Rasheed

Member
  • Content count

    842
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Rasheed

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    North Carolina
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,226 profile views
  1. Thanks for the answers 👍 One more question: If you had to choose only 5 supplements and 3 nootropics for most energy, overall health and mental clarity—what would you choose?
  2. What are your thoughts on Qualia Supplements? By the way, thank you Nilsi—I did not know about Qualia supplements before, they look quite promising 👍
  3. These are supplements by B. Johnson. They promise to provide all necessary nutrients, minerals and vitamins—in a single capsule/multivitamin. My question is: Is that even possible? Are these capsules legit, or is it a some sort of a scam? https://blueprint.bryanjohnson.com/collections/all-products/products/essentials-capsules https://blueprint.bryanjohnson.com/collections/coming-soon/products/essential-softgels
  4. I agree, having wings is great, important and very useful
  5. Oh, I did not know that, I thought it was just a marketing tactic—I am going to start watching Infields, 100%.
  6. Is watching Infield videos important? Or it is something that’s irrelevant for one’s learning, growth and improvement—something professional dating coaches do in order to increase the price of their courses? Regardless of “yes” or “no”, can you also explain “why” behind your answer as well. Thanks Rasheed
  7. Haha. Again, engaging in emotional projection. To use your own terms, I answered your “pushback” in a manner that you weren’t able to apprehend, due to the failure to distinguish between content and structure. From what I can see, you have trouble with prior distinction. Also, from what I can see you, you have a problem in understanding how Tier 2 deals with Stage Green. I advice you see Leo’s video about structure vs content. Concurrently, I would advice you to read Ken Wilber’s books, the most accessible one is “Brief History of Everything”—that book alone will change your perspective, showing inadequacies of your stance while helping you to apprehend what I have written. Of course, I might be wrong as it is hard to tell what’s best way forward from just few comments. Yet, my intention is to help, not to argue or point fingers in a childish, emotional manner If you don’t want to do any of that and instead remain in closed-mindedness, pointing fingers and engaging in emotional projecting, unable to observe yourself in action, acting unconsciously—you can do so. I wish you good luck Again, thanks for the response.
  8. @Danioover9000 Your answer again proves that you could not understand what I’ve said. I appreciate your point of view but at this point, I think we are wasting time, as you are unable to let go of your perspective in order to entertain a different one, not to mention the emotional projecting onto me, what you, yourself are engaging in. Regardless, thanks for the response 👍
  9. Egalitarianism, the way I am using it in current context, states that “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL”—it doesn’t state that everyone is literally equal in a sense that there’s no physical difference between Shaquille O’Neal and Joe Rogan, illustrating how there are legit differences that must be honored. Concurrently, it is not flat-land notion, or anti-hierarchy notion that forces one into aperspectival madness (to use Wilber’s term). Egilitarianism that boils down to “all men being created equal” thereby, monarchy must be abolished because it is based on a false premise of someone having a higher metaphysical value than another—does NOT lead to flat land, or aperspectival madness, because as Ken Wilber explained, there exist base, extrinsic and intrinsic values. Egalitarianism suggests that everyone has equal base i.e. spiritual and metaphysical value, no matter the differences in extrinsic and intrinsic values, illustrating how it is immune to flat land, heeps, anti-hierarchy and post-modern stupidity.
  10. I don’t think you understood what I’ve wrote, as you have repeated your previous response, still saying that Soviets were atheists—a conclusion that is a result of failing to distinguish between content and structure—as a result prior conclusion fails to apprehend how Soviets were deeply theistic—structurally, only content was different. Thereby, their failure is an argument for why monarchy must be abolished, not vice versa, as Soviet Union is an example of authoritarianism, monarchy and theism run a mock.
