Loving Radiance

@Eterno Prioritize healing, embodiment, grounding to integrate this. Your nervous system needs rest, safety, care and human love. Put away metaphysics and ego death. Explore frameworks like Internal Family Systems (IFS) or Somatic Experiencing to heal what is exiled/neglected in you. It’s likely that your trip touched deeply buried trauma, especially around identity, abandonment, and worth. Psychedelics are amplifiers - they don’t just show “truth,” they can magnify distortions or inner wounds that haven’t yet found expression. And when combined with high-concept metaphysics, the mind can twist trauma into cosmic narratives of eternal suffering. On Reality not being Love: What if both are true? That Reality contains both terror and love, annihilation and creation, madness and clarity? What if Love is not the absence of suffering, but the potential to hold all of it? I suggest that you use ChatGPT as a tool to reflect on the experience.

This doesn't connect to MAGA depravity & corruption which this thread is for. Please open a new thread or post it in a related thread on the covid vaccine.

@aurum Thank you! How is his project looking to you? "[...] this paper I’m hoping to release soon, outlining the Integral project I keep talking about. In my 17 or so years of activism, largely in the grassroots social movement sphere, combined with ongoing education in system science, particularly aware of where the limits are in the spectrum of traditional activism. This project is what I have concluded is the best chance for long-term advancement, not relying on appeals to power — but building. So I’m going to walk through the opening summation of this paper explaining as I go. “The following presents a comprehensive theoretical and technical blueprint for a federated, post-monetary cooperative economy that replaces market-based exchange, profit-driven production, and hierarchical governance with a cybernetically coordinated, commons-oriented system of labor reciprocity and decentralized design.” Okay, “federated.” This simply means joined together with autonomy maintained in each node. “Post-monetary.” Of course, this is a connection point to the existing system, which is important because this is a transitional system, not just an imposed final stage construct, even though obviously a fully realized non-monetary stage is embedded within. And “cooperative,” of course, is self-evident, but still radical, as it should be understood as an active function, not just some kind of intangible value structure. Just as competition is a regulatory mechanism in the market today, as is cooperation in Integral. As touched upon in a prior episode, the transitional nature of this isn’t just technical but cultural, something that’s rarely addressed in the post-scarcity community. Without the needed value change away from competitive sensibilities, which takes time, it’s hard to expect this type of thing to expand. Economic transformation must include cultural transformation at the same time. This is explicit in the way things get done in this idea, and competition has no technical place whatsoever. It’s not rewarded, there’s no incentive, but that doesn’t mean competition can’t still interfere in other ways, psychologically, as a reverberation of the market system. But I think the more people engage the new system, the more it erodes that old primitive conditioning in the same way, early hunter-gatherer society is used to reject people’s behavior that implied dominance, such as a feeling of superiority or some kind of competitive win. You can read about this work in the writings of Christopher Boehm and Marshall Salins, David Graber as well realizing our variability long before in fact the creation of markets. And it proves that we are not inherently competitive by nature. Once again, these early societies had regulatory processes in their culture, if you will, termed “reverse dominance hierarchy” to shut down people who leaned into such immature, elitist, and destabilizing views. But in the case of integral, once again, regulation is not an issue of group expression, but rather exists in the codified structure. That says ‘the only way this idea will be successful is if everyone is collaborative’ and there’s no other option for the system to organize. And if such conditioning is indeed successful, I think it will also contribute to the reduction of all sorts of other destructive competitive tendencies we see in the world today. As the sickness of competition is certainly not restricted only to the economic sphere, but it is indeed invigorated by it. I mean, you can’t go two feet today without running into somebody with an incredible ego disorder out there, based on insecurity, ultimately, acting competitive. Again, as I talked about with Alfie Kohn in the last podcast, it’s like a public health disaster when it comes to people’s competitive insecurity. As next, it reads, “That replaces market-based exchange, profit-driven production, and hierarchical governance with a cybernetically coordinated, commons-oriented system of labor reciprocity and decentralized design.” “Cybernetically coordinated commons-oriented system of labor reciprocity and decentralized design.” The notion of “cybernetic” means based on built-in feedback structures for control, as integrated as technically possible, and like most things, this will be an ongoing development because there will always be something new to influence such processes, needless to say. But the approach itself is straightforward. Through the open-source process by which these systems come to be, hence the democratic nature of it, the organizational intention is to eliminate the need for third-party intervention or management as much as possible. It’s a difficult subject if people aren’t familiar with this. It needs a lot more elaboration, but this is at the heart of the cybernetic concept, which is about proper self-regulation. In the same way, actually, early political anarchists would crudely theorize an ideal governance system without coercive force, such as police and prisons. So, it’s economic democracy, and it starts with collaborative engineering of the regulating component systems. Now, as far as the notion of a “commons-oriented system of labor reciprocity and decentralized design,” this has different levels of application. Sharing is key, and hence the commons. All design structures are open for contribution guided by sustainability and efficiency parameters, while labor reciprocity exists in a mutual aid structure, as will be talked about next. Next sentence, “Anchored in a time credit mechanism that functions not as a currency, but as a non-transferable reputation-based ledger of contribution. the system enables individuals to access the fruits of collective production across a distributed network of autonomous cooperatives.” So, there is no currency, and the concept of exchange or barter is not coherent here. Now superficially, some may look at labor reciprocity or the existence of time credits, as common to time bank systems historically, as a kind of barter, but that’s simply a familiar lens. While this time credit subsystem is indeed a variation of time banks and mutual credit or aid systems that have existed in the past, the context changes within a federated commons. Rather, it is a record of contribution