible to learn this in a 1st world space where its almost illegal now to talk to a woman on the street let alone talk about how to 'control them'. I think if I were even to say this in public in Canada, I might have protesters and SJWs outside my door. Nothing is gained by remaining in ultra hostile territory, no man is an island.

 

[Asmodeus]

I have no problem with choices of others so long as it is not outwardly harmful. But when somebody tries to denigrate others for their choices and when somebody asserts that they are superior in their choices that only shows arrogance. Not only are you judging them but you feel the need to give people crap for it. Without walking in another person's shoes how can you say such things? You are just playing judge here... Because others do not adhere to your own moral and ethical code they are lesser than you. Honestly, I think you need to just focus on yourself and your life, to stick to your own convictions and virtues and not try to force them on to others or berate others for not having the same. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." (yes the irony of me quoting Jesus).

BeTheChange is a legit. And I will say that he seems to be working to make something good out of his life. LiveFree can do what he wants as it is his life, your obvious indignation toward him and his choices speaks more about you and your judgmental attitudes, inflexibility, and arrogance.

 

[ZTIME]

ZTIME, I respect your spiritual predisposition. Please give an example so I may ponder.

Sure, if you consider all of the statements you've seen in the last 24 hours (this thread included) , it's safe to assume that the probability of any given contradiction being true is pretty low. This general way of thinking may be trumped on the occasion where we do have good reason to believe that the contradiction is true.

Less then likely doesn't mean impossible.

Some food for thought. I have no place here to judge the merits of you or be the change. I do however believe his declaration of success to be true. No value either way. Just sharing my perspective.

Sometimes a world of certainty is a boring existence.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

I have no problem with choices of others so long as it is not outwardly harmful. But when somebody tries to denigrate others for their choices and when somebody asserts that they are superior in their choices that only shows arrogance. Not only are you judging them but you feel the need to give people crap for it. Without walking in another person's shoes how can you say such things? You are just playing judge here...

You allege that my "embracing challenge" ideology (the "law") is a choice. In fact, it's an unequivocal spiritual law. Evidenced by the rudimentary fact that no one has been successful in challenging the law is further corroboration of its merits.

As an example. Gravity is a physical law. If someone elects to operate outside of the law of gravity, and hurt himself and others, I will him give shvt for it. This is no different. Your confusion arises in confounding opinion with law; choice with fact. If you wish to contest my position, first you would have to prove that my "embracing challenge" ideology is an opinion, and not a law. If you were able to accomplish this feat, then I would congratulate you and change my position. But you can't champ ...

My challenge is trying to find guys I can bring over to the 3rd world 'safe spaces' to train them to be real men and take control of the women they are with, this grows our strength as a tribe.

IF this were your genuine challenge (as defined clearly in Posts 141 &143), then you would have my support. The word "control," though, does not resonate fully with truth.

 

[Yewki]

For those guys actually considering it: I say in order to select the right girl you must spend at least 6 months consecutively out of the year in your destination. You must live with her, meet her family, figure out her personality when she is not wearing the makeup and get her to believe that you enjoy slumming it.

Thanks for the detailed breakdown in your post, but this is precisely why girls from 3rd world countries are off the table for basically everyone here.

Tell me this. Who would go out of their way to travel to a 3rd world country, hunt for a girl, find a prospect, completely change their lifestyle, quit their job and live in said country with said girl for 6 months, all for something that might not work out? In your case it was part of your job to be there. But for the rest of us? I'm sorry but this is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[LiveFreeX]

I agree to the extent of "being easier" due to lack of first-world entitlement. The question is would I be happy or have enough in common with a woman from a 3rd world country? Will she be able to challenge my mind and thinking and keep me interested in her? Will she remain a 3rd-world woman once she is indoctrinated with the values of the 1st world?

