Aaron p

Excellent points. I'm growing more and more aware of how my imagination generates reality. Was chatting with my Buddhist teacher just last week about this analogy: A young person sees a person wearing a mask and holding a gun while exiting a bank, they point at the individual and say "Bad!" Clearly, while this does encapsulate some basic and obvious facts, it is also an oversimplification that will invariably fail to calculate other, key contextual artifacts. Maybe the individual is stealing money to pay for their child's cancer treatment or perhaps they're being blackmailed. These additive elements obviously don't excuse the action, but it does shine light on the fact that the real world is often more complex than what is comfortable or convenient for us to assess with the appropriate degree of realistic accuracy. Perhaps the individual is an undercover government agent. This analogy is a slightly accentuated example of how the mind can oversimplify things in the waking dream. AI calls this phenomena "Heuristic-Based Categorisation" or "Cognitive Shortcutting." As has been talked about by others in this community, fear is an excellent defence mechanism for these oversimplified projections. If you can take some scientific findings, formulate them into systematized ideology (set of ideas), enshroud the ideology with more ideas that are scary, come up with a neatly packaged term or identifying label for this "thing" and get everyone to subscribe to it... It will spread like wildfire and will be assumed to be as factual as the concrete on the pavement and the fear surrounding it will make it difficult or impossible for the masses to actually investigate. Some examples of ideas [that are actually ideologies within the mind] (pay close attention to the emotions you feel when hearing each label). Each of these causes a subconscious emotional trigger of being the -prototype- of X or Y: - professional (prototype of competence) - psychologist (prototype of understanding the mind). - astrophysicist (intelligent) - teacher (wholesome) Often you'll find that "professionals" are anything but competent (and yet their value stands) and astrophysicists might make common mistakes in the social domain. Some of my favourite negative ones (pay super close attention to the contextual and emotional sensations that are triggered within the mind and body when you view these terms): - narcissist. - ego maniac. - gaslighter. - terrorist. When the oversimplified mental projections of the mind (which are based in some truth) are shrouded in extra ideas that induce a particular amount of fear...people are energetically discouraged from analyzing them independently or critically.

It is just lack of awareness. Awareness is so powerful that it can generate all kinds of ideas. Ideas like "I'm a hero" or "we help the world grow." Used by Nazis and dictators. Nazis genuinely believed they were helping the world by killing millions of Jews. The same thing happens in society today in different ways.

Mostly the waiting room with Dimitri, and time expansion. Never experienced it, don't expect to. People talk about living alternate lives for years then coming back. As far as my experience goes, that's a load of horse. Also, that's psychedelics are good under all circumstances. What I've realised about them is that if you don't have your life together and your mind established, it can have really destructive effects. Can still produce necessary insane strength and insight, but at much greater suffering. Also I'm starting to get a serious experiential taste that humanity is more advanced than we think in certain remits (tech) (mostly hidden) and far, far, farrrrrrrr less advanced than we think in others. Also the strangeness of the universe, starting to get a flavour for that. Things like black holes, physics, quantum physics, in the natural realm, you can start to recognise that the idea that you know what's going on, is incorrect. You get little experiential tastes here and there and the only question is...if these are just little slices, I wonder how large the entire cake is 🍰 Also religion is simultaneously great for helping people at low levels of development but has collosal flaws. Essentially that it's methods are legit/real but they're too disjointed, symbolic and poetically indirect to provide transformation massive enough to where manual effort is no longer required. You can tell how much manual effort is involved. Feeling like your manually pushing your car up a 45° hill to get to god is a distinct religious factor I remember. Experientially. God's voice is discernable, distinct, trustworthy and extremely motherfucking powerful.

Ok I contemplated and now I have mind bending insight. I can see that if a person views someone else's actions as being bad enough to ignite hatred within himself, what is actually happening is self preservation. As it is a violation of the standards that literally generate his sense of identity. So In a weird twisted way, his primary motivation isn't to stop the suffering of others...his primary motivation is to protect his identity of someone who protects others. A complete self focus. I'm even tempted to say that the only reason he has the standards that generate his identity in the first place (the one that is being violated by others) is because those are the standards he wishes others to hold with him. Because what his identity literally exists as are ideas, when someone hurts another person in a way he wouldn't...they aren't breaking his identity in some symbolic way, they are literally dismembering his actual self before his eyes. Which will generate massive emotional upheaval. There are no circumstances under which emotional reactivity or volatility are the result of selflessness.