that incentivizes reciprocity. The value of contribution is not derived from what others are willing to give in return, but how the cooperative or federation values and integrates that work into the whole. Community stewardship, not transactional entitlement. Everyone is contributing to the same positive end, which by nature of thatultimately includes individual ends. Let’s not forget that old, annoying, propagandized idea of having to choose between your own self-interest and social interest. That false duality needs to be exposed and everyone needs to realize that it’s all one interest fully intertwined by nature of existence. It’s an issue of technical fact. It doesn’t matter how well to do, some wealthy person is, as they walk down the street, someone alienated by that inequality may decide to shoot and kill them. If there’s anything epidemiological study has proven, it’s that social stability is directly tied to equity and fairness. A lesson a society unfortunately continues to learn the hard way. Hence, this non-transferable reputation-based ledger of contribution is grounded in the reality that we all contribute to not only our own well-being, but to public well-being, and the system is designed in exactly that way. “Enabling individuals to access the fruits of collective production across a distributed network of autonomous cooperatives.” The cooperatives that will be discussed are the second most important part of the structure. Tangible means of production. Just as the regional nodes of integral operate independently, yet federated, so does the network of cooperatives within a node. In the world today, different kinds of cooperatives already exist. Worker cooperatives, consumer cooperatives, and so on. There’s lots of variations. And what I’m proposing here is you have another variation where notably the only people to access what the cooperative produces are people within the Integral network itself, while collectively that network of co-ops can also be thought about as a single entity with many organs. So you have a co-op commons, a unification. Integration with the reputation-based ledger of contribution to this commons translates labor into reciprocal support for the total network, even though it’s easy to consider variations of circumstance such as more simple peer-to-peer, person-to-person approaches, which work as well. But I think you get the idea. And while the outputs of the cooperatives are reciprocal to labor contribution through this time credit system, it is important to note that if the system works as intended, such credit becomes less required over time. For the system is also designed, as I talked about in the prior podcast, to move forward post-scarcity. And I’m going to talk about this a little bit more so in a moment as well. By which the more efficient Integral becomes doing more with less, the more reciprocal gains exist for the least amount of labor, making things free eventually. Moving on: “Each cooperative, be it in food, housing, manufacturing, or education, operates according to local governance, while remaining interoperable with the broader network through shared protocols, open source design, and efficiency constraints.” So, each cooperative is autonomous, but connected with the rest of the broader network, sharing processes, particularly an open source design system, which is a very important component. This is an open access AI assisted crowd source design CAD type platform that has among other things built in what we could term “efficiency constraints” to ensure design optimization, which includes critically, critically — environmental constraints. Analysis tools for sustainability, which I will talk about more so in a moment. This crowdsource approach is a focal point of how things get created in a technical and truly democratic sense, allowing consensus to be reached coming from the actual source of demand, not a company boardroom or central planning body. And as these designs reach consensus and are culminated, they go into a public repository, building a universal catalog of them with the specifics of how they are to be made and so forth. And, of course, the ability to continue adding to evolve that design at any time, building on itself. And I have to say the power of this concept cannot be overstated in terms of exponential advancement, potential exponential advancement as related to post scarcity. Think about it. The corporate world today operates based on restriction, inhibiting, constantly, the flow of information. This is inherent to the very nature of market economics with little deviation. And if you end that, moving the other direction, without competition, allowing ideas to freely flow, the power of advancement of ideas will be far more rapid and efficient. And that said, more practically, when a design is needed by the community, it is freely available to utilize for the relevant cooperative. In some cases, it might require a new cooperative to be established, depending on the nature of the use. And, of course, this all sounds extremely complex I’m sure, but the trick is to simply start simple and scale as you go. Now one more important aspect of this worth expanding upon is the use of AI feedback subsystems to guide design optimization within the interface. I think of them as filters, and it’s perhaps the most technically complex of the programming, but it’s actually commonly done today in the context of modern IT organization for stability. It’s just a different application. And one thing that’s interesting as the years have gone by, this kind of thinking, you know, researching these ideas about dynamic feedback driven self-diagnosing system filters that guide the design activity…it was just so foreign as an idea with the kind of self regulatory subprograms required. But today, the advancement potential is staring us right in the face in the form of AI, from neural networks to coding. Generative AI language models, especially in the coding space, has raised the technical capacity greatly, and we can build these regulatory models now. And in time, they will start to probably even build themselves, based on the objective goals presented to them. This is the trend, and it’s also the beauty of a true focus on technical efficiency and sustainability, as it’s all really a calculation process. And a given design becomes self-evident as you move toward optimization. The problem really is attenuating the variety properly in the vast complexity of it all, which is what these systems are going to help do. And again, you start simple, but as the system grows, you start to incorporate more and more things, such as feedback from the environment in regard to scarcity levels of raw materials and so on, contributing to that general, universal calculation. I hope that makes sense. The broad goal, of course, is homeostasis for the ecosystem at large and balance between all the general components. Okay, moving on. “labor valuation is dynamically weighted through feedback, reflecting real-time demand, skill specificity, and sustainability priorities.” Okay, coming back to the issue of labor. In the world today, there are different kinds of mutual credit and aid systems from traditional time banks which technically and philosophically embrace a one hour equals one hour framework, regardless of the type of work, to