zurew

yap, cannot be limited down to any method or sentence or concept. <--- even this one is incorrect because its finite. <---- and this one and i could go like that to infinity.

haha, i was about to say that.

For me it works even with multiple different kind of accounts. I just make an account which has minimum 18 years of age in it, and works fine, without photo ID. But if you really struggle with it, then yes follow mojsterr's advice and google it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0KWPqUBGUQ click on it, and try to login into your youtube account, that way you should be able to watch it.

You can use the 'ignore user' function. I don't know how it works, because i haven't used it yet, but it could be usefu,l if you feel bad from some user's posts.

Even to be able to say that there is something like non-existence, non-existence to be real it needs to exist. How can non-existence exist? Only within existence. So even the concept of non-existence is within the domain of existence. You simply cannot escape existence.

Yes thats true, however there are things that we collectively agree on that has some value. For example money, money is an illusion that has a value that everyone is agreeing on or in other words we collectively as a market putting emphasis on money. There are also a million different kind of items and services that we as a market collectively creating and putting value on, but in reality thats all an illusion. However, all those things are really useful. In my opinion, you can do everything artfully. For example, if you think you have an important message, it could be important and useful to put that message and use some art to make it more digestible ( for example make a very good and well edited youtube video about it ). So you can do your art without targeting anyone but you can do it targetfully as well. You can say that art should speak for itself, and shouldn't be distorted by doing it for money or for special targets or for a purpose. I sort of agree with this, but i think art shouldn't be pinned down just like that. Art can be useful if you want to do it that way, art can speak for itself if you want to do it that way. For the ego there is always a need to do things for reasons. I write this message for a reason, you wrote your message for yarco for a reason. Even when you say, that you do art for itself, i think even there you could find some underlying reasons why you do it (You enjoy doing art, so that could be a reason for doing it, if you would not enjoy it you probably wouldn't do it). We are highly depended on our meaning making and value judging processes. But from the Absolute perspective you are right. If you have enough money that you don't need to worry about food and shelter, then this is true. However, if we don't satisfy the lower stages of maslow's hierarchy, then you won't be able to do art just for itself, without worrying about doing it for a specific market. So if you need money you can create it in a different way than being an artist, however you could do both at the same time. I agree with you, that money should'nt be the main goal. But if you need to satisfy your needs first, there will be a little distortion in your art work to be able to make your needs met, so after that you can fully focus on what you really want to do.

So here is a thought experiment: In my opinion, it should be possible to manipulate this dream, what i have right now(ego talking) in a more effective way. There should be a fine line between getting to God level/infinite level of conscioiusness and the point where you are identified (as an ego, but an ego who is much more conscious than this one right now) but not God's level yet. If that level of consciousness could be reached and could be maintained, then from that level, the dream manipulation should be more possible . So from this lower self / limited ego perspective, it seems like i can manipulate this dream on a certain level, but because this ego is a really limited level of consciousness, it seems like that i have a very small amount of free will (from the relative perspective). But, if i could reach such a level of consciousness, where i am not aware that i am the Absolute/God, but at the same time, i am on the edge of God consciousness or close to it, i should be able to manipulate this dream better, compared to what i can do right now.(or better to say, it should seem like, that as an illusory separate self i can manipulate my dream better). Because once one reaches God level of consciousness or the Absolute, there is no identity because you are Everything.There could be no other relative manipulation because it already happened, or it is happening.The selfishness spectrum hits 0 there, because it is realised, that there is no finite self which could desire anything.Its not even that it already has everything, but it Is already Everything.The desire for manipulation or the desire for owsnership can only happen from a finite self. Also, illusory manipulation can only happen if there is a separate self (when the ego is not aware, that everything is already God's will).So illusory manipulation can only happen when one is identified as a finite self. What Illusory manipulation means in my vocabulary: a separate self thinks that it has the ability to manipulate, or a separate self thinks that it has free will (not realising, that God is the ultimate puppet master of everything) So even if we ultimately say, that it is a delusion, because as an ego you can't really manipulate anything because it is an illusion, i think it could be a fun experiment to try. Reaching such a level of consciousness where it seems like, that more manipulation is possible. Again, even if it just seems like, that you are doing the manipulation, it does not matter. That seemingness should be enjoyable in an of itself.

