Joshe

No leftist understands → okay, that's exaggerated → maybe someone does → but he's some guy in a basement. 😂 Why can't he just be some guy in a living room? lol I get your point though. It would be hard to find them. Probably because they aren't social media clowns. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I could find one in like a day. They're out there man.

"If a man thought that rape was wrong, he would never rape a woman." People violate their own morals all the time.

But not this. You're making wild universal claims about enormous populations with tons of individual variation.

😂 @Leo Gura Thanks for explaining. I agree with you.

I think I understand the concept, but I don't see the mechanism doing what you're suggesting. I'm the type that if I want to, I can scaffold out empathy for anyone. So, say I did that for Hitler and then spent weeks studying him from an empathetic stance. Of course I would see more things from that stance than I otherwise would without it. Is that the mechanism you're talking about?

@Leo Gura I think the key factor is cognitive flexibility after judgement.

I think you run the same psychological operation that moralizers do. Perceived deficiency → judgment → contempt/condemnation → "it's warranted because it's true." Seems to be the same process, yet you're still able to understand things. So I don't get how you think "you can moralize, or you can understand, but not both". You're saying moralizing is the key error preventing leftists from understanding, but it's not. You think that a negative judgement prevents seeing, but your negative judgements don't prevent you from seeing, so negative judgment itself doesn't account for the error. It can, and often does, but there's more to it. The problem is when someone allows their judgments to terminate inquiry. You can 100% moralize and keep the inquiry open, and still deeply understand something. Moralizing does not equal cognitive closure the way you've been claiming. It's just very clearly not the case.

"My negative judgment is justified because my judgment is accurate" is exactly what every moralizer believes, lol.

Just making sure we're on the same page. Elevation, not evaluation. What I'm suggesting is that the lens of self-optimization is largely the problem, not growth itself. Leo's teachings make it very easy for growth to become verticalized with a hierarchy. You're not merely learning, becoming more aware, etc., you're "moving up", past the others. You become "more conscious", "more developed", and the "normies" and "low-conscious" people below you stagnate because they don't give a shit. Isolation and distance from others are somewhat obvious consequences of such a stance. So I think self-optimization is a key pillar propping up the problem here. IMO, Miguel would need to drop the self-optimization frame to to solve this problem. But of course, if he knew the cost, he'd likely reject the solution. Because the solution is to put the self back in its proper place, which is outside of a hierarchy. Of course Miguel would say "this is just the reality - I'm higher consciousness and that's just the truth of the matter", (like you pointed out in the SD thread), but why would one place such a high bar on connection and refuse it if it doesn't happen on their impossible terms? It's not a question of "How do I as a high-conscious person find people that I can connect with?" It's a question of "Why do I refuse to connect with people who are not as high-conscious as me?" Deep connection can obviously be had with "low-conscious normies". As a general rule, if you're looking onto reality and it seems broken, defective, or something about it is fucked up, you're the one that created the mess. What caused the problem? You did. Where did you go wrong? My money is on: growth has been verticalized with a hierarchy, and you need to figure out what that is serving, because something is being served. This is where the gold is. Also, a leading hypothesis: Miguel has tried to connect deeply with many woman and they have rejected his attempts, and instead of seeing those failures to connect as his own lack of tact, he sees them as "the girl is just too low conscious to go there with me". I think this because there was a conversation we had a while ago where he explained he tried to connect deeply with a woman in a way that had a high probability of being perceived as weird/cringy and the girl didn't want anything to do with it. Obviously, we don't have all the data, but this seems plausible to me. I hope I'm not sounding harsh here. I've been through my own challenges relating to the "low conscious normies", lol. Not a fun time.

You’re feeding the problem with a focus on intentional “growth”. Growth optimization is part of the problem here. A runaway self-elevation manifesting conceptual distance. There will be no healthy relation to others until he works out his self-elevation. One simply cannot waltz about seeing everyone as “normies” and “low conscious” while at the same time relating to them in good faith. So two options. Fix that or find someone else in the same niche.

Lol

Yeah, I can see how being like that would definitely change things.

For me, sex is for fun, not sentimentality.

Sounds like you want to fuck ideals or symbols instead of human pussy. Maybe you’re in your head too much during sex.