more complex variation, such as LETS that functions more like a barter structure with exchange negotiation occurring between parties like in markets, meaning how many credit units are required for a given good or service. People negotiate. And neither of these ideas are appropriate for what we need. We need more flexibility than a time bank, but we don’t want any characteristics of monetary exchange, such as competitive, subjective negotiation or the time credit being transferable outside of the system and so forth. And again, it is also important, this is all framed correctly. Integral credits, if you want to call them, that are not spent. They represent reciprocal contribution to the commons, gaining benefits of the entire network as a universal collaboration. In the early stages, I think a one-to-one, hour-to-hour basis is workable as in a traditional time bank, given the very minimal nature of what’s being done, but as things expand and more complexity is introduced, the building of a weighted system of collaboration, where different tasks have different values, depending on various factors, dynamically adjust based on feedback in a self-regulatory manner. This I think is a good strategy and quite feasible and practical. Notice this isn’t about trade competition and exploitation. There is no surplus value in this system. Rewards for labor do not increase individual advantage or wealth in the market sense, but rather balance complexity that is realized across the network itself. For example: Changing labor demand. Imagine in a community or node, there is a needed demand for some specific type of service. It’s scarce for some reason. Well, in a price-based market, through a sloppy, nonlinear and highly delayed process, increased labor demand often equates to a higher financial award for that labor, supply and demand. This type of weight is automatic and dynamic in the Integral system based on feedback from direct engagement. Hence, a method to dynamically change the time-value credit of different forms of labor based on what the totality of the system is doing. Human action and needs. That’s a big subject, of course, and will be explained more so in the paper. But let’s move on. “Meanwhile, interface mechanisms serve as transitional, legal, and economic buffers, enabling the acquisition of resources from the existing market system without allowing market logic to re-enter the internal network.” Okay. Interface mechanisms. So we understand the Integral cooperative. A community wants to create, say, a vertical farm, participants start with crowdsource design reaching consensus. Then the challenge is to figure out how to bring it to physical reality. The most intuitive route, if physical resources are not adequately available in the network, is to simply crowd fund from the emerging node community, emerging in the sense that they’re all stuck in the market system to some degree. And once raised, land and production resources can be acquired from the external market. But other ideas can be employed as well, such as grant seeking. Or in rare cases, perhaps a public interface cooperative that fund raises to the external, but only for that one-time thing. You know what I mean? Just a short-term purpose of raising funds in the event one of the co-ops of a given node has something to offer the broader community. But beyond that, everything stays internal. Many variations can be considered, but they all lead to the same goal, simply getting the required fiat money needed to acquire things a node it can’t do without to persevere. And once that money is used to gain needed materials, acquired tools, resources, and land get absorbed into the general community trust, a transformation. For example, the creation of a shared tool repository, which all co-ops have access to and so forth, you know, tool libraries. Let’s continue. Next: ”A distributed technical backbone built on holochain supports modular applications for tracking labor, cooperative design governance and sustainability screening, enabling both transparency and scalability.” Now this could change as the decentralized IT space moves very quickly these days. But as of now, Holochain appears to be the best solution. Holochain is a peer-to-peer application network that’s scalable, secure, and decentralized without relying on central servers or global consensus, as is the case with blockchains that enforce a single ledger through often energy-intensive consensus mechanisms. Holochain gives each user their own tamper-proof record or source chain while data is coordinated through a distributed hash table and validated. In other words, it’s an agent-centric approach that’s scalable and appears more efficient and adaptable. As of now, there’s a beta version at 0.2.6 with lots of developer tools. And I’m sure there are plenty of opinions by folks out there that embrace these peer-to-peer type development communities, and I’m certainly open to opinions. There might be something far better out there on the horizon than I’m simply not aware of yet I am a generalist but I do my best. But at this stage it’s the principle that matters. And naturally in the initial stages there’s nothing wrong with a traditional centralized network for program websites. But over time for lots of obvious reasons such as security, transparency and information integrity — it all needs to move to a more advanced decentralized infrastructure. Next, moving on. “This document also addresses key transitional challenges, legal compliance, hybrid business integration, education, and the construction of a parallel political movement to protect and normalize post-monetary infrastructure.” Okay, let’s start with Education. Now you might ask, what does education have to do with any of this, really? Well, if feedback can inform things like values for labor reciprocity, hence labor demand, so it can with skill demand, which precedes labor. Naturally, the first stage of any kind of labor skill development starts with education. This is likely a more distant ambition of the system, but it’s worth the thought exercise here at the moment, where a larger order awareness of societal needs is fostered by network feedback, incentivizing youth to learn skills that are more useful to the Integral ecosystem and hence general social good. You know, we never think of education in a truly comprehensive way in modern society, though it is inherent that one goal of any educational system is, of course, to produce social contributors through skill specialization and so forth. The problem, of course, is today the driver of interest tends to be money, not contribution or even personal interest, and hence the whole thing is skewed at the root. It’s not difficult to imagine an Integral cooperative established for public education based around the same time credit system, but instead incentivizing students to seek advanced education for the needs of the society — and using time credits to incentivize them. Put another way, deficiency found in the system where something needs to get done, but there’s a lack of labor to do it: the system feeds back and establishes credits to be granted to those in reciprocation to help education toward that goal. And again, this is a more advanced idea, but it’s worth thinking about, especially by comparison to everything in the modern day where