  11. The problem with such an answer lies in a failure to distinguish between content and structure. Using the example of the Russian Monarchy and China's traditional rulership is a flawed example. In actuality, what occurred with such a change was only content-wise different—the underlying structure and level of development behind the content change remained the same. The validity of the prior point lies in the appreciation of how, in 1918, Russia was the strongest Christian country ever—the dominance of Rasputin a couple years before that was a clear example of this. Yet, in two days, an entire country somehow became atheist and secular. Such an answer thinks that Soviet Russia and China were secular, atheist, and egalitarian... Yet, nothing can be far off the mark. Soviet China and Russia were deeply, deeply stage Blue religious. Yes, indeed, they were religious—structurally religious. Concurrently, both Soviet Russia and China were monarchies—structural monarchies. In Russia, the dictatorship of the tsar got exchanged with the dictatorship of the Red Tsar: Stalin—the God of Christians got changed with the God of Lenin. The trinity of Christians got changed by the trinity of Soviets: Marx, Stalin, and Lenin, illustrating how Soviet China and Russia were deeply monarchic and religious; therefore, using them as an example of why monarchy must remain and there is no practical reason why monarchy must be abolished is nonsensical to its core. The failures of Soviet Russia and China are failures of monarchy, anti-egilitarianism, and stage-blue religion—not a failure of secularism and humanism because neither Soviet Russia nor China were securalist and humanistic countries—they were deeply monarchic and theistic, honoring the gods of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, allowing their monarchy to dominate. To say nothing of how the Red Tsar materialized in the form of Joseph Stalin is one of the most blatant examples in the entire history of humanity of the tyranny of monarchy that lasted 29 years straight.
  12. What do you mean by both being inherently fictitious? If underscoring the fictitiousness is moralizing that accomplishes nothing, following such logic, it is okay to return to slavery, as being anti-slavery is equally fictitious as being pro-slavery—come on...
  13. That is not possible. Monarchy represents inequality and anti-egalitarianism. Its a lie played upon humanity. A fiction made up by chimps, run by chimps and perpetuated by them.
  14. No practical reason? Beyond practical reason is more fundamental: ethics, which says that all men are created equal Come on, are you seriously saying that emphasizing point of how: ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, therefore monarchies shall not exist, is egalitarianism run a mock? Are you serious?
  15. Sincere question: How can monarchy still exist in 2023? It is hard to get one's mind around the fact that monarchies still exist in 2023. Yes, most of these monarchies are constitutional, i.e., monarchies don't govern countries, yet regardless of this, having a monarchy is still a deeply unconscious and blatant manifestation of underdevelopment. As having a constitutional monarchy is still not okay, it must not be tolerated. How come people in these countries don't come out and protest against it? Is it way too hard to apprehend that, in actuality, everyone has equal spiritual and metaphysical worth—it doesn't matter their ethnicity, gender, social status, wealth, etc.? Monarchy is the epitome of inequality, stupidity, unconsciousness, and underdevelopment because it is fundamentally based on the premise that some people have more metaphysical or spiritual base worth than others. It is literally based on the false belief that some people, i.e., royal monarchs, are special; thereby, they must live in a lap of luxury, getting paid to exist—being entitled to fame, wealth, and luxury. WHAT A HOGWASH! Everyone has equal worth. Done. This is an indubitable point. It won't be unreasonable to conclude that all monarchs and everyone who supports monarchy are literal fools. These are people with immensely undeveloped minds. Their minds are so underdeveloped that they cannot apprehend how monarchy is a made-up bullshit, and if right now we go ahead and take a random beggar on a street and make him or her a king or queen of whatever royal country, we would be equally correct because the specialty of so-called monarchs is complete made-up bullshit. In the end, monarchy is a violation of the fundamental point of how ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. Since all humans are created equal, nobody shall be denoted as a prince or princess. Such bullshit royal schemes are based on a fundamentally wrong premise—a premise that disrespects humanity and its potential for self-actualization. Anyone who states that some people have a higher base worth, i.e., they have more value (more metaphysical or spiritual value) than others is a fool—a moron whose mind is crippled. Shame on every country that has a monarchy and its people! Fools. Shame on anyone who watches these monarchs and follows their bullshit. Such people are equal idiots as these royal families. Total fools. What do you think? How can monarchy still exist in 2023? What's the cause? What is the reason behind monarchies still existing? How can it end? Will there be a time in human history where all types of royalties will be completely abolished and all will realize that all so-called royals are monkeys, fools, idiots, liars, and con artists who are scamming humanity?