Agreed, the term of a 'scientific fact' is misleading, its a fact as long as it isn't disproved. Agreed with this one as well. The current schooling system making the minds more trapped and more dogmatic.

I don't think we should shit on science entirely. We need to recognise the limitations of it, but the good parts of it as well. There is a lot of stuff that is falsifiable, so feel free to find any source that can prove anything otherwise. You make a hypothesis and test it over and over and over again. After a few thousand tries if your hypothesis is still true, then you can say more and more confidently that it might be true. You can always disprove it , but i don't think we should dismiss all of it, because we don't like parts of science. Of course its nowhere near holistic, but that doesn't mean that science can't make good points.2 It would be nice if we could understand the entire swamp, but to be able to understand something you need to test stuff. To know if a frog is affected by bee eating in the swamp you don't necessarily need to understand the entire swamp. You make this hypothesis that 'a frog is affected by bee eating in the swamp'. Now you test it over and over again. If all of the tests says that it seems to be true, then you can say more confidently that it is true, if you still don't think its true or that it wasn't accurately tested, then do some test or find some tests that prove otherwise. There are some cases where you don't even have the time to understand something holisticaly before you make some narrative about it. For example covid19 vaccines. We didn't have the time to sit around to understand human beings more holistically, we had to make some tests and then create a vaccine, and then test that vaccine over and over again. So overall you can make confident points without understanding everything holisticaly. But of course it would be much better if science would become much more holistic. We need to find ways to improve science not just shit on science.

I would try to get more feedback from other psychologists or psychiatrists as well, because sometimes it is a misdiagnosis. After that, if all feedback is pointing towards that i have this x mental illness, then I would try to learn about it deeply, learn about how it works, what are all the best coping mechanisms that i could use, making myself more aware how to handle it. Learn about all the factors that can make it worse or better to make a map for myself how to be able to deal with it. I would contemplate about what advantages can this particular mental illness give me, and what are the bad parts of having this mental illness (in other words what are the things and desires i need to let go of, and what are the things, that are easier thanks to this mental illness).

I think that boundary is not that clear. You have an idea of a you. That idea dies, when you have an ego death, and that idea dies when your 'physical' self dies. Whatever idea you have about your physical nature, that idea dies.

What is the exact difference for you between ego death and physical death? Where can you draw your clear line?

Being a high social status guy will automatically attract a lot of girls, but that not necessarily mean you need the whole baggage of redpill for that. As i have said before, it all depends on what do you want out from your life. How do you want to live your life. Build yourself up in way that can suit you whatever life you want to live. Notice you are generalising again. There are a lot of counter examples for that. Do you think there is no other way to be at the top other than using a redpill ideology for that? Also what do you mean being at the top? Do you mean it money wise or dating wise?

You are searching for justifications from me, to find reasons why to put 5meo Dmt on a pedestal for you to be able to start the process. Any possible reason i could give can all be doubted. There is no need to rationalize all this process, in fact what we want to do is not to rationalise just this one time. Do you think, that further doubting or questioning this process can get you closer, what i am talking about? Its not much about the process, its about how effectively can you get out from your finite self, or how effectively you can destroy your ego for x amount of time. It happens to be, that certain psychedelic substances can do that effectively. Its not about trusting the substance itself, the substance just the road, that takes you somewhere, where you can't go using only logic and your ego. Thats why its often framed like a transcendental experience, because it transcends your finite boundaries. Judging with ego this whole process can absolutely seem delusional , again i get that. However, there is no way around it, you need to get out from you sober state. Again you can't use thinking and linear logic to understand any of this stuff, because those are too limited for the complexity here. Your only frame of reference right now is this limited perspective what you are in right now. From your perspective you are absolutely right to try to judge it as delusional and etc etc. But again, for you to be able to make that judgement you need to trust your linear logic, doubting etc and to take those for granted and place them all higher in the perspective hierarchy . Judging from lower isn't going to help you to take a further step into the direction i am talking about. If you understand this part, that your logic and doubting are finite tools to make sense of the world. You know your ego's limitations, you know that there are pespectives that are more correct or full or holistic compared to other ones, you know that an infinite perspective is the most holistic one. You understand all that stuff, you are just not believing that it could be possible , or you are not trusting a process that can get you there (by not trusting you have to trust doubting). I think those 2 could be your problem right now. All i can repeat now is to experiment ,experiment, experiment. There is nothing more worthwhile to say.