You do realize that the 3rd world has universities, doctors and cities just like you have in the USA? Why do North Americans assume they have the best of everything without seeing the competition for themselves, I dunno...its just an American thing I guess. Believe whatever TV and your friend of a friend tells you or see it for yourself. I'm giving you a first hand account of my experience versus a bunch of bullsh1t that I read on a website. My wife has a degree, I don't... she knows all sorts of math and science but I don't think we've ever spoken about it. I guess I'm lucky I'm so stupid eh? Maybe deep conversation is important to you, I prefer a woman who shares my values and while she may not be able to articulate what she means all the time, I get the gist of it. At least she makes the effort, and to me, that means everything.

This is something you have to find out for yourself. There is no definite YES/NO answers here. Either you go out and find out or you don't and just assume that you are right. Maybe your experience will be completely different than mine but really whats the harm in trying? We are ALL going to die one day, why not live a little on your way there?

That's exactly what I'm talking about Yewki, for some people that sounds excellent but for the large majority its crazy talk. I can't understand that myself but I'm aware that people think my lifestyle sounds like bullsh1t.

Who would go out of their way to travel to a 3rd world country, hunt for a girl, find a prospect, completely change their lifestyle, quit their job and live in said country with said girl for 6 months, all for something that might not work out? In your case it was part of your job to be there. But for the rest of us? I'm sorry but this is absolutely ridiculous.

www.happierabroad.com
www.rooshvforums.com
www.roadjunky.com

I mean, I'm certainly not the only one who thinks like this. There are tons of resources out there for guys who want to travel. I've met an absolute ton of people off various PUA forums. I didn't learn about Thailand by myself either, I was taken there by my parents and my uncle (dad's NAM buddy) when I was 16. My parents were doing some business there and my father's business partner (a local) decided he and my uncle were going to take me on a tour of the red light district bars [Papong], so I was exposed to 'the other side' at a very young age. My other uncle was the first one to leave for China, he was a CPA accountant.... some sort of executive at a corporation... anyway after his second divorce, he went MGTOW/AWOL for awhile. Came back home, went on the net, met some woman from China and left. 3 years later he comes back with her, she apparently was also an accountant, rich and they stayed here for a short time. Then they went far up north for a couple years, and finally back to China. My uncle now lives on a small farm (he owns) and sells vegetables off the back of Donkey cart. He loves it. He's been married without complaints to his Chinese wife going on 20 years. She speaks a little English, he speaks a little mandrain. He likes to talk at length about the Ruling class, federal reserve, American history but he doesn't need

Is that crazy? Well maybe crazy runs in my family.

I'm not asking you to buy into it if you don't want to, likely you are just going to find more ways to continue on doing what you are doing... guys like you, I'm not interested in meeting anyway. The stories I could tell you will either make your jaw drop or your eyes droop depending on the type of person you are. I know guys here who are firmly entrenched in society and they hate hearing what I have to say about other countries, it bores them.... hey whatever man... some people like PB+J their entire life, if thats you, great we need those people, they build stable societies. For me, I like to sample all the world has to offer and if you find yourself looking around, wondering how you can get in on it, maybe I can lend a hand.

 

[ZTIME]

[QUOTE="l_e_g_e_n_d, post: 2330446, member: 131001

As an example. Gravity is a physical law. If someone elects to operate outside of the law of gravity, and hurt himself and others, I will him give shvt for it. This is no different. Your confusion arises in confounding opinion with law; choice with fact. If you wish to contest my position, first you would have to prove that my "embracing challenge" ideology is an opinion, and not a law. If you were able to accomplish this feat, then I would congratulate you and change my position. [/QUOTE]

Well, here's a fun topic. I've been blessed to be able to travel quite a bit......fun story! I've been here:

http://www.rense.com/general39/coral.htm

Now, I would never question the law of gravity and that young Issac whom had that Apple fall on his head. Yet someone did. I did walk on these stones and I do know that they're amazing.

This guy said gravity does not exist. All mass is based on poles and magnetics. The cool part is that he's done the impossible while making that statement.

Maybe there truly is gravity, maybe he's right, maybe a combination of the 2.(anti gravity rooms being created with magnetic fields).

