Joshe

Yeah, it does seem like a good thing to contemplate, or at least mentally stimulating. Impartiality is a virtue that one cultivates. The impartial evaluation of evidence is a process aimed at arriving at what is true, but that process itself is not a judgement. Maybe a judgement is a position taken based on the assessment. The position can be one of practicality and/or one of morality, but usually, probably both. We do it all the time. When Leo makes a judgement about something, he's asserting the findings and their implications of all the things he's carefully considered. It can be objective. If it couldn't be, the very word "objective" need not exist. The real gold would be in contemplating how to cultivate impartiality.

Judgements can be neutral and objective. Like those passed down from a court judge.

We can ask “what is it”. What is a thing, then identify as much as we can about the thing, including it’s similarities and differences that distinguish it from another thing. But if we were to put significant resources into making distinctions about every two similar things without discretion, that’d be a good way to squander life. I see some threads that I can tell contemplation is being done for contemplation’s sake, where people just want to play around for fun first, and they’re actually not interested in what is true because that would mean the theorizing would come to an end. Nothing wrong with that, but it is a trap that thinkers should be aware of.

Even lower, all the way down to preschoolers. There are several states now influencing parents to use PragerU. And I think some even use it in public schools IIRC. Looked into it a while back. Sick shit.

Ok, “Grill the fuck out of her” was too strong, but if you think they would have treated her like every other candidate, that’s not the way it would have went down. Theo Von probably would have, but not the others. Hundreds of millions of views, yes, but imagine if it wasn’t the “bro podcast circuit” and instead was the “sister podcast circuit”. Where shitting on Trump and the right was the norm and Kamala fit in like a glove. She could hop right in and start laughing and easily build rapport. Now, do you think it would be wise for Trump to go on those same podcasts? I don’t. The polarization effect would not be worth the relatively few viewers you gain, and the risk isn’t worth the reward, at least not for a personality like Kamala.

From higher consciousness: Assumption: used to substitute fact for the purpose of moving forward Judgement: something you assert as true, often based on subjective values, and also for the purpose of moving forward. Lower levels of consciousness make both of these unconsciously, usually to serve the ego. In higher consciousness, they are tools for ideation, testing, and progress, and they can be discarded upon seeing they are incorrect/inferior. Judgements are the trickier ones to let go of because identity is usually involved. it is an interesting question to ask “am I acting from assumption or judgement?”. But I’m failing to see how this contemplation bears any fruit. I assume you are seeking clarity. And if you are seeking clarity with no goal in mind or no problem to solve, I will judge this endeavor as fruitless, to put it mildly. Lol. Maybe that gets some juices flowing.

It would have gone even worse for Kamala if she did go on those shows. It was smart to refuse IMO. Plus, many of the podcasts are not respectable enough. Presidential candidates going on Aiden Ross’s stream just for votes turns the whole political process into a goddamn circus. Joe Rogan isn’t far from it either. Bill Burr recently gave a good talk about why he wouldn’t bring a candidate on his podcast, and it’s the idea that it turns politics into a circus. So not only was it disadvantageous for Kamala to go on those, she would have been contributing even more to the deterioration of our society. But it’s a double bind because if she turns her nose up to the common vulgarity, she’s seen as a politically correct out of touch bitch snob. And if she did go on, they would have grilled the fuck out of her and just joked around with Trump. Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Young men were clearly targeted. What do you think Trump going on all the bro podcasts was about? Adrien Ross.

Lol. True, but the thing is, it caught like wildfire via brainwashing, which made it okay to wear your foolishness like a badge of honor. Memetic something another.

Context: a dynamic, nested possibility space, shaped by constraints and structured by variables and constants. Its objective aspect is fully defined by these conditions, existing prior to perception or interpretation. Its subjective aspect emerges when perspective interacts with this field, constructing interpretations that are partly defined by the same conditions but also shaped by selective framing and meaning-making. Lol.

It doesn’t matter if the poster actually lives by their own words. If someone drops some bomb ass knowledge, I could care less if they believe it, embody it, or practice it. I take what I find valuable. If the problem is you aren’t sure who’s words to pay more attention to, that is solved by discernment and it should become clear over time. Look for originality, depth of insight/analysis, and track record. Emotional intelligence is a good heuristic. The ones to avoid are those who try to sound smart and mimic those atop the forum hierarchy, who pose as if they’re deep in the work, but they’re mostly here for social validation. These types will waste your time.

