(1).jpg.6e7dcf8b9186398310ef42acf7758687.jpg)
LordFall
Member-
Content count
4,167 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by LordFall
-
-
22 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:I appreciate you saying that, Joseph. Leo’s emphasis on deep structural thinking and first-principles deconstruction definitely aligns with how my mind approaches reality.
Enjoy the stream, curious to hear your takeaways once you finish it!
-
1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:Elon Musk went out if his busy way to kill USAID and gave zero fucks about the impact that had on people. You think he will give you UBI?
These people are incapable of caring about others. All they are capable of is enslaving you.
A billionaire is not going to give you anything, he is busy scheming how to take more from you.
If this general sentiment was true we would've never had limits on working hours and other regulation for humane and safe working conditions that we have at least here in the west. I do get your point that we should not give them the benefit of the doubt and ensure it's at the core of AI based policy.
Our man Bernie along those lines is working to setup a sovereign wealth fund that would make the public own 50% of US AI companies in order to fund services for the masses. I haven't looked precisely into what the bill entails but it's encouraging to see it already being discussed in policy circles.
2 hours ago, something_else said:So materially, life might actually be very comfortable. But if you have almost no ability to compete economically, accumulate wealth, or meaningfully change your position, then you’re still completely dependent on whatever redistribution the ownership class decides is necessary to keep society stable.
That doesn’t sound like freedom to me. It sounds like some kind of techno-feudalism.
I agree with the general sentiment of your comment but I'll address this specific part. Do you think most humans are capable of striving for agency and ownership? AI tools are out now, how many people do you know that are up to date with them and using agentic solutions now to secure themselves and their communities against this techno-feudalist dystopia? Your concerns are valid but I want to make sure we avoid this communist pitfall that a lot of people fall into when talking about economic egalitarianism. We need to develop a basic safety net to ensure the survival of the general population but from there competent and already rich people will indeed use AI tools to further enrich themselves. I think that's completely fine and should actually be encouraged.
We have tools at our disposal to regulate the inequality that will keep existing as a result; wealth taxes are amongst the simplest and most powerful effective measures for that.
-
That's fair, I'll work on more pleasant delivery.
@JoshB I feel like you are still running away from the point I'm making though. Do you really experience your current reality as fully self-defined?
Have you managed to set your own rent? If you own your own property then I guess so. What about your relationship to your local government? Do you define its policies or are you still working towards that and just choosing to ignore it at the moment?
I find it easy to use the concept of non-duality to soothe our existential angst but lose in the process our relationship to responsibility. When life doesn't go our way which it's not for me all the time, I also find it soothing to remember spiritual principles to ground myself but I also fear it leads me towards complacency and I also see other forum users go towards that path so I find it valuable to point it out to them.
-
@Natasha Tori Maru That's right. We could call how one feels about their inherent value 'Self-esteem' which is worth studying and I think ideally should love yourself unconditionally but still push yourself to reach your goals to enhance your own quality of life.
Where I don't agree with your earlier point on me invalidating people's life choice is that I don't shame people for wanting a life style that differs from mine. I tend to ask difficult questions that sometimes I think hints at people's blindspots but I don't think that constitutes a pathology.
For example in the spirituality section I was asking @Cathal how he feels about his sense of responsibility towards mankind while living as a monk.
He answered the first one then seemed to avoid the subsequent questions. It could be because I've touched on deep points about life that he's trying his best to avoid or I could've asked my questions in an uncouth manner that he felt didn't warrant a response.
Either way I don't think tiptoeing around sensitive issues is an effective way to live one's life so especially on a forum about self-development and deep truth I tend to err towards the side of uncouthness rather than polite pleasantries.
My aim in life is finding the best goals to have and the best way to achieve them. I engage on this forum with that core quest in mind.
-
8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:Guys, stop the personal attacks. Make your argument without ad hominim.
It's not a personal attack, it's the easiest way to make the point. An ad hominem bypasses the substance of someone's points to attack their character; I specifically attacked his point.
If there is no shared reality then there is nothing that can be good or bad, just what is. If someone can be offended by me saying they make bad points then by itself that proves their point wrong. The consequence for living under false coping premises is low life results as reality doesn't seem to reward surface untested opinions compared to things like deep competence and a deep bullet proof understanding of reality.
-
33 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:@LordFall Do you think people have inherent value and are worthy, just as they are?