advanced education is one of the greatest financial burdens out there at least in the United States. Where in reality, so to speak, people should be rewarded to go to school directly, not punished. It’s one of the more catastrophic failures of the modern world. Okay, and next, we have “hybrid business integration.” This is another more advanced stage concept. So we’ve already discussed the ground up development of cooperatives, allowing, for example, a 3D printing house co-op to take designs from the open access design system and convert them into tools or furniture, etc. I hope this part of the network is clear. It’s very straightforward. Now what about existing establishments, money-based restaurants or local shops? Well one idea is to establish ways to interface with such willing capitalist institutions, in the interest to pull them in incentivizing them to morph their structure in favor of integral. The leverage point is to have partial payment for labor or partial sales for customers to use the Integral time credits, along with other merger points such as a co-op, maybe providing some material support to the business once again. As stated before, the goal of the co-ops is to be 100% off the grid from the market, to whatever degree, and I know this may seem like a contradiction. However, this interfacing is strategic, and it’s about absorption; about getting that older market establishment to morph into integral, which is advantageous in a few ways, needless to say. As I said in the last podcast, it is the transitional factors that will determine the outcome more than any idealized model goal. When we view the world today, we see all these commercial institutions. Instead of seeing them as something to override or replace, we try to see them as becoming repurposed. And part of Integral is to carve a path to do that. And this hybrid idea, which may sound far-fetched, is not unheard of. In Sardinia, there is a complementary currency called the Sardex, which was started in the early 2000s as a kind of closed network exchange method, encouraging more local activity. Existing businesses and consumers would use the Sardex in parallel to normal currency. Nothing radical about it, but it did create a kind of hybrid system that emphasizes the local community, which is exactly what Integral does. The same incentive exists for Integral, which I think existing businesses will embrace. This hybrid potential, I think, is very strong, once sustainability aspects of the system are more understood by the public. Most people today you’ll find shrug their shoulders when it comes to how to be actively sustainable in their lives, beyond throwing things into a recycling bin. Integral gives them a system level solution, at least in part. I think it will be an attractive aspect once understood once again. In the same way people go to package free shops or whatever kind of so-called conscious consumption many fashionably pursue. So many people out there want to find a deeper way to be more sustainable in their daily lives. And while it may take time for integral to really establish itself in a notable way, the principles will be very attractive to a lot of people in the sustainability movements out there. So much so that I would even anticipate major existing environmentalist organizations like Greenpeace to rapidly support it. There’s really no other option out there. It is time people realize that they cannot affect the world with contrary individual actions alone, such as buying products from seemingly moral sources and processes. There is no such thing in the market system. And finally, at the end of that sentence, it says: “And the construction of a parallel political movement to protect and normalize post-monetary infrastructure.” This isn’t about acquiescing to the toxic political system, but understanding the need to influence public opinion and in effect lobby for this social transition protecting what is being done. I will add that even if part of society moved into this kind of system, it would still be proportionally helpful in increasing public health and environmental sustainability. And as these communities form, so does political identity. This identity is ideally global. Political parties could be established regionally in the name of Integral showing solidarity even if they have no perceived significant impact on elections occurring. It is the presence that is important. In the same way, third-party candidates can change the tone or focus of mainstream outcomes, even though they are never elected or they are marginalized or perceived to have no effect. Hope that makes sense. This kind of political cloud is going to be important to preserve this system as it expands, essentially justifying it and getting the public to support its sustainability protocols, which is its biggest strength. Okay: “In rejecting both capitalism and state socialism, the model synthesizes principles from systems theory, commons governance, and open-source collaboration to propose a third economic form, one that is non-exploitative, self-organizing, and materially sufficient.” This summation is to simply emphasize the historical and conceptual differences in this decentralized, fundamentally horizontal approach. A system rooted in an active democratic process that doesn’t merely vote on some particular thing in society, but rather through integrative participation that gets to the heart of cybernetic feedback once again. It works on different levels, including collaboratively designing the very self-regulatory mechanisms that govern the society itself: the infrastructure underneath the systems, if you will. Such is completely different from everything major world powers have done thus far, and very much outside of the awareness of the average person, still locked into a capitalism versus socialism false duality. The only semi-workable example I can think of that attempted something like this was Stafford Beer’s Project Cybersyn in Chile. And I will add that while Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model not talked about explicitly in the description of this paper as of yet, it is implicit because the logic behind that thinking is very effective. And finally,: “Emphasizing recursive organization, participatory democracy, and ecological accountability, this document offers a path beyond market scarcity and bureaucratic centrism toward a post-capitalist civilization grounded in cooperation, sustainability, and cybernetic coordination.” And I think I’ve covered most of this. “Recursive” nature allows for coherence and scaling. “Participatory democracy” is rooted in the process of engagement itself, not exactly voting, even though, in, say, the realm of a co-op, management may still use older consensus processes, as we see with board members of a nonprofit today. And the notion of “moving past market scarcity” is again important because, As I talked about in the prior podcast, the system doesn’t exploit scarcity and is rooted in technical efficiency, not market efficiency. And this means the system will naturally gravitate toward post-scarcity, constantly doing more with less, if it is allowed to. And over time, what will happen with the cooperatives is access to the fruits of the network will increasingly require less labor and hence ultimately become free over time."

