• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About EternalForest

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,423 profile views
  1. He's one of my favorite musicians, watched many interviews and followed him through the years, and at the moment I'd say he's Stage Blue through and through. Occasionally he'll fall into Stage Red thinking (Yeezus), during his lower periods, but at the moment he's in a healthy version of Stage Blue. He was so close to being Green last year (Ye, Kids See Ghosts), but now the dogmatic religious thinking patterns from his College Dropout days are having a backlash. I think he's more artistically developed than he is self-actualized. He's a brilliant artist, powerful speaker, and a really bright guy, but it's obvious he's got a lot of growth to do. Edit: Just forgot to add that My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy is like the epitome of Stage Orange, like a pure Orange album
  2. Sorry about bumping the post after being inactive for weeks, I just haven't been online in a while and wanted to make one last reply: @remember Despite the negative connotation with it ("It's not as good as you remember, it's just nostalgia"), I think nostalgia is something to be valued. You bring up an interesting point with the cowboys and guns example. I certainly wouldn't want cowboys of that nature running around nowadays, and perhaps it's best they be left in the past. What I'm referring to is more of the positive things we have lost to the past. There are so many ways in which past cultures were more conscious than American culture today, and I don't believe this amounts to nostalgia, it's just fact. Media is the best way to preserve it, I agree. But that brings up the issue of lost and unplayable media. Data rot is something I worry about, how many old hard drives and CD databases of stuff we could lose... And I agree. We really are conditioned to think the future looks a certain way through scifi, but for all we know it could look nothing like that. @Oeaohoo I don't understand how the ideas I'm presenting are nationalistic. I'm not claiming any one culture is better than another, or even that members of one culture can't join another. Anyone can join an art movement or political movement, regardless of where you're from. I think the benefits of globalism outweigh the negatives by a long shot, but it must be pointed out there will be downsides, such as cultural homogenization. If all cultures become one, cultural diversity is inherently sacrificed. Because for something to be, it must not-be something else. Let's say hypothetically, all cultures became one, what would buildings look like? What would music sound like? What would food taste like? What would the government look like? Probably something unique and awesome right? We all want to see what that would be like...but then you realize that that one Global culture would just This is it now. You wouldn't have hundreds of unique perspectives anymore, it would just leave with one. And as good as that one would/could be, I would personally rather have 100s.
  3. @Odysseus Art that needs no introduction to be great is certainly a great thing in of itself. What I'm referring to is more of the importance of the contexts, circumstances and processes out of which that art was created to not be lost, as that's an essential part of what makes it what it is. I want to preserve an original snapshot that contains the essence of every culture for posterity. Context isn't necessary for enjoyment, but it is necessary for full appreciation. But as you put quite eloquently, it's always open to any and every interpretation As far as what I mean by homogenization, I don't believe in the pretentious notion that the most popular art is the most shallow. I've seen plenty of shallow underground art and plenty of deep, introspective and profound mainstream works in every medium. Homogenized in the sense I'm using it is more synonymous with "corporatized"
  4. @Leo Gura Blending of cultures is a good thing, but preservation is still important. The essence of the thing must be saved, if even for the purpose of future fusions. It's kind of like cooking. To make something new you still all those basic ingredients. Though just a bowl of white rice by itself might get boring if you ate it every day, at the same time that white rice needs to exist in its purest form to be used in making something new. It's important for rice to stay boring so we can use it make new things more exciting. If the rice itself became too exciting or novel it wouldn't be rice anymore. What's wrong with doing both? Striving to create new cultures through the blending of existing cultures, but also keeping an archive or specific area "traditional". My city does something like this with the Art Museum (containing classic pieces spanning thousands of years) and the Contemporary Art Museum, which features the most cutting edge pieces. This system is a nice compromise which could be applied at a more meta, cultural level. Of course a major city will have MORE creative activity, but are they going to have the SPECIFIC, and very niche appeal that the culture of a small village may have? Likely not. Preserving the languages of small tribes is valuable, thousands of people dedicate their lives to archiving this stuff. In theory, yes, that should happen. And I'd venture to say that even in practice, it's entirely possible to happen. All I'm saying is that, in practice, many times, the essence of the original culture is lost in the process of fusion, and that's my worry. It's history we're talking about here. And a lot is lost in that game of telephone. This is a good point. I definitely agree that on a functional level like this, unification is valuable. Nationalism? I'm not claiming any one culture is "best". The US isn't "better" than China, for example. What's best is subjective. I just find it valuable to always have a "copy of the original file around". Sort of like how you try not to have too much influence over an experiment you're running. You want to let it run its course. That's not to say you couldn't use that original file to create a new one though. I'm confused now, a minute ago you said globalism doesn't need one culture to be best, but now you're using 80's technology as a metaphor for how culture "improves over time". Question is, in what sense? In terms of medical, equality, and tech maybe, but in other ways certainly's not binary.
  5. @This is the end American and Chinese culture are becoming more similar than they seem. China is becoming more like the US every decade as they move into Stage Orange.
  6. @TheAvatarState Good choice, curious to see his thoughts on that one.