How does this tie into the concept of a person being valid, and how you do define validity?
Good question, it is the fundamental axiom to base a conversation on value around.
I think people have some inherent value by virtue of being a life form but not much. For example if we snapped our finger and doubled the world population, our species wouldn't have double the life quality. It would probably plummet as a matter of fact.
Also it seems to be a function of marginal utility where if you don't know many people then each new person that you meet has a lot of value but when you have a wide social circle you can now afford to have more qualifications on who you spend your time with.
As for being "worthy"—worthy of what?
We can simply talk about the limited time and energy we have in investing in others. We're each gonna have a moderately different standard for who qualifies but we can look at trends to see how we should build our life in order to attract the right people into it.
Most of the conversations we have on this dating section are about single men wanting to attract women. A simple principle I share often on this forum is that to become more attractive to women you must offer more value. It's a question that invites further questioning but a lot of times people fight me on this very idea which I find quite funny because it's a pretty easy position to defend.
Individual women are gonna have their individual criteria as to what type of man they like to hang around but generally being a guy that's financially independent, can communicate well, has a rich social life, is fun to be around and takes care of his appearance is gonna be a mold that fits what most women want.
Then the common objections are usually based in pointing out outliers "But Kyle I know a coke dealer in massive debt that's a dickhead that fucks a bunch of chicks, what you're saying is wrong!" From there we can also simply steer the conversation either in a cultural deconstruction way where we ask ourselves why that coke dealer's dating strategy is working for him or what I find most useful is taking our goals and building an action path from there. I think we can agree that becoming a coke dealer to build a high quality dating life is not the move and one of the simplest arguments against it is that it only offers superficial short term value as opposed to being a man that can offer value on the long term.
Then we have the point on validity, same answer valid to who? I personally at this point in my life have big goals and not a lot of time to waste so I only hang out with people with whom we can mutually help each other achieve our goals. That doesn't mean I want society to get rid of people that don't fit that mold but I just don't enjoy spending time with them and I don't think they would enjoy spending time with me also. That's the mark of a solid society, having the diversity to support different lifestyles.
I think it's a very important question to have especially in a world looming with AI revolution where we are presented with this question in real time globally as a species. Thankfully it seems that our capacity to produce a massive surplus of value to redistribute around will increase. Perhaps in a few decades we'll be able to take care of every human on earth and the concept of offering economic value to society in order to survive will be a distant memory. Even then I will say that an average AI UBI funded life is still gonna be inferior to a life full of purpose, ambition and adventures. In a world based on scarcity that question is much more poignant though.
Fundamentally it's a question about agency and optimization in reaching your goals though. The most valuable life to live is the one where you can accomplish your objectives in the deepest and most efficient way possible. I think what mostly gets in the way of that for men I see are limiting beliefs and lack of optimized strategy. That's mostly what I talk about on this forum.
-
40 minutes ago, JoshB said:Then enlighten us with well thought out points then
I am.
29 minutes ago, JoshB said:I am laying out the best way reality could be.
That it is 100% absolutely determined by you
The only way anyone could interact with me is because it is seeded in my authority and imagination.
I never asked for your permission to point out your bad points. You could make the argument that your higher self asked me to do it on your behalf and thus it was your will all along.
That's a fine line of belief if you find that it serves your life in general but then you better start addressing me with my proper pronouns. You can call me My Lord or Your Highness. Either is fine.
I don't give out insights for free, you should ideally be grateful to have your own foolishness revealed to you!
-
23 minutes ago, JoshB said:None of this negates the fact that you are the only thing that exists. And that I am you and your own imagination. Why does my behavior bother you so much? I also never said to not take care of survival, I just said that your perspective is absolute.
There is no collective consciousness, there is only your infinite consciousness imagining the entirety of the present moment.
I also see you and everything as the most beautiful thing there is.
God has the infinite capacity to dream reality as it deems who would of thought.
I find poorly thought-out points shared in a public domain reduce the quality of our communication and thus life. It leads to confusion which leads to spiritual bypassing which leads to a life built around coping as opposed to high quality living.
-
7 minutes ago, JoshB said:Or I have reached a level of consciousness so high that there exists nothing outside what is being imagined by you which is in total alignment with what leo teaches. You must break off from other / external to fully actualize your own realization of yourself as God.