@aurum

Listening to Peter Joseph's podcast Revolution Now! I am getting increasingly conscious of the corruption in the system. I am at awe how the system upholds itself and am thinking very highly of Peter Joseph. I have wondered, how is the perspective he offers in the podcast limited? This question is to those who are very well acquainted with his person. Here are some links: https://m.youtube.com/@RevolutionNowPodcast https://youtu.be/NVDLkL8Nvjw?t=57

Next in line: Authoritarian takeover of universities after the play book of Project 2025. https://x.com/EDSecMcMahon/status/1919517481313427594 May 5, 2025 Dr. Garber, The Federal Government has a sacred responsibility to be a wise and important steward of American taxpayer dollars. Harvard University, despite amassing a largely tax-free $53.2 billion dollar endowment (larger than the GDP of 100 countries), receives billions of dollars of taxpayer funds each year. Receiving such taxpayer funds is a privilege, not a right. Yet instead of using these funds to advance the education of its students, Harvard is engaging in a systemic pattern of violating federal law. Where do many of these “students” come from, who are they, how do they get into Harvard, or even into our country—and why is there so much HATE? These are questions that must be answered, among many more, but the biggest question of all is, why will Harvard not give straightforward answers to the American public? Harvard University has made a mockery of this country’s higher education system. It has invited foreign students, who engage in violent behavior and show contempt for the United States of America, to its campus. In every way, Harvard has failed to abide by its legal obligations, its ethical and fiduciary duties, its transparency responsibilities, and any semblance of academic rigor. It had scrapped standardized testing requirements and a normalized grading system. This year Harvard was forced to adopt an embarrassing “remedial math” program for undergraduates. Why is it, we ask, that Harvard has to teach some basic math and basic mathematics, when it is supposedly so hard to get into this “acclaimed university”? Who is getting in under such a low standard when others, with fabulous grades and a great understanding of the highest levels of mathematics, are being rejected? Harvard has even been embroiled in humiliating plagiarism scandals, exposed clearly and plainly in the media, with respect to their own University President, who was an embarrassment to our Nation. Much of Harvard’s hateful discrimination was revealed, last year, by the great work of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, and her Committee. As if it were trying to embarrass itself even further, Harvard hired failed Mayors Bill De Blasio and Lori Lightfoot, to serve in positions of “leadership” at their School of Public Health. This is like hiring the captain of the Titanic to teach navigation to future captains of the sea. This incomprehensible failure becomes more understandable after reviewing Harvard’s management. The Harvard Corporation, which is supposed to competently and professionally manage Harvard’s vast academic, financial, and physical resources, is run by strongly left-leaning Obama political appointee Penny Pritzker, a Democrat operative, who is catastrophic and running the institution in a totally chaotic way. Harvard alumnus and highly successful hedge fund manager Bill Ackman noted that, under her leadership, Harvard has become “a political advocacy organization for one party.” Ackman has called for the resignation of Pritzker, concluding that the “[t]he mismanagement here is Penny Pritzker” and noting that any serious corporation would have removed her after a litany of recent failings and the fact that, incredibly, “Harvard is not in a good financial position.” According to Ackman, one of the world’s foremost finance experts, Harvard’s so-called $53 billion endowment is “massively overstated as far as what it’s really worth,” and Harvard has irresponsibly taken out $8 billion in debt. If this is true, it is concerning evidence of Harvard’s disastrous mismanagement, indicating an urgent need for massive reform—not continued taxpayer investment. If Harvard prefers not to change, then Harvard should have no problem using its overflowing endowment to fund its bloated bureaucracy. At its best, a university should fulfill the highest ideals of our Nation, and enlighten the thousands of hopeful students who walk through its magnificent gates. But Harvard has betrayed this ideal. Perhaps most alarmingly, Harvard has failed to abide by the United States Supreme Court’s ruling [against affirmative action] demanding that it end its racial preferencing, and continues to engage in ugly racism in its undergraduate and graduate schools, and even within the Harvard Law Review itself. Our universities should be bastions of merit that reward and celebrate excellence and achievement. They should not be incubators of discrimination that encourage resentment and instill grievance and racism into our wonderful young Americans. The above concerns are only a fraction of the long list of Harvard’s consistent violations of its own legal duties. Given these and other concerning allegations, this letter is to inform you that Harvard should no longer seek GRANTS from the federal government, since none will be provided. Harvard will cease to be a publicly funded institution, and can instead operate as a privately-funded institution, drawing on its colossal endowment and raising money from its large base of wealthy alumni. You have an approximately $53 billion head start, much of which was made possible by the fact that you are living within the walls of, and benefiting from, the prosperity secured by the United States government and its free-market system you teach your students to despise. The Administration had previously been willing to maintain federal funding to Harvard, so long as Harvard committed to complying with long-settled Federal Law, including to protect and promote student welfare and the landmark decision of our Supreme Court against racial preferencing. The proposed common-sense reforms – which the Administration remains committed to – include a return to merit-based admissions and hiring, an end to unlawful programs that promote crude identity stereotypes, disciplinary reform and consistent accountability, including for student groups, cooperation with Law Enforcement, and reporting compliance with the Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal Agencies. The Administration’s priorities have not changed and today’s letter marks the end of new grants for the University. These requests will advance the best interests of Harvard University, so it can reclaim its status as a respected educational institution for the future leaders of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter! Sincerely, Linda E. McMahon Secretary of Education --- Forcing of ideological compliance and reshaping institutional behavior without passing new legislation by cutting federal funding Criticism of existing leadership and advocating for appointment of conservative‑aligned personnel Wants merit‑based admissions, enhanced law‑enforcement cooperation, and “patriotic” educational values --- Wow, this letter reads like a policy wish list. "Either you give in or you die. No discussions. You're already guilty before the trial even starts."