I suppose this is what distinguishes what selfishness is and what selfishness judges selfishness to be. Metaphysical selfishness Vs social selfishness. Be a tree..

@Leo Gura what about negative emotions that might be targeted at a person because they hurt others? Would this scenario not be a selfless motivation?

Lol

I actually completely get that. Good way of putting it. Another thought I was thinking is looking for the edge of my perceptive field. Like I can feel the edge/end of my phone, same thing for my car steering wheel and my TV remote. Can I feel the edge of my field of perception? Interesting thought. Cuz the perceptive field exists, here it is. It is here. So logic would tell me it has an edge or point at where it ceases. Also in terms of solid objects. It's interesting cuz if you look closely, what we define as a "solid object" is only that which our limbs can't pass through. Water wouldn't be, hard jelly wouldn't be, hardened glue...kind of. We could pass through it with lots of effort. And what about materials like oobleck (cornstarch and water), it's a solid object if it's hit with a car, but a fly will easily sink into it if it lands on top of it. Technically hardness Vs softness (solidity) would be the arrangement of molecules, or more specifically, their relationship to eachother, or even more specifically the speed of the vibration of the molecules in relation to eachother. Solidity seems to be determined by just how fast or slow something is vibrating.

Leo's extremely opinionated. Just a good job most of them seem to be extremely accurate and helpful 🤩

Preach

Put a bit of pressure on them and see how they behave. This works for me. Talk is talk

Careful, assuming you are wrong is as much a trap as assuming your right. The objective is to avoid assumptions altogether. It's a paradox, most people think they're right. Most people would be deluded. We understand this so we anticipate our own delusion. However doing this makes us less susceptible to delusion, and more likely to be right. Knowing this, we can practically assess that if we possess this level of mental agility, it's only appropriate to admit that this makes us more likely to be right in the end. However then also remembering that thinking your right, even with this meta perspective, once again makes you susceptible to being wrong, as per the initial logic. This can be combatted again with a further layer of meta perception. You just keep attacking it with layer after layer of meta intelligence. 2 supplementary insights: - usually it's safe to assume that there's a lot that we don't know. I'd say the entirety of mankind still doesn't know how gnarly reality can get. - don't fall into the trap of being right without being loving. Or perhaps this point could be better articulated by saying; there's a difference between theoretical/knowledgeable correctness and spiritual, energetic or loving correctness.

I've noticed something similar. Most Western countries are the same with some exceptions. I think what it is, is a lack of reality. When you create a safety net, barrier or "bubble" around reality so people can live in basically a false reality of handshakes, polite words and Starbucks...something in the human can't function. If society isn't setup in a way that admits the natural state of the human condition and tries to make it some kind of politically correct padded cel it can eventually drive you a bit nuts. As I'm becoming more conscious of certain things now as a young adult I'm starting to think "how did I survive 20 years of this?" If the dogs are hungry, feed them.

And it being wrong would be god too

One of the most unexpected and negative effects of increasing. I sort of thought "ah yes, I'll develop myself and be so powerful and smart and strong and everyone will see." The catch 22 of this is that, by definition, if you become more highly developed, you value the opinions of others less because you can see it for what it is. Impressing other people could be likened to trying to impress a bunch of chimps. When this recognition starts to actually set in, it's less about impressing others and more about loving them, helping them get bananas and acorns

I think you have a misguided idea of what god is. True humility is unafraid of how it makes It look when it says I am god. If it is true, then lying to protect an imagine of humility is itself, egotistical

Epic new series!!! -> pluribus By makers of breaking bad, actor that played Kim wexler main character. About aliens

This is the path my friend, I have a very similar experience. Having disillusionment and transcending it is itself the path. I been scammed, fucked over, I'm actually 27 as well. You just have to develop a taste for it. It's like a wall of reality that you have to pass through. It kinda of feels like your talking about this stuff like it's not the path. All of this stuff is exactly the path. You now have a new test, the test of your will, your spirit. Reality is saying, "look at this, you failed! Lol it wasn't real and you are not real (your spiritual drive)." You have to decide if you're cut out for it. But if you are, the answer is to simply give reality the finger and keep going. To sort of see through the illusion that your infinite mind is spinning as some kind of excuse to stop the path. Employ some limitless adaptability and realignment. This isint failure, this is breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things." In Hinduism gods physical form is often depicted with a dark hue. The idea is that darkness equates to depth. Like the darkness of the night, the depths of the ocean, the hidden, the mysterious. People often forget what the black part of the yin-yang represents. So it's not like good Vs bad or light Vs darkness. It's good + bad, light + darkness, without exclusive subscription to either and the only variable being love/selflessness.