God can deny or invalidate any aspect of reality.
That's what I mean, you're being intellectually lazy and spiritually bypassing. God can split itself into an infinite amount of containers. The container of @LordFall is saying that the container of @JoshB is making bad points that he hasn't thought much about.
3 minutes ago, JoshB said:@LordFall To answer your question, if God is the only Being in existence then who would there be for God "share" a reality with?
That's an irrelevant point to our basic shared reality. That's like saying because our universal consciousness stems from God you don't have to pay your rent and you can buy as many houses as you want to because you are ultimately the unbound.
Let me know how that works out for you, I'll be waiting for divine irony to manifest itself through your limited perspective.
-
Yes it happened to me all the time a few years ago. Not sure if it had to do with psychedelics I took around that time but I would wake up not remembering who I was for a full 30-60 seconds and have to piece together my identity with clues from the room. After a few times I would remember that this had happened before and think, 'Well, how did I make sense of it last time?'
It's a very interesting state of being, it showed me glimpses of what pure consciousness without memories feels like. It's definitely interesting how the psyche comes back from that. I had to piece together that I was in a room, where might this room be... I guess I had a room like this many years ago but that was in Calgary now I am in Toronto and then I remembered who I was and what kind of responsibilities were waiting for me.
I think that's the basics of existence really, what is the next force that you will have to answer to. For me it was a work shift since like most biological forms I need to eat!
Interesting to think about what would we would to if there were no obligations and we were just an unbound consciousness?
-
5 minutes ago, JoshB said:What did I write that was bad and not well thought out? What you quoted I said in your last reply?
You're confusing absolute metaphysics with relative reality, which is the textbook definition of spiritual bypassing.
At the absolute level, sure, all of reality is one undivided consciousness dreaming form. But on the relative, functional level, we operate in an objective shared medium: gravity works, physics applies, and you are literally reading and responding to pixels generated by another distinct locus of consciousness over an internet connection.
Trying to use absolute non-duality to invalidate basic empirical communication makes the philosophy useless. If there is no shared reality, why are you typing replies to convince an "imaginary" projection?
-
On 9/19/2026 at 2:00 PM, JoshB said:There is no basic shared reality this is something you are imagining. Learning from others is just you teaching yourself in another form.
When you are in a dream where does the source of any truth come from?
I see so I am imaging a random user named @JoshB gracing my screen with bad not well thought out replies?
That's good to know Josh but I think you can do better. I'm concentrating all my imaginary brain power to give you superior insight and communication skills.
-
14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:Isn't it a bit narcissistic to make a Museum of Narrative Art and make it all about Star Wars?
Star Wars is great, but then call it the Star Wars Museum.
This is like if I made a Museum of Spirituality and only put my own work in it
From what I researched, it's 5 floors and the Star Wars exhibit is only 3/4 of one floor.
Although a narcissism diagnosis only goes so far until it goes into the realm of fair play positioning! You better damn make sure that in the Museum of Spirituality your work is seen before any mention of Jesus or Buddha otherwise you're not even trying!
Jesus told people anybody not listening to his teachings was gonna be tortured forever, how is that for narcissism with some totalitarianism baked in for divine measure
I'm gonna learn from the greats that came before me and claim that anyone that doesn't play Legend of the Abyss when it comes out is not only ruining their life by comparison to the fun they could've had but their afterlife is toast too and also their ancestors look down upon them in shame.
-
@Joshe Taking care of your family, showing up for your friends, and delivering results for paying clients is real, substantial value. That’s not low value in my book at all. It's tangible, calculable utility within your sphere of influence.
The crux of my argument isn't that everyone needs to have a global impact to matter. The crux is rejecting the relativistic claim that value is purely subjective and that all uses of a man's time produce equal impact. They don't. An individual who provides for their family and solves problems for clients is objectively generating more functional utility than someone who only provides for themselves or is a dependent.
Where I push for more is on scale and leverage. Keeping impact strictly local is a valid choice, but the trade-off is that it leaves us as passive spectators to the decisions made by politicians and massive corporations. We live in an era where social media platforms and AI agents allow a single person to broadcast their message and create abundance for thousands or millions without burning out. I think we should steer conversations along these lines since that solves a lot of the victim mindset I see a lot of people on this forum have. Summarized by the simple adage "Get bitter or get better."