It is the nature of dogmatic stage Green. Which means that Green doesn't need to be demonized for it. It's just limited. Less limited than Orange or Blue.

My decision: I visualize my psyche structure to be healed and anker that state in me. I inhabit that healed state of consciousness throughout when I do the 45 comparisons and reprioritize my values.

High-quality: Broadly educated mind Based on true facts Epistemologically grounded Intellectual responsibility: critical thought, aware of echo chambers and corrupting digital knowledge & discourse landscape, historical awareness Independence and sovereignty of mind Politically unpartisan Systemic understanding of society & economy Working to address root causes World-centric

Here are my notes: General List of psychological, epistemic and meta-features of lower perspectives and higher perspectives (POVs) part 1 is characteristics of pre-rational and rational POV part 2 is list of post-rational POV part 3 is list of trans-rational POV Low POV = being lost in survival mechanisms of the self Contemplate why this structure is the way it is. Check the whys and root causes of these characteristics. Come up with more points and add them to the list. E.g. contemplation: "Demonization is lower because nothing in reality is demonic or evil. It seems only so because it is projected outward and believed 100%. The selfishness in you makes you create evil and separation in the world. It serves your needs because you have a self which needs to survive. High consciousness recognizes that nothing is inherently bad." Notice biases and ideologies that let you side with perspectives Question and validate this list for yourself Make distinctions: Notice the degrees & nuances of low POVs Characteristics of low perspectives starts at 12:00 Lack of basic education, e.g. not knowing other countries, one-sided view of history, fundamentally misunderstanding science Education helps you with making sense of reality and sets standards for what you take as valid and not valid Misinformation, false facts from low quality sources which distort their worldview and don't allow sense making Lack of direct experience, or speaking outside of one's expertise Based on belief and ideology and the need to defend it. It mistakes belief for insight Backward reasoning and rationalization to validate and support the belief, to survive open inquiry is discouraged, self-reflection is seen as a threat Bad/no epistemology and taking knowledge for granted: Are you meta-aware of how epistemology works? Close-mindedness Not caring about truth fundamentally, posturing about having the truth but not being willing to go through the epistemic evaluation of their beliefs, no history of epistemic work, no self-awareness & honesty to admit that Having any other agenda (which serves survival) than truth Low intellectual curiosity: no learning unless for agenda e.g. to disproof opponents and cherry-pick & reinforce your belief Lack of intellectual integrity: Truth serves emotional need or survival need. E.g. neo-nazi investigating race Lack of intellectual responsibility of taking care of the epistemology of your mind and world view, no cleaning up and looking for internal contradictions and wanting to falsify it Absolutism/black-white-thinking and resistance to new, empirical information which broadens it up: rejection, denial, ignorance, dismissal, dodging, rationalization Inability to admit mistakes, needing the POV to be perfect and not unravel inability to change POV in light of new evidence Incapability to consider different POVs being true or working out, being stuck on the same perspective Inability to see partial truth in POVs Overconfidence Low cognitive development and low level of rationality Built on groundless, unquestioned assumptions Prone to fantasy, magical thinking and superstition, being built purely on faith & intuition, intuition is not tested on reality, e.g. Marxism being idealistic and having never worked out Not being able to handle not knowing and building beliefs to avoid not knowing Monopolistic POV: e.g. science is the best truest way to understanding reality, non-duality is the end and there is nothing beyond Lack of nuance, e.g. "All of Christianity is BS.", "Money-hungry Jews run the world." Conformity: taking on an ideology from culture without rigorous epistemic inquiry, e.g. establishment and anti-establishment, blind-faith science or blind-faith anti-science Adoption of, accepting and mimicking pop-culture opinions and trends without critical thinking or personal reflection Low mental autonomy: reliance on external authority, consensus and approval Blabber-mouthing: reactive, reflexive speaking without reflecting first Ethnocentrism, tribalism, extreme in-group-bias, black-and-white thinking, win-lose, survival over truth: Narrow and self-centered ethical frameworks, low scope of consideration, maximizing gain for in-group at expense of out-group (polluting & destroying ecological, economic and epistemic environments), high selfishness Based on social survival and social circle (friends, family, forum, community) Usage of perspective and POV as a tool to get money, fame, sex, approval, love, power, success, influence High degree of emotional attachment to their POV, e.g. emotional reactivity, defensiveness and drama