Versions of ourselves

[Age]

The one i hate the most tho is the service representative and/or clerk and customer relationship. Any of em. The drive thru guy, the waitress, the sales rep, etc. That's the fakest one of em all and everybody feels and knows it's fake but can't stop doing it becuz it's expected by society.

Why are you talking about fake people?

This thread is about being authentic while also knowing there's more about yourself that can be explored.

That IS, UNTIL 'you' CAN ANSWER the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?' EXACTLY, PROPERLY, and Correctly.

Also, the term, phrase, and/or word "yourself" IS an OXYMORON, and partly explains WHY 'you', human beings, are STILL ABLE TO LEARN MORE about 'you'.

One doesn't have to be limited to some small identity or view they might have come to believe about themselves and their life.

NO 'they' do NOT. But just out of CURIOSITY WHY do 'you', "your" 'self', do this VERY 'thing' "lacewing"?

We can always discover new facets.

YES, 'we' CAN.

BUT NEVER while BELIEVING some 'thing', which, OBVIOUSLY, LIMITS, and/or CLOSES, one FROM SEEING, and thus LEARNING.

[Age]

It's long been known that we are not one but many, not a singularity but a plurality.

But what is the 'we' word here referring to, EXACTLY?

For example, it has 'long been' KNOWN, to 'you', human beings, that there are NOT more than one of 'us', human beings. There IS ONLY one group of 'human beings' right, "dubious"?

But, OF COURSE, 'you' may have been MEANING that there is MANY of 'us', individual human beings, correct, and NOT just one single, individual, human being?

The version most obvious to us, the one we wake up to, is a synthesis of all the unknowns that lie latent in our psyches. It may be mostly in dreams that we experience such separations causing its unmitigated strangeness which has no affinity to daytime awareness. But what happens when that center or synthesis cannot hold based on some disruptive trauma? Will it be a dismemberment of personality as hitherto experienced or incipient to forging some new version of ourselves. All kinds of possibilities exist even under normal circumstances, change being a process which never ceases providing its own instantiations as conditioned by time and circumstance which we most often are not the arbiters of or even aware of happening.

As for love, it's not nearly as potent as having a degree of empathy which doesn't judge between greater and lesser but equalizes all as ONE creation.

SO, there MIGHT BE, REALLY, some, singular One, after all, right?

I never felt this mental anodyne called love as ever accomplishing or being anything more than some hyper-stimulation of the senses, encapsulating its object with more value than is due. I rarely felt it, have no use for it, and never missed it.

Okay.

So, what IS the USE of 'empathy', WITHOUT 'love'?

Oh, and by the way, what IS 'love', to you, anyway?

[Dubious]

So, what IS the USE of 'empathy', WITHOUT 'love'?

To function, empathy does not require love to be its predecessor. It can exist with or without it.

Oh, and by the way, what IS 'love', to you, anyway?

Can't say! One must feel it in order to know. I never felt it or, in any way, feel deprived by its absence.

[Age]

So, what IS the USE of 'empathy', WITHOUT 'love'?

To function, empathy does not require love to be its predecessor. It can exist with or without it.

We will have to WAIT to SEE what 'you' actually mean by 'love' FIRST.

Oh, and by the way, what IS 'love', to you, anyway?

Can't say! One must feel it in order to know.

So, are you CLAIMING here that for 'those' who have 'felt' 'love', then they would KNOW what 'love' IS, and then 'they' could INFORM 'us' of what 'love' IS?

I never felt it or, in any way, feel deprived by its absence.

Have 'you' been a 'consciously AWARE' 'being' ever since 'that body' was conceived?

If no, then HOW would 'you' KNOW if 'you' felt 'love', itself, or not?

But if yes, then are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE?

[Dubious]

So, what IS the USE of 'empathy', WITHOUT 'love'?

To function, empathy does not require love to be its predecessor. It can exist with or without it.

We will have to WAIT to SEE what 'you' actually mean by 'love' FIRST.

Oh, and by the way, what IS 'love', to you, anyway?

Can't say! One must feel it in order to know.

So, are you CLAIMING here that for 'those' who have 'felt' 'love', then they would KNOW what 'love' IS, and then 'they' could INFORM 'us' of what 'love' IS?

I never felt it or, in any way, feel deprived by its absence.

Have 'you' been a 'consciously AWARE' 'being' ever since 'that body' was conceived?

If no, then HOW would 'you' KNOW if 'you' felt 'love', itself, or not?

But if yes, then are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE?

There's very little I'm absolutely sure of. All I know is that love has very little to do with my life on this planet and consider it non-essential.

What more can I say!

[Age]

To function, empathy does not require love to be its predecessor. It can exist with or without it.

We will have to WAIT to SEE what 'you' actually mean by 'love' FIRST.

Can't say! One must feel it in order to know.

So, are you CLAIMING here that for 'those' who have 'felt' 'love', then they would KNOW what 'love' IS, and then 'they' could INFORM 'us' of what 'love' IS?

I never felt it or, in any way, feel deprived by its absence.

Have 'you' been a 'consciously AWARE' 'being' ever since 'that body' was conceived?

If no, then HOW would 'you' KNOW if 'you' felt 'love', itself, or not?

But if yes, then are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE?

There's very little I'm absolutely sure of.

What is 'it' that you ARE SURE OF?

All I know is that love has very little to do with my life on this planet and consider it non-essential.

Although absolutely NONE of 'this' ANSWERS the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I posed, and ASKED 'you' here, okay, and what little did 'love' have to do with 'your life'?

What more can I say!

LOTS OF 'things'.