Ulax

@Chives99 Nice. Now perhaps think about why guys like to bully each other to get on top.

@Bobby_2021 Maybe I'm making a point based on only a small point you made but nonetheless here it is. I note you write, in essence, that based on the post you see Leo as saying writing as a conservative value. I think the point Leo was making was more something like this. Writing is an example of an activity which at one point was seen as a bad idea by conservatives and a good idea by the progressives of that time period. So, writing was seen as progressive at a certain point in a certain culture. It might have seemed to be clearly the better option to take the progressive option at the time of writing things down. 'What's the harm?' the progressive of that time might think. But writing has caused a lot of bad things to happen in the world. So, a conservative, relative to writing, was correct in foreseeing the dangers of being progressive with communication. Whereas a lot of progressives of the time were blind to the dangers of the progress which they ushered in. Hence, its an example of how more and more progress isn't necessarily to be welcomed with open arms. There can be great dangers to progress, which progressives are blind to. Therefore, conservative fears ought to be given sincere consideration.

@flowboy Thanks

@Ima Freeman Hey, here is my take. In my experience, what you'll find with these sorts of questions is the following. Via google search you'll have some blogs or webpages which seem to speak with certainty about the difference between the two concepts. And sometimes speak with certainty about the different views on what the differences are. You'll get further confused because some of these different blogs/ webpages conflict with each other about what the different views even are. Then if you look deeper you'll find this definitional issue is an entire sub-field of philosophy, which lots of different views. And then in wondering about which of these definitions is true, you get into definitional theories, i.e. what makes one definition more true than another, can one definition be more true than another. I'd recommend browsing around wikipedia imo. And seeing if you can find an area of wikipedia that contains different articles on the meaning of 'ethic', 'morality', and maybe even the 'difference between ethic and morality'. Further, try and find an area of Wikipedia that has articles regarding different theories of 'definitions'. I think understanding different theories of definitions is key because it helps you understand different theories around how you should decide what definition of a concept is better or not, and whether or not that is even possible? Also, its also perhaps worth keeping in mind what your purpose is with regards to defining these terms. Do you want to achieve an 'objective definition' of the terms? Such that you want to just discover what the objective meaning of the terms are. Or perhaps maybe you want to achieve a definition which you intend to use for some practical purpose. Or some other purpose. I think that will help guide where your research goes.

@supremeyingyang Perhaps. i imagine some would just leave the forum though. So, it might just turn into a ban in substance. Though, not to say I wouldn't welcome that approach. Hahaha I would agree with that. I'm just imagining in like 50 years some polite grandpa talking to his grandkids about his wild, reckless, rebellious youth. You know how maybe today the grandpa would show a young picture of them riding a motorcyle or shouting at a protest. But instead in the future its just a set of screenshots of them mouthing off at other users on the actualized.org forum in the 2020s.

@flowboy Thanks mate. I do have a concern about the therapy you recommend. I'm referring to the one where, to my understanding, its about being taken back in time and sort of re-experiencing the traumatic incident, and in doing so, processing it. My concern is that it could highly risk traumatisation rather than actual processing. Do you have any comments on that?

@supremeyingyang I like that idea in some ways. However, then I imagine you would have one forum with really high quality posts, and one side of the forum with much lower quality posts. And i imagine higher consciousness folks would hang out in the higher quality post section, and wouldn't interact so much with lower consciousness users who behave poorely. Meaning the likelihood that poorly behaved lower consciousness users who behave would likely be diminished. And i think that lends itself to seeing the point of the forum as allowing for sophisticated discussions amongst higher consciousness people. I actually prefer that vision of actualized.org, as a more elitist place. Elitist in the sense not of level of consciousness, but in terms of being very exclusionary of people who behave poorly. If I could mod in line with my preference I would be swift to ban poorly behaved members. However, I accept it is not my place to mod in that way, and as such I defer to the way Leo wants me to mod, and in effect defer my vision of the forum to his. That said, I recognise that I had the privilege of being socialised into valuing etiquette and treating others with respect. And that for some that isn't the case, so by being very exclusionary in that manner we would excluding a certain demographic of people from getting value from the forum. However, this would be an exclusion I would nonetheless prefer to have. However, Leo may see that differently. If the forum were to become more exclusionary then I imagine it would mean that some folks who would have otherwise had their lives radically changed would later not. Maybe 9/10 poorly behaved users never change despite their use of the forum. But that would still leave 1/10 who change their ways and grow, and live rich, meaningful lives. Yet, you could also see that poorly behaved users likely dissuade some well behaved users from getting growth from the forum and the actualized.org community. And by not excluding poorly behaved users quickly, many would-be well behaved users miss out on rich, meaningful lives. Hence, i think its important to understand the tough choices involved in making decisions about the forum. And, that any change involves benefit and sacrifice. Though perhaps some are more attractive based on our current values. Make sense to you?

@supremeyingyang I think one's views on the guidelines will depend on what point one see's the forum as having. I.e. An egalitarian humanist might look to be very tolerant of misbehaviour as they see the forum as a place where they value the potential of users very highly, particularly those of lower consciousness, and see a vision for how they can reach their potential via being a part of the forum. A high level spiritual seeker might want to be quick to ban unruly users because they see the forum as a place where sophisticated high consciousness individuals have a place to communicate and exchange ideas.