Aiming for that level of reach isn't about looking down on local responsibility, it’s about recognizing the unprecedented leverage we have today and challenging ourselves to maximize it.
-
52 minutes ago, Joshe said:Now, imagine I am brought up in a blue culture. These traits of mine made it inevitable that I would escape the bullshit. And when that happened, you're saying there's only one option for where to go next, and that's to orange? Just think about how absurd that is.
Why couldn't I jump straight to green or yellow?
Think about what those stages offer. Orange rewards status, competition, and winning in front of other people. Green rewards belonging, emotional expression, and consensus. Look at my profile above. Low status motivation, low affiliative need, low conformity, intrinsic drive. There's nothing in orange for me to want, and nothing in Green either. Both scenes are built around rewards my profile doesn't respond to. So when I left blue, I didn't get pulled into the next stage on the line because there's no pull. I just stopped being in blue.
You're missing massive parts of orange that have to do with mastering the productive tools of society. If someone jumped straight from Stage Blue to Stage Yellow or Green then they would miss the fundamental skills to have an impact in reality. If they ended in green then they would just be the average triggered leftist that just feels a lot of pain and doesn't understand how to fix it, but if they got into yellow they would connect the dots enough to see that their thoughts can only take form in the universe through solving problems of material reality that orange teaches us how to tackle.
Having low affiliative needs, high systemizing, and not caring about corporate status games doesn't mean you bypassed Orange to become Yellow—it just means your personality is introverted and non-conformist. The rule of developmental psychology is transcend and include. Yellow isn’t an aloof intellectual sitting on the sidelines analyzing systems from a distance; it's someone who has actually mastered the cause-and-effect competence of Orange and the perspective-taking of Green, and integrates them. You can't transcend tools you never learned how to use.
This is precisely the error a lot of users on Actualized.org make. They binge all these advanced intellectual models and theories from Leo, but they never ground them in Orange execution or use them to increase their actual impact on reality. What you end up with isn't Tier 2 development—it's just an apathetic intellectual with an inflated intellectual ego, mistaking an aloof personality and theoretical fluency for real-world mastery.
-
@Joshe There’s a basic distinction here: I’m not judging anyone's inherent existential worth; I’m looking at functional competence and real-world utility.
If we use a stereotypical incel for example, they could argue that they don't need to provide value to society or women to be at peace with their own existence. If that's what someone wants to argue then feel free. You can make this argument to a wall you don't need other humans to validate your opinions on yourself.
Perhaps self-esteem is a better concept than value to talk about someone's own value in regards to their own opinion of it. Even then usually self-esteem has been studied and usually has to do with an individual being able to reach their goals in the society that they're based in.
I based my argument on the idea of value being defined as the ability to create abundance for others. Abundance being defined as helping people solve their problems and achieve their goals.
There's only two main consistent lines of debate can be arguing against that definition or I guess arguing that you fulfill this more than I do, which if that's the case then more power to you, that's amazing. I always seek to learn from people that are more skilled than me at areas that I value. I cannot learn anything from someone unskilled but is delusional enough to think that they do bring value which is my reason for bringing up the subject in the first place. If we are to actualize ourselves then finding the best areas of life to do so and learning from people that are ahead of us in those lanes is self-evident.
Calling ambition and high standards a "superiority orientation" is just the usual defense mechanism when people want to avoid accountability and a scorecard.
@yetineti You are completely stuck on a question I already answered. By default, human beings are not born with a high-level skillset that allows them to consistently solve other people's problems or create economic abundance. That has to be developed, trained, and proven. Scrutinizing me for applying that basic, universal reality to you—and turning that assumption into the entire pillar of your multi-post victim narrative—is pretty asinine.
-
The mechanism isn't benevolence or a utopian fairy tale; it's basic alignment of incentives.
Paying the masses a baseline UBI check is vastly cheaper and safer for global capital than triggering widespread civil unrest, bread riots, and asset destruction. It solves the core problem for both classes: the public gets their basic cost of living secured, and the asset-owning class protects their capital and keeps the economic engine humming.
Why would the ruling class choose systemic collapse, ruined consumer markets, and torches at their gates when cutting a basic stimulus check maintains stability and preserves their wealth?
-
Bro you're 23 lol
Chill out and keep working on marketable skills and you'll be fine. I think you're on the right path.
-
You should work as hard as you need to until you can support yourself financially and reach your other life goals. Neither too much nor too little.