@LordFall what makes you think your own financial achievement has much bearing on the quality of relationship you’re able to find? In fact, the higher you climb, the less likely you will find a good down to earth girl. Good girls are sparse in high status echelons. Sure, you’ll attract more, but of a certain kind. For example, the waters you’re currently swimming in is littered with shallow women obsessed with their appearance. Honestly, I’d rather date a down to earth Christian girl, and I don’t like Christians. I suppose I dislike overt, idolized egotism far more. Good girls exist at every class level, but the higher you go, the fewer, because money, power, and status corrupt. Also, good relationships mostly require good compatibility more so than self-development. And to your earlier point about how Leo is rejecting relationship as cope. Understand that as you age and develop, the toy loses its shine and the question of maintenance and cost can, for some, increasingly outweigh the fun the toy use to provide. If you gave me my pick of the best 100 girls on the planet, I’d turn them all down simply because I can’t stand that lifestyle. It would be hard to turn down such shiny toys, but I know the life they lead to and I truly feel it’s a waste of my time. Even the best possible relationship does not appeal to me. This isn’t a cope. Also, not everyone feels inadequate without romantic relationships.

Figured I'd make a thread to capture Heritage Foundation stuff. Below is possibly an attempt to get Christian's reinvested in MAGA before the midterms, but also probably part of the Heritage Foundation's plan.

He should run for office.

I bought my car new and paid it off in 5 years with 0% APR. Had it for 5-6 years and it only has 33k miles on it. I wanted something that looked good inside and out and was comfortable, good on gas, and good features. I set out with a plan to buy a Prius but when I sat down down in it, I just didn't like it. Ideally, this car will last me the rest of my life. I think it's only a bad financial decision if you keep trading in and buying new cars. A one-time purchase of a nice, comfortable car with the plan to have it last you 2-3 decades was a good decision for me. I'm still pretty happy with it. The newer models look a bit nicer.

I like the Kia Forte I bought a few years ago.

Check out this AI banger:

What do transitions between stages actually look like? We talk about the stages constantly here but almost never about the transitions. So I'm curious about people's actual experience. Not the theory, the lived version. Pick whichever transition you consider your most significant and describe it. If you've got more than one, pick the biggest. I've put some questions under each one to give it some shape, but answer however you want. I'll share mine below. Red to Blue If you had a phase of impulsiveness, defiance, or chaos and then took on structure, faith, discipline, or a code: what was it? What was life like before, and what made the structure appealing? Was there a person or institution involved? How long did it take to feel settled? Blue to Orange For those who grew up inside religion, tradition, strict family rules, or a tight community and left it, or moved toward ambition, achievement, and self-direction. What were you like as a kid inside it, the one who fit or the one who asked questions? Did your siblings, raised in the same house, go the same way, or are some still in? Was there a trigger, or did it erode? How long did it take? What can you do now that you couldn't then? Orange to Green For those who were driven, career-focused, competitive, and then shifted toward relationships, feeling, community, or social concern. What did the Orange period feel like from inside, and what stopped working? Was there an event, a burnout, a relationship, a book, a retreat, or did it just fade? Did people around you go through the same shift at the same time? What did you gain, and what did you give up? Green to Yellow For those who feel they've made this one. What did Green feel like from inside while you were in it, and what was the first crack? Was there a moment, or was it gradual? What can you do now that you couldn't do at Green, concretely? How would someone else be able to tell the difference from the outside? And how do you experience "seeing all the stages" now: is it something you do, or something you're aware of doing? Anything else If your biggest shift doesn't fit these, describe it anyway. And if you feel like you've never really shifted, that you've been more or less the same person with the same outlook since you were young, I'd like to hear that too. A few things I'm especially interested in across all of these: how long transitions take, what triggers them, whether other people in your life moved at the same time, and what specifically you could do afterward that you couldn't before. Are you able to see clear transitions in your own history, and if so, what did it look like?

Well, I've only got a sample size of 1, so IDK how rare it is, but I'm guessing at least 5% of people can handle this decoupling without a problem.

Of course if judgement shuts down inquiry and understanding, it's a problem. But it's possible to moralize and to then suspend it in favor of understanding. So if you catch someone moralizing and then chalk them up as Green or someone with shallow understanding, that can be a mistake. It's not the best heuristic, because some people have no problem turning off the morality when it's time to think, yet then turn it back on when they're done, lol.

You may be mistaking your preference for emotional detachment as a universal prerequisite for deep understanding. Some cognitive architectures can run moral judgement and deep understanding in parallel without the understanding getting contaminated. There are people who study atrocities and monsters for a living and those people are moralizing the subjects of their study. It's possible to judge Hitler as an all out piece of shit, and to understand his mind through and through, even on a deeper spiritual level where one can empathize with the evil-doer in their exploration/mapping out of the subject, and then when the exploration is done, still hold "Hitler was a piece of shit" in a top slot of their Hitler model.