@Mixcoatl Hey dude, Resonated with your post. I think there might be something about having adverse childhood experience that makes you question the herd mentality a lot more, and see through the traditional narratives. I'd say that has been the case for me. I think I have had very similar experiences to you in regards to intellectual viewpoints. I have studied law at a very prestigious university for quite a few years now. And, I have come to conclusions that are seen as radical by quite a few. Some of my coursemates would just laugh at me, and wouldn't take my viewpoints seriously and just trivialise them. Some professors too. However, I have met some professors and PHD students who see my views as really insightful. But i really struggle to be vocal with my views because its hard for me to have the confidence to keep dealing with people laughing at me for my views. At the moment, I'm working on my inner psyche via things like gestalt therapy to try and get a level of emotional mastery. So, maybe some high consciousness inner work could be helpful. I think also a fact of reality is that 99% of people simply do not think for themselves, including at universities. They simply unconsciously select points of views and become ideologues. And many of these can become prominent academics imo. Maybe you will find some solace in listening to some of Noam Chomsky's videos online about academia too. I agree with Leo when he talks about most people not being interested in truth. ----------- Edit: Also, perhaps you would find value in exploring different theories of music, i.e. via wikipedia. I would imagine there are lots of different theories of music and some scholars will have likely had the same sort of views as you. And if you do find a scholar with similar views then i think that would be reassuring to you, and would perhaps gain you more legitimacy in the eyes of your peers.

@lizz_luna I like the 'Pod save the world' podcast, relative to other channels on youtube. Also, if you really want to step it up, I'd recommend studying some political science, and recent political history. I.e. something like this lecture course:

@Thought Art I don't think that's really the issue here though. If it did amount to abuse, you can't justify abusing people just because it helps some people out. People end up killing themselves because of abuse.

@supremeyingyang I don't understand what point you're intending to make

@StormLight I think one has to be wary of not being a devil themselves when they critique Leo on his communication style. To me, its important to separate when Leo is using that style strategically, and when he is just being prideful. His use of the biting communication style in a strategic manner is gold to me. It enables Leo's content to resonate with a lower consciousness audience, people who's lives are in tatters imo. If Leo was to change to a more lovey dovey style i think that resonance would be lost, and those lower consciousness demographics would be left seeking answers from other people who resonate with them. Which are typically rather unsavoury characters imo, who will often exploit them. So, I think its important to be nuanced in one's critique.

I don't think the posts you highlight OP are so bad I thought the recent one where Leo called someone a rat was completely abhorrent and out of order though. End of the day, imo you need to weigh up for yourself the pros and cons of being a part of the forum. For me there is stuff that has previously occurred on this forum that would have made me leave pretty much any other forum. However, for me, there's also a tonne of value, and on the balance of it, that value keeps me here.

@Tanz Ian Shapiro is one. He has two yale courses on youtube

@Tanz Imo, studying the works and lectures of political scientists will make one magnitudes more informed than these kind of guys.

Could try making a post in r/seduction and seeing whether anyone is in your area

@Rishabh R If you don't like the reaction you get from them towards something you find valuable, perhaps just don't tell them about about that thing you value.

@woohoo123 Hey dude, I welcome your post, and I don't judge you for your state of mind. I would recommend getting into deep inner work. My intuition tells me that your desire for the attractive women is not really a desire for an attractive women. Instead, what you really desire is to feel worthy of something, i.e. love/ respect. And, in your life so far you have unconsciously, and perhaps consciously, concluded that to be worthy of that thing some others must perceive you in a certain way. And, that getting a similarly deemed attractive standard of women you are with is a means of getting others to perceive you in a worthy enough way. If I am right in my interpretation, and you do not do inner psychological work, then you will be controlled by this standard for worthiness you have, at least, unconsciously chosen for yourself. And I imagine even if you get this higher attractiveness partner this standard for worthiness will re-emerge in different ways in your life. So, based on these interpretations of mine, I would recommend doing inner psychological work with an attempt to change your standard of worth to being simply your existence, i.e. you are worthy of love/ respect purely by virtue of existing. Some examples of what you could do are things like inner child work, IFS therapy, humanistic therapy, primal therapy, journaling about your childhood.

@Rigel Yes, I've heard its dramatically effects a user's REM sleep

Same. -------------------------------------------- I think you want to cut out hard addictions, as you reasonably can, like the plague. And I think weed if used as a consistent means of emotional regulations becomes a hard addiction. That said, there are, I'd say, more sensible and less sensible ways of cutting out those addictions, i.e. incorporating shadow work into addiction recovery.

@Holykael From an intellectual perspective, I suppose you could consider replacing 'masochism' with the idea of martyrdom. And then it seems more understandable.

@lapis Where would you place yourself politically? I.e. left or right wing? I'd be interested to hear your views.

@Recursoinominado I don't think it has necessarily failed. Imo, you have to meet people where they are at when it comes to self-dev. If they are selfish rn, then they are selfish rn. Coming to an authentic left wing style politics, i.e. not a left wing politics just chosen out of self interest, is somewhat of an intellectual and emotional achievement. Maybe, if you're willing and familiar with the concept, try out some spiral wizardry in the sub-section.

@Someone here Fairs. I mean this chicka you spoke to may very well be basing her social commentary on personal insecurities. But maybe not. I do find it interesting how things go in and out of fashion.