Egocentrism, narcissism, taking criticism personally, personalizing disagreements Aggressive arrogance, moral righteousness, crusading, demonizing Highly opinionated, extremely serious with own opinions Eager to argue, win, debate and own others. Feeling comfort when winning, discomfort when loosing. Based on lower emotions: apathy, fear, hatred, bitterness, nihilism, vindictiveness, xenophobia. Negative, angry and toxic inner world. Stealing and extracting value for survival gain: selfish, self-serving, manipulative, exploitative Authoritarian, coercive and dominating. Seeing oneself as better and more worth Violence, domination, cheating, lying, theft Low empathy Prone to conspiratorial thinking to avoid intellectual responsibility and arduous critical thinking Scapegoating & blaming others Misrepresents and strawmans other perspectives, e.g. a fundamentalist Christian says that Muslims are Satan worshippers, demonic, crazy and unreasonable. Lack of understanding, and mental inflexibility Usage of cheap intellectually dishonest tactics: Gaslighting, whataboutism, bullshitting, name calling, lying, cheating, counterattack, false-equivalancy Uses charisma & showing off to substitute truth & inquiry Usage of double standards, e.g. circularity problem: science is built on proof but is itself built on no proof of the basic axioms and the scientific method ("the scientific method is a method for arriving at truth" isn't proven); having high standards for other tribe and relaxed standards for own tribe denial games, intellectual maneuvers & mental gymnastics biased and unaware of (own) biases conflation of facts and interpretations conflation of own survival with truth, goodness, objectivity reification of human constructs: mistaking the human-made map of reality for reality itself, e.g. religions, sciences, economic systems; construct-unaware anthropocentric bias: overemphasis of human-centric style of explanations, making sense of the world from the survival-based, human POV, e.g. fundamentalist Islam saying that animals are made by God for humans to eat; fundamentalist Christianity saying humans have immortal souls and animals don't ("Made in the image of God" argument) Generalizations w/o regard for context, treating fact as independent of context No fact-checking and thus creating an echo chamber Mistakes cherry-picking information as as fact-checking; confirmation bias Inability to distinguish correlation from causation: two things occurring together means that one thing must cause the other Misattribution of causality due to biases: assigning wrong causes for an effect, e.g. because one is biased against a specific environment, believing an emotional state is due to that environment when in fact it's the own behavior Oversimplifying causality: attributing complex events to singular, simple causes inability to understand complexity, e.g. economy is bad because of party X Misattribution of agency: incorrectly assigning an intentionality & maliciousness to natural events, e.g. blaming the fires on a conspiratorial government which used some tech to cause the fires Overreliance on anecdotal evidence and unreliable methods, e.g. a friend being attacked in a city and then thinking that that city as a whole is dangerous Low intolerance towards ambiguity Low capacity for contradiction and paradox Ontological inflexibility: rigid beliefs about nature of reality and resistance to other worldviews, e.g. a Christian having her POV and refusing other alternative POVs Narrow scope: focusing on limited aspects of reality while ignoring broader contexts, specialization in one domain can't be translated to other domains Think of reality as isolated parts and not interdependent holons, reductive and non-holistic Static, non-evolutionary view of systems & ideas, e.g. fundamentalist Christianity isn't seen as a product of epochs, other religions and cultural zeitgeist but taken as original, pure and untouched Committing narrative fallacies: creating fraud stories, imposing false meaning, missing patterns and inventing self-serving patterns which uphold biases, cherry-picking Projections and reality are not differentiated Resistance to metaphorical thinking and abstraction, taking things literally Lack of existential thinking, thinking from scratch Non-relativistic, demonization of relativity Misuse of relativity and skepticism to defend own worldview Quick dismissal of experts and expertise which don't serve their agenda Information warfare: weaponizing and manipulating information to advance personal & collective survival agenda, engaging in propaganda ("spreading the truth") "Truth cannot be disseminated through belief systems, ideology or propaganda. Truth can only be arrived at through a genuine process of inquiry." Misplaced loyalty and political activism to groups which hurts own self-interest, e.g. voting for a party because of platitudes and them making deals to extract value and hurt you. Politically radicalized and partisan Concerned about optics and winning as opposed to truth Being engaged in proselytizing and evangelizing to "spread the truth" and impose "truth" as a belief system Indoctrination is same as education and facilitation Unconcerned about conflicts of interests because its biasing and corruption on POV is not seen Unsustainable, unscalable (and no trouble