  7. I am a big fan of pop culture. I love to explore what is mainstream, what is underground, what is traditional, and what is seen as progressive in any given culture, and how that differs from others. I can go on deep rabbit holes such as the music culture of NYC in the 1990s, the film culture of Hollywood in the 1970s, or even use the Internet Wayback Machine to view old internet culture. These deep dives put me in a very specific time and place, and every era has a certain energy to it. We're in a very special time where we can explore all these cultures with just the click of the mouse. I don't think many people realize how powerful the internet truly is, used productively. Being as passionate as I am about this, I wanted to make some comments on the recent blog post: "The Big Picture of Global Politics" Globalism is a positive thing in many ways, but it isn't without its sacrifices, namely the homogenization of culture. Appealing to all audiences ends up appealing to no one. This is why if you ask people what the most powerful experience they had with art or culture was, it probably wasn't the #1 single or the highest grossing film or a New York Times Bestseller or a tourist attraction (although it sometimes could be). It was more likely a song from a niche subgenre that not many know about but they strongly resonated with, a strange film they found browsing by accident, an old book that their Grandmother had on her dusty bookshelf, or a vacation to small village in France with its own little quirks. Homogenized art lacks a strong creative voice. If you study all the greatest creative movements across all mediums, you'll find that they were all very insular, in the sense that it was a small group that influenced each other and did something really unique and special. Globalism has no culture. It has no context or history. Preserving American culture is important, not because it defines any one person's identity or we should cling to it, but because we should inherently strive to protect the purity of individual perspectives. We have to be able to have these cultures in place, and be able to use them to unify us, but at the same time I think keeping cultures pure is a positive thing as well. In the best case scenario, cultures can co-mingle and create new cultures. But this is of course considering that corporate interests don't get involved. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that anyone, regardless of their ethnicity, gender or background, should be able to participate in any culture they wish. All that's required is that they keep the mindset of that culture intact. Because at its core, outside of time, place and context, culture is an energy. It's a mindset. It's something very specific yet extremely powerful. And it's best left alone, so it can allow itself to flourish. Pop/global culture is good, but it's only one culture, and I hope that one day it is not the only one...
  8. @TheAvatarState That's definitely a Top 10 video for me. Trouble is, at least for right now, there's no way he'd ever sit through a 3 hour video on spirituality. Anything equally as good, but shorter? I don't want to push anything on him, so I likely only have one shot, one video to make an impression. I'm starting to think that I might be better served talking to him myself and working through some paradigms first before sharing anything. If there's anything I've learned from these videos, it's that people's minds can only change through their own insight and personal experience. I've got enough work to do on myself, I shouldn't spend too much time trying to persuade just yet (although there's nothing wrong with sharing information to those who are open).
  9. @d0ornokey Good point. What I may do is throw in a few of these questions or ideas in more casual conversation, or start from a more Stage Green standpoint, (now that you mention it, that video is definitely too Yellow). There just isn't an easy way to share this content, even though it's the content I would honestly like to share most. I haven't shared it with anyone I know outside of one person, who I was very confident would be open to it from the start and he ended up gaining a lot from the book list and concepts here.
  10. One of my best friends is very biased against philosophical, spiritual and metaphysical topics. He believes those topics are completely subjective, and not worth exploring to him compared to "objective science". I'd like to share with him, but I'm looking for a good place to start. I was thinking of this one: Any other good introduction videos?
  11. You should have many types of friends around. I have a few friends for just going out and having fun, others for making music, others for nerding out (games, movies, anime, etc.) others for having deep conversations and self development. Sometimes they overlap, but they don't always have to! Don't try and find them, perhaps if you introduce the topics to the friends you have now in the right way a spark could ignite. Love your friends for who they are.
  12. Ellie Katz said "The world is your playground. Why aren't you playing?" Your life is your own personal storybook you're writing in real time. It's an infinite adventure. Write the story you want to write most, the one you're most proud of, the one that will make you happiest. We're all on Earth for a limited time. So why not have fun? Why not try new things? Why not play?
  13. @Enlightenment Wouldn't that turn the meditation into a concentration practice? Or are you referring more to meditation with labeling?
  14. @Jordan94 Dullness? In the context of meditation and spirituality I've never heard that term being used. It seems to be counter-intuitive, since I always thought that maintaining an empty mind during spiritual practices was a goal that Leo pointed to in his videos, especially the earlier ones (not trying to stop thoughts, but discarding them). The article you linked to suggests that I become temporarily more neurotic to counteract this? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how that will help. Tell me more about this "dullness". Edit: I've never maintained a meditation habit for an extended period of time. Not that I don't want to, but I haven't yet.
  15. I do have OCD, and throughout the day, if I get into one my little "cycles", then thoughts may have trouble leaving my mind. Yet strangely, meditation gives me no real struggle. I can easily sit and just relax my mind. There is no clearing my mind. I might be the minority, but I can easily sit for an hour in an empty room and quiet my mind. I may look at the clock a few times, and sure, any more than an hour and it may become a challenge. But there's no monkey mind as far as I can see. If I try to focus like it's taught in certain meditation methods, it makes me over-focus because I already feel focused, yet relaxed, Thoughts may arise in my mind, but I can choose to entertain or to not entertain them at will. The worst that can happen for me during meditation is falling asleep! At the same time though, I feel no real need to make it a daily habit to sit down and meditate. When I do it's nice, but I don't get very much from it outside of some extra relaxation. I've had more spiritual experiences through astral projection or lucid dreams on a real-life level of vividness. Those experiences take me somewhere beyond myself, but meditation does nothing of the sort for me. One theory I have is that I'm not meditating correctly, there's something I'm doing that's keeping it from being what its supposed to be. Edit: I'd like to add that my favorite meditation sessions have been done in extremely large rooms, out in nature, looking at the trees around me, or looking out the window of a tall building from the 8th floor at the city below. Those have given me more enjoyment than sitting in a normal room, but it had nothing to do with the meditation itself, it had more to do with me enjoying the environment. Sessions in an environment I enjoy I could even see myself doing for 90 minutes. But even these experiences feel shallow to me. It feels like I'm sitting there doing nothing! And I know that's what it's supposed to be, but its an hour of "This feels nice." without any real lasting draw for me to return.