aurum

Indeed.

Saying "everything revolves around you" is a meta-perspective. You imagine that some things revolve around your personal character and others don't. But it all serves a function for you either way. This is your game.

That would be sayin incorrectly.

Actually he is correct. From the highest perspective, this is ultimately all about You.

They can choose something else, but that just means they are self-deceived. God is irrelevant to your beliefs.

The highest achievement must inevitably be God. What other answer could possibly be higher?

That's not a clean distinction. You're terrified of being crazy.

Same thing. The point is, you're not ready to understand God. So of course no one teaches it.

No one teaches solipsism cause it's way too heavy. You ain't ready for solipsism.

There's little information here other than that you talk on the phone and she has been nice to you in the past. I'd say don't waste your time speculating. Ask her out and you'll know.

Mamdani is not Yellow. He's pretty solid Green.

Humanity never evolved beyond "might makes right".

No, because self-deception still exists.

That literally IS survival. You misunderstand what survival is. It's also love. Love and survival are not separate.

Posture and breath work is fine. It's just not awakening. The vast majority of things are not awakening. Tying my shoes is not awakening.

Either way, survival is still deeper in the stack. Survival is about way more than your body. No there isn't. Sexuality is a dream.

No. Awakening is not any physical feat of the body.

Survival is deeper in the stack than power or sex.

Full body awareness is NOT awakening. That's spirituality put into a materialist box.

That’s irrelevant.

I expect that as consciousness evolves and society develops, we will see externalities become less economically adaptive. This is a law of consciousness. As identity expands and intelligence increases, the bias and double standards of the mind become less tenable. Currency and business structure will likely evolve. We will likely develop global institutions that help coordinate global economic activity. That said, survival will still continue. Which means competition, scarcity, zero-sum dynamics, power, leverage, unique advantage, positioning, innovation, etc. Anything that doesn't bend to survival will still die out. Beyond that, I don't feel confident in making too many particular predictions. It's possible we could see things like decaying currency, universal basic income, a movement away from debt-based economics, doughnut economics and the rise of B-corps. But I don't know at this point. The economy is an organically evolving entity and no one can consistently predict it. We simply adapt to survival incentives.

I appreciate the long-view. The question is still two-fold: 1) Whether NDEs would actually be competitive in an environment where extraction is less adaptive. 2) Whether passive shareholders are inherently maladaptive extraction I would argue that NDEs would mostly not be competitive in serious sectors, even 300 years from now. Because the reality is that shareholders = power. This is true even if there is an extractive element as well.

Passive stretching is conformist nonsense. At best, it gives you some temporary relief.

I will soon be launching another personal development product. This is the first time I've done so in years. I'm very excited about it. I deliberately did not create any paid products for a long time because they did not meet my standards. Finally, I have something that feels ready. It's my best work by far. It feels like the culmination of years and years of work for me. Maybe a handful of people on the planet are in a position to produce this besides myself.

You cannot compare VC investing to mortgages. They have different terms because they operate differently, with different goals and incentives. If startups wanted a bank loan, i.e a mortgage, they could get one. But notice they often don't. They specifically seek VC funding, because VC funding is superior for their goals. VC exists precisely because what you are describing doesn't work for innovative firms. Risk IS functionally infinite for a business because survival never ends. It doesn't matter how big you are, you are always at risk of losing it all. There is no time when you are in the clear. There are always competitors, changing markets, recessions, regulatory changes, lawsuits, loss of employees, etc. If they're so competitively advantageous, then where are they? Why isn't Amazon an NDE? That's fine, but that's not going to get you innovative firms that rise to prominence. You need high-risk investing. End of story.