Sure it was in your head and not your arm? Lol. People say “I was thinking in my head …”. No shit. Where else would you be thinking. Lol. I actually use the term similarly. Something that is known and confirmed to be true. If I say I know something, it means I’m sure of it.

Makes sense. Thanks! Makes me want to get back into playing poker. I always struggled with the working memory aspect. How much practice do you put in? Have you noticed much improvement in verbal fluency?

What kind of brain training? I like the idea. I tried Lumosity before. It was fun but I quit before I noticed any results. I've been meaning to check out "Brilliant". @aurum What results did you get with dual-n-back?

The "left" you speak of is a small fraction of the left as a whole, and an even smaller fraction of the population. The majority of the left does not want to let anyone and everyone in. That's absurd.

Regarding the girl, it’s probably gonna happen several more times, because that’s just the way it is. You have to not be so eager to give so much love to a person who can easily toss it away. They should earn it and you only give it when they do. When you show them they have you by the balls, they perceive it as weakness, because it is. That’s just the way it is. Let yourself love them slowly, and don’t reveal your full love often. Only do that occasionally. Women don’t want to win love easily. They want to work for it. Once they know they have you 100%, things start to change. Keep them on their toes and wanting you more than you want them. At least until she is fully committed. Maybe take some solace in that every man has to go through this, usually many times. It hurts but you will survive and it will make you stronger.

Why would you place a symbol of such a hateful man right next to symbols of loving saints? Seems like cult idol worship. Normal people don't plaster their living space with political figure merch, and they sure as hell don't put it on a pedestal with saints.

Sorry, didn't mean to derail things. I'm not sure exactly what enlightenment or awakening is, but it's been a question on the table for many years. And I've wondered if it's much more simple than what many here believe. If I go by your definition, which I'm opened to, then yes, it's not as rare as people make out. But I'm not sure that's all there is to it.

But why stop there? Every time someone hits a new perceptual configuration the first move is to call it the absolute. It feels final when you’re in it so you tell yourself "this is the only enlightenment and everything else is illusion." But what’s really happening is you’re just describing a crystallized configuration of perception. You call it the total or the unlimited but that’s just the flavor of the mode you landed in. Someone else hits a different crystallization, like pure void, unity, or whatever, and they’ll swear that’s the one true absolute instead. Enlightenment occurs either via a portal opening all at once or via crystallization of contemplations and training. What you contemplate and what you train determines what your new mode of perception will be. If you contemplate oneness enough, eventually, those contemplations will crystalize and have an impact on the whole of your being. But so will contemplating and training your golf swing. I'm just toying around with this idea btw.

“Enlightenment” is just one perceptual configuration of many. It’s trained into the psyche via what folks round here like to call “this work”. When they reach some new state, they think “this must be related to that “enlightenment” concept I’ve been looking into a lot.” ”And folks say there are degrees to it, so there is potential to intensify whatever this thing I’ve discovered is” The whole time, thinking there is a linear path or a ladder to be climbed towards a single, absolute mode of perception. When in truth, the mind has the ability to open many different portals to many different modes of perception. Standard enlightenment is groupthink and boxes people into a narrow mode of perception. Being able to summon the portals and enter them is meta-enlightenment. Standard enlightenment is just an amalgamation of various positionalities, ideas, practices, and interpretations that eventually crystallize into a new mode of perception. And when perception changes in a big way, they call it enlightenment. This is my new theory. You can actually engineer and inhabit many modes of perception, and enlightenment is just one of them. First, one must identify and contemplate the portal mechanism, as opposed to blindly doing practices hoping for some vague result.

What if he’s passionate about his bobble head toy collection or Star Wars figurines? Sharing passion just opens a channel for mind and emotions to flow - it doesn’t automatically pull her in. It can, but IME, if she engages with your passion, it’s because she’s already interested in you. The passion itself doesn’t seem to pull her in without preexisting attraction or wonder. But you know what does? Telling them a story - with or without words - that says “you can experience interesting and positive emotions with me, in a care-free way, and you don’t have to worry about my negative emotions raining down on you”. In other words, stoicism and fun. The best hook IMO is one where they convince themselves of the product and become receptive and gravitate towards it. Because at that point, she will allow you to take her on a journey. Make the journey exciting, fun, and/or interesting, and that is success with women. If women like the journeys you take them on, then you’re successful with women. If they don’t like them, you’re not successful with women.

You’re still conflating a fringe minority with the majority - the same point you ignored before. Most people on the left aren’t like what you describe, so at least consider what I’m saying for 1 minute.

Insightful video: Stoicism or “emotional compression” is emotional labor, which women expect.

I see. Thank you!