Depends where we are on the spiral. The SD stages of mental evolution oscillate between collectivist and individualist. Blue -> collectivist Orange -> individualist Green -> collectivist Yellow -> individualist Turquoise -> collectivist It's kinda difficult. In one hand you need to have a cut throat attitude where your essentially willing to tell people to go fuck themselves, otherwise you'd never progress fast enough. But in the other hand, what your progressing towards is acceptance of those people and love and stuff. Bit fucked. People are simultaneously the most beautiful and the most retarded and annoying things in existence. I think it also depends on where you live, the range and scale of dumbasses varies depending on where your physically located

got Gemini to sort the primary arguments into neat format: The discussion centers on the modern Purpose Crisis, analyzing foundational answers offered by Christianity, Atheism, and Spiritual thinking. Stances and Foundational Arguments 1. Christian Apologist (Greg) Objective Meaning: Purpose is absolute, real, and flows from God's design. Rejection of Nihilism: Rejects the idea that "the glory is in the search," viewing this as a "nihilistic enterprise" because definitive, objective conclusions about ultimate meaning are possible. Criterion for Meaning: Meaning requires lasting significance. The "meteor thought experiment" suggests if all legacy ends shortly after death, typically meaningful human activities become pointless. The Problem of Suffering: Suffering (e.g., cancer) is explained as the impact on the world resulting from the violation of God's commands (original sin reference). 2. Atheist/Psychiatrist (Alex) Subjective/Practical Meaning: Finding meaning and purpose is a practical, internal, psychological task. Clinical Goal: The goal is clinical—to solve the problem of a suicidal patient who has "no reason to live" within weeks by teaching them to find purpose. Empirical Definition: Purpose is defined and measured empirically as a "sense of meaning" that is quantifiable (on a scale). Focus on Control: Life is often experienced as passive challenges (feeling controlled). Purpose is about regaining freedom by engaging with active challenges. 3. Spiritual Thinker (Dr. K) Effective Outcomes: Both science and spirituality are effective for mental health outcomes, including reducing suicidality and improving resilience. Holistic View: Focuses on mechanisms that provide a concrete, felt reason to wake up in the morning. Key Rebuttals and Debate Points The Nature of Purpose: The Christian distinguishes between the "sense of meaning" (subjective) and "real meaning" (objective truth), arguing a person's feeling can be misguided. The Atheist rejects the religious solution as a "solution being provided without explaining exactly why it provides a solution". Suffering and Worldview: The Atheist challenges that a worldview which fails to make sense of the moral intuitions about suffering is inadequate, demanding more than a reference to "mythical human beings". AI end___ The central theme seems to be purpose and it's influence on the reduction of suffering. There is without doubt a mental health crisis currently for young people in particular and with the digital age in full force, people don't know how to handle the pure lack of apparent purpose in anything in a world led by western civilisations that are becoming more secularly materialistic and hedonistic by the minute. Theory aside for a moment, it's actually a super central topic. Overall people usually have to choose to either be a religious ideologue, a hard headed atheist or an airy fairy spiritual person who secretly also has no idea but is actually closer to the truth because he doesn't think he knows it like the other two but lacks power as a result. In terms of what I actually care about in the video, probably would be that the video itself stands as a testament that humans do not understand how to solve life. This is pretty much my only observation.

Cool vid. This entire video covers topics that were my bread and butter for nearly a decade. Actually I think I'll try watch a bit more today and comment again after. Religion is good because it provides historical backing and a bit more structure than free spirituality, spirituality is good because it offers a solution to the eventual problem of religion (being stuck in an endless repetitive cycle of traditions and theory never actually feeling like you get a good ontological meal), and atheism is probably the worst...blanket denial of all forms of spirituality, founded in this kind of strong logical pursuit of knowledge and information, which of course still doesn't give you that feeling of being properly full as a human. Complex narrative.