This is no proof of discrediting your "law of gravity", yet if you are not 100% sure.... If there's a 1% chance of you being wrong, your advice cannot be 100% accurate.

I love SS so that I can digest the advice of many. We're all blessed to have such a diverse group of men working to help others.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

ZTIME, you may be surprised to know that I secretly hope I am wrong. I try not to subscribe to belief systems and social conventions, as they can serve as prisons just as much as to be helpful. However, "laws" I fully defer to.

I implore anybody to show me that this spiritual "law" is incorrect. Show me just one example. We have many intelligent posters on this site: TicTac, Tenacity, Danger, AtomSmasher, Samspade, Asmodeus, among a few. We have spiritual officers LYD and ZTIME.

Again:

The definition of "challenge" to which we refer in this thread is "running away from something difficult that is already present in your sphere.

We are referring to a specific, personalized challenge that we are overtly (and sometimes covertly) and repeatedly confronted with; a challenge that is recurring in form but may take alternate shapes; a challenge that we have at least one conscious thought toward to be aware of its nature and existence; a challenge that is so deeply intertwined within our spiritual DNA, that it could by all means not be there by random chance or whim; a challenge that exists with purpose, to those who are discerning enough to recognize its function.

Embracing challenge is not to be confused with making short-sighted, ill-advised decisions or creating new problems that at best could be overcome by Pyrrhic victories. The challenge will be present regardless of whether you elect to embrace or avert it.

I know the subject matter is labrythine, and not straight-forward. I tried to explain and qualify "it" as best as I could. Under the above umbrella, can anyone show me just one example, where "embracing challenge" is imprudent?

 

[BeExcellent]

Although the thread has now run absolutely sideways from its initial track it is to my mind an interesting existential discussion.

Wikipedia defines existentialism's major holding is that philosophically things originate from the human individual. Freedom to act as an individual is important, but individual authenticity is the more accurate goal of this line of thought.

To my mind the question that @l_e_g_e_n_d poses comes down to the question of discernment more than anything else. How do we choose, how do we discern in our lives the right path? That of itself is a challenge with which we must always wrestle.

We as people can find abundance of "challenges" all around us in many things along the path of our lives, the question becomes does an individual have sufficient discernment to determine which of the myriad challenges that exist are worth tackling to best suit that particular individual.

For example: Should a person remain employed at a particular company doing a particular job and seek advancement there, or is that individual best served to leave the company and strike out in their chosen field as an entrepreneur? That choice comes down to discernment and the two paths lead to different outcomes.

Should a person marry? Should they not? What is best? The answer varies.

I agree with the premise @l_e_g_e_n_d proposes for it is evident everywhere in all things:

Nothing is static; everything is dynamic. This is a fact and is inescapable.

The universe, the weather, the life cycles of living things, the construction, maintenance and decay of structures, or mountains, everything is dynamic. Energy is required for all dynamic change, and ultimately energy merely changes forms and is exchanged but is never created nor destroyed. This is a physical law. This is the zero sum game. Modern physics may be discovering an ultimate source for the energy, and the universe seems to be continuing to expand at an ever increasing rate...these are things we cannot know in our personal or communal (aggregate) existence on Earth because due to relativity, things feel and appear quite stable to us in our existence here. And in some things we as humans are too limited in our perspective to recognize these laws that influence us. Gravity existed forever before Newton described it. Relativity existed forever before Einstein described it. Other things have existed forever which we cannot yet understand or describe.

Transitory things like wealth can be created in an unlimited sense by an individual, but remember wealth is something created by humans as an exchange medium and is thus meaningless from the perspective of the universe.

Mars couldn't care less how much money anyone has for example. Mars couldn't care less about the rule of law or any other manmade societal constraint either. But Mars absolutely follows physical laws of the universe. Physics and the universe are not in the least governed by imaginary things made up by man for his own purposes.