-
Just now, Monster Energy said:Yeah, that’s what bothers me about it. The moment helping people becomes secondary to proving your loyalty to a cause, things have gone completely sideways.
It's the basis of the human condition! Feels before rationality. It expresses itself differently in conservatives and in liberals but often times what leftists feel is right actually hurts their cause.
-
@Carl-Richard Because an engineer who treats an ecosystem as a machine to manipulate will inevitably create second-order side effects that break the system. You cannot sustainably govern or optimize a living whole from an attitude of mechanical detachment. That’s why.
@Joshe Calling it purely a "personality type" misses how life conditions force worldview evolution. You don't get "Yellow" just because you're born with an analytical mind; you reach systemic thinking when the simplistic dogmas of Blue, the individualist rat race of Orange, and the egalitarian consensus paralysis of Green completely fail to resolve the chaotic, interconnected problems in front of you.
Temperament influences how you express a stage, but Tier 2 is fundamentally about cognitive complexity which is the capacity to hold multiple competing paradigms simultaneously without needing to destroy any of them to feel safe.
-
These are complicated issues with no easy answers. Kraft originally showed a lot of maturity by offering an open sit-down with Macklemore, and when Macklemore challenged him on Instagram by donating his $1M tour salary, Kraft actually put up $2 million for humanitarian aid.
Yet people are still trying to burn down Ed Sheeran just for getting caught in the crossfire of venue owners and tour politics. It shows that for a lot of activists, it’s not about resolution, diplomacy, or actual aid dollars—it's about demanding total ideological submission and running public shaming campaigns on anyone who doesn't echo the exact script.
-
@yetineti Let’s be real about what actually happened on the stream. Within the first ten minutes, I laid out my definition of value—the empirical ability to create abundance and solve real-world problems for others as well as being able to help them achieve their goals. From that point right up until the end, you refused to engage with that framework, refused to share how you provide value in your own life, and refused to offer any contrasting definition of your own.
Around the 33 minute mark, you explicitly stated on air that you wouldn't tell us how you're embodying the idea of value in your life and that's not why you wanted to have the talk. It seems like you deliberately ran away from the debate framing beforehand just so you wouldn't have to take a concrete stance and defend it on air. That's what I mean by evasion.
One of my biggest critiques of people on this forum is the unhealthy Stage Green attitude so many post from. It manifests as a total avoidance of real-world accountability through spiritual bypassing—this idea that "if I'm part of universal consciousness, then tangible standards of value, competence, and societal utility don't apply to me." You brought that exact posture into our conversation: retreating into abstract meta-philosophy to avoid being measured by any concrete standard whatsoever.
It seemed like you wanted to spend four hours endlessly philosophizing about the abstract concept of value and debating why we even need to produce value in the first place. Ironically, I didn't find that conversational loop to be very valuable, and after 90 minutes of it, I had enough and called it.
It's a good thing you pivoted to a conversation frame beforehand, because if this were scored as a real debate, I would've clearly won on substance, structure, and clarity.
-
29 minutes ago, something_else said:I would argue it is the primary thing worth considering, given that it has basically defined our species for 200,000 years of history.
Also, I don't think we are really very close to AI actually doing everything for us and providing us all with a life of abundance. I use AI all day for my job as a software engineer and it is insanely good, but not anywhere near good enough that it could be trusted to do the job autonomously. That would be catastrophic. And coding is the complex task that these models are by far the best at right now.
We are at a stage where the economy is going to shift massively in the coming years because you now need one person to do the job of 4 in some white collar fields. But predicting how this will actually go in practice is hard.
You're underestimating the infrastructure already in place to push this transition forward. AI fucking up and causing unexpected damages sounds like the perfect use case for the insurance industry to step in.
A conglomerate could layoff 10 000 of its staff and replace them with 5000 robots and if 500 of these robots fuckup it's still less expensive than 10 000 wages(made up numbers but you get the idea.)
A minimum wage fast food worker in California can be paid as low as $20 USD/hour, that's a $41.6K/yearly base salary. To replace fast food workers with Robots is not yet economically viable but the tilt of the pendulum towards it being so is most likely gonna happen around 2028 and tilt further towards cost reduction indefinitely in favor of AI labor.
in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Posted
Build a personal brand and a reputation. It's easier than ever to have a unique identity these days.