with that), short-term thinking Low environmental awareness because of personal agenda Create and live in media echo chambers Lack self-reflection Incapability of handling diversity, because the POV is finite & limited No understanding of non-duality No awareness of developmental stages and developmental psychology and no interest in it Trying to impose needs, values, worldview and agenda onto others because of inner insecurity which needs the external world to give it security (or rather reflect to it it's fantasy of security) Belief that everyone should live by my values and morality there is only one right way to live and to view reality no intellectual responsibility Tend to come from mentally ill, mentally unhinged, mentally disturbed and unstable minds: schizophrenia, bipolar, BPD, multiple personality disorder, autism Characteristics of high-quality perspectives Highly and broadly educated Based on true facts - objective research, fact checking, differentiating correlation & causation, using large studies & meta-studies and using less anecdotal evidence & emotional reasoning Based on direct experience Values epistemology (doing or having done the epistemic work), open-inquiry and self-reflection Leads to intense inner work and precise, context-aware speaking Thinking from scratch; existential thinking A fluid, yet grounded mind is needed to do subtle epistemics Intellectual responsibility Questioning, falsifying and disproving oneself to stand on solid ground Reality checking: testing the lived experience, projections, and perspectives on real life Inner jihad, and non-attached sharing of own worldview Eliminating internal double standards & biases Aware of self-deceptions, mind's tricks, conflicts of interest Undoing and stepping out of echo chambers Recognition & acceptance of diverse values & moralities Open-mindedness, intellectual humility Changing POV when introduced to new information Admitting mistakes Low emotional attachment to POV Flexible worldview, holding opinions loosely Handling not knowing and ambiguity (related to emotional maturity) Truth for truth's sake Truth is not serving a survival/ego agenda or belief system, not attached to ulterior motive, or is not corrupted by fulfilled lacking needs (security, belonging, ...) Intellectual integrity Intellectual curiosity Independent of social survival High cognitive development Cognitive flexibility to deal with partial truths, nuances, complexity (and not generalizations), patterns, different lenses, contradictions, paradoxes, abstraction, different developmental stages of consciousness, diversity Steel Manning Construct-awareness, inclusive and holistic Being trans-rational: integration of rationality, intuition, emotion, mysticism Politically unpartisan and yet involved Long-term thinking & execution Embodied understanding of non-duality Independence of mind, sovereignty Political & communal engagement is unpartisan. Thinking critically to associate with groups of shared values & principles, working on addressing root-causes Acceptance & support: Respect other minds and POV, gives space, helps people to explore and arrive at their conclusions, to not dominate and conquer them Cosmo-centric Selflessness Win-Win & value-creation Acting on behalf of all sovereign beings Environmental awareness, sustainable, regenerative, scalable Emotional maturity Handling not knowing and ambiguity (related to open-mindedness and intellectual humility) High empathy Healthy self-control and delayed gratification Based on high emotions: love, joy, peace Curiosity-driven and connection-driven inquiry Emotional responsibility Emotional detachment to personal & collective survival agenda Embodied understanding of impermanence & evolution of reality

It depends on what kind of person you are. For some it's good to take the questioning voice as a cue to pause and consider all the other variables, and then choose the one you are intuitively drawn to. For others it's vital to not be distracted by the skeptic inside and the only thing needed is to get an impression of the school area, websites and (online) lectures/talks to know what the right one is. Focus on the intuitive feeling of it being the right one.

Thank you. How is it when hearing someone through the phonr or seeing someone on a screen?

Can you hear people's energy from distance, say the energy of my best friend?

Leo. It took a lot of videos where he said that one must do the work themselves or else it's just fantasy and armchair philosophy.

@Daniel Balan He gets the hate from MAGA people because he advocates for green values using his money, like for LGBTQ+ rights, refugee aid, criminal justice reform, democratic movement, humane and rational immigration policies and international cooperation. In general, he is also seen as part of conspiracies because he is a Jewish billionaire philanthropist who influences global politics. Notice the bias in the conspiratorial thinking: the Koch brothers are also billionaires who influence global politics but get no hate cause they stand for conservative values. Soros is seen as satanic for the pre-modern worldview cause the pluralistic values he advocates for are seen as alien and as a thread for identity. As I read under a video essay, "conspiracism is pre-modern thought applied to post-modern politics."