But on Earth, in manmade societies things like wealth and the rule of law and other societal constraints are seen as important because society has expectations and the majority of people subscribe to those expectations to one degree or another. We subscribe to the illusions. We quite like them. We are attached to them and attach meaning to them. We create constructs and bind ourselves collectively to them. The rule of law, manners, societal roles, religious belief systems, financial dealings, etc. etc. etc. All manmade illusory constraints that we enforce and perpetuate (and not without good reason, IMO.)

A living thing grows, maintains itself until it becomes too inefficient to harness energy sufficient to sustain life, and then dies. Some living things like babies are entirely reliant on the grace of others for survival. Growth is challenging, it is painful and necessary. Death too is challenging and can be equally painful. One is either expanding or contracting at all times in a physical sense, and this is consistent with the laws of the universe and requires energy.

It is easy because of our inability to comprehend all the dynamics that surround us, to assume things are static. But to attempt to remain static in ones life, runs counter to nature and to our nature as human beings. We, like everything that exists are dynamic. We are physically dynamic and we are built to be intellectually dynamic and emotionally dynamic as well.

But we must embrace our transitory and temporal existence in order to understand why "embracing challenges" are indeed what we are built to do. To my mind the degree to which an individual can create changes within his/her life or to effect change in human society is directly correlated to the degree to which an individual is constrained or not constrained mentally by the illusory limits we human beings tend to place in our own way in an attempt to remain comfortable. Comfort too is illusory. History tells us this over and over. But people are still limited to the illusions of their perceptions and inability to see past the microcosm of their own individual existence at a specific moment in time.

Remember what George Bernard Shaw said:

"Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man"

The unreasonable man is unconstrained and is embracing challenges most people are unable to wrap their mind around.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Mars couldn't care less about the rule of law or any other manmade societal constraint either. But Mars absolutely follows physical laws of the universe.

BeExcellent, to expound on this, as I sense we are hitting gold here: To the extent the following does not support Nature's laws:

1. Nature doesn’t care about our beliefs;

2. Nature doesn’t care about our convictions; and

3. Nature doesn’t care about our ambitions.

Nature does care that we “embrace challenges” as to evolve, hence the purpose of our existence. The question then becomes "evolve into what"?

Nature does care about our survival, hence the perpetuation of our species. If perpetuation of our species is within Nature’s agenda, then it follows that acts we commit against the species, operate against Nature. Thus, diametrically, all acts should be committed to help thyself and others, not thyself alone, as to fully support this law. Granted, in all acts, somebody is compromised (at least in part or incidentally), the significance is in the “intent,” not the act.

If Nature has all and creates all, Nature is an energy of "giving," not "receiving." And as we are the recipients to embrace Nature's gifts, we are created with the will to "receive." It follows, then, that the challenge we have, both individually and collectively, is to supersede our "will to receive" to that of a "will to give" to become an energy aligned with Nature. I believe this is ultimately our purpose, and our greatest challenge. I factually know when I "give," I feel extreme grace in that instant of "giving," and accordingly, there is merit in this last conclusion. As an example, approach a hobo (or someone who is desperately in need), who is starving not drug ridden, give him a $100 bill, look at the elation in his eyes, and then describe to me how you feel.

The wise align their convictions with Nature’s laws, not their own volition, as volition is shaped by the indoctrination and conditioning of man-made constructs, and accordingly “volition,” too, although seemly "free," is contrived.

 

[LiveYourDream]

BeExcellent, to expound on this, as I sense we are hitting gold here: To the extent the following does not support Nature's laws:

1. Nature doesn’t care about our beliefs;

2. Nature doesn’t care about our convictions; and

3. Nature doesn’t care about our ambitions.

Nature does care that we “embrace challenges” as to evolve, hence the purpose of our existence.
("Nature"--I am not clear what you are referring to exactly. There is a wide spectrum. I am going to assume quite expansive, as I share below.)
From my perspective, we have the opportunity to evolve and that opportunity rests in unconditionality, it does not rest upon an agenda.
Challenges, inferring struggle, is your projection, in my opinion. Evolution denotes change. Change can also come with ease and joy. Change does not require struggle. Struggle is a common perception and thus resultant experience in this world. I would caution you not to limit your perception/experience to the need for struggle in your life or for evolution to occur. The question then becomes "evolve into what"?

Nature does care about our survival, Again, from my perspective, we have the opportunity to survive or not, and that opportunity rests in unconditionality, it does not rest upon an agenda, in my view. the perpetuation of our species. If perpetuation of our species is within Nature’s agenda, then it follows that acts we commit against the species, operate against Nature. Thus, diametrically, all acts should be committed to help thyself and others, not thyself alone, as to fully support this law. Granted, in all acts, somebody is compromised (at least in part or incidentally), From my perspective, quite the opposite is, thankfully, possible. One shares love and all benefit. the significance is in the “intent,” not the act.

If Nature has all and creates all, Nature is an energy of "giving," not "receiving." I perceive it as both. One does not exist without the other in my perception. One is required for the other. And as we are the recipients to embrace Nature's gifts, we are created with the will to "receive." It follows, then, that the challenge we have, both individually and collectively, is to supersede our "will to receive" to that of a "will to give" to become an energy aligned with Nature. Not necessarily, at least from my perspective. For example some people are great givers their whole life yet never learn to receive well. They do not need to further increase their giving capacity but rather their capacity to receive. The free flowing capacity for both is key. Beyond that when one finds wholeness there is a desire to be of service, not from need, but from freely and joyfully sharing from our overflow. I believe this is ultimately our purpose, and our greatest challenge. I factually know when I "give," I feel extreme grace in that instant of "giving," and accordingly, there is merit in this last conclusion. As an example, approach a hobo (or someone who is desperately in need), who is starving not drug ridden, give him a $100 bill, look at the elation in his eyes, and then describe to me how you feel. As beautiful as sharing in that way is, there is also giving with no attachment what so ever. Have no attachments, to how what is given, is received or even yourself as the giver. Simply give.

The wise align their convictions with Nature’s laws, The wise align with the highest aligned source they can perceive. not their own volition, as volition is shaped by the indoctrination and conditioning of man-made constructs, and accordingly “volition,” too, although seemly "free," is contrived.

My intent is not to debate your perspective here @l_e_g_e_n_d or suggest mine is more correct. I simply shared some of my perspectives, above in blue, to those I bolded in black above them. I understand they may resonate or not at all. I am not attached. I simply offer them as food for thought, if one is inclined to ponder another perspective.

(No disrespect intended to Desdinova and his original thread topic. I don't know this forum's guidelines about topic changes. Please feel free to repost this in a new thread if preferred.)

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Strong points LYD. I will address two points as to remain within the confines of our discussion, but I'm genuinely interested in your (and others') response(s) :

Change can also come with ease and joy.

I will break this syllogism into two sentences.

Change can also come with joy.

I agree to the extent that you joyfully embrace challenges.

Change can also come with ease.

Here is the counterposition of how “embracing challenge” would be imprudent, as who would need to embrace difficulty to evolve, when the alternate option of evolving with ease is present, correct? Please share just one example, where genuine change or evolvement in a person can manifest out of ease? (I don't ask to argue with you, but if you or anyone else could provide an irrefutable response to this question, it could alter my vision.)

If Nature has all and creates all, Nature is an energy of "giving," not "receiving."

I perceive it as both. One does not exist without the other in my perception. One is required for the other.

I will use "Nature" and "Creator" interchangeably:

There is (a) the Creator, and (b) the Creation. One gives life; the other receives life. The essence of “creating” is giving, and the essence of being “created” is receiving. The Creator is required for the Creation, and the Creation for the Creator, but neither “Creator” nor “Creation” is the same, at least not initially.

Whether you decide to give or not to give to Nature does not change Nature's laws or existence (i.e., the moon will continue to revolve around the Earth). Nature will operate irrespectively. But, if Nature decides to stop giving (the Earth falls off its axis), you will cease to exist. Accordingly, the Creator is an energy of “giving,” and not a dual energy of “giving and receiving,” as its laws will operate irrespective of its receiving from you, the Creation.