Yeah i understand why you want to "attack" this existential problem this way. But at some point you have to experiment with it, thats the only way to make sure i am not bullshitting. Good luck experimenting, and have a great day!

The experience is not even a good word for it, because that even applies that something having an experience(assuming there is a distinction between you and an experience), but thats not the case, you become an infinite experience(if we want to frame it that way). I would recommend you to think about this from the infinite consciousness pov a little bit. Do you think that just because you can question an experience / realisation with your ego, that automatically means that its not true? At the end of the day we are expecting something that can't be questioned? -> can that also be questioned ? - of course it can, so we end up going nowhere. All these stuff only make sense if you realise it yourself. Further talk won't be productive, because it will be about an ego trying to make sense an infinitely complex thing(You). Judging from the lower will end up being a never ending questioning and doubting and a finite model building. Of course you can say that thats begging the question which is upper/lower, but then again if what i am saying is true, the only rational thing you can do, if you have a direct experience of it. If what I say is true, that means you can't make sense of it well with using your ego and your finite logic. Because you want to make sense of it using a finite structure, you end up seeing a lot of paradoxes and you will be confused forever. The only thing you can do now is that you do a real experiment and see it for yourself. You have to see it for yourself, thats the only way to check if what i am saying is true or false. Remember if you are truly stage yellow, you have to put yourself into the other person's perspective, so you can make sense of it more well. That practically means you have to use something like 5meo DMT to be able to kill your ego instantly and see it for yourself whats being talked about.

Thats a good advice, if you are not sure about the positive side, check the negatives and if you find nothing, then experiment with it.

Thats going to be more than enough for the theory part. After you watched those videos, you can start dating and getting your direct experience . Just start meeting with woman, and talking to woman.

Why wouldn't a man date a woman who has a higher degree compare to him, i seriously don't understand. Again, this is only true for some man. Not everyone should have families this is again a gross generalization, not everyone is suited to have families, not everyone have a goal to have a familiy. The world cannot support to everyone have families. You want to attach a complex problem (people not wanting to have children) to only one trait, the world is much more complex than that. More abundance is somewhat related for people not wanting to have more children or only one children. But then whats the argument, you are going to force society to consume less goods and services or pay them less money or what? Do you understand how economics works? I could list a bunch more stuff because we could get into a lot more other fields that can be related for people not wanting to have more children. And again just because the avaliable man they can date decreases, that does not mean, that they can't find any man. I am saying this again, there are man out there who is more attracted to woman who is higher in social status compared to them. So even those woman who have phd-s can find their man and start a family . Its like you try to suggest that woman who has phd-s don't have or can't have a family, its obviously not true. Also, Woman who has a phd is only a very very very small portion of woman. So this argument that it destroys society doesn't really make any sense to me ,sorry. I don't think man give that much fuck about woman having a degree or not, maybe for some man its a + in the bag if a woman has a degree. But to say that a man won't date a woman because she has a higher degree is ridiculous in my opinion. You have to be super insecure in yourself because you think all your value lies in your degree, so if someone has a 'better' one all your self-confidence and self-esteem goes out the window. You try to connect your values and self-esteem to material things, so you are going end up being super insecure about everything, because if your lose your material stuff you think you are worthless. This again is not true. You are viewing these things very simplisticly as if you could generalise everything and view the world through a lense that you constructed, its much more nuanced, but you will ignore every other part, just to make a simplistic model of reality. There always were feminine man, there always were gay man, and there always were woman who had more masculine traits compared to some man. You gotta update your models about reality, man . You stuck in the 19-20th century. Adaptation is key for self-development. How many woman have you dated so far? How much experience do you have with woman? How much statistics have you gathered on your own to verify the claims of redpill? Bringing up religion is not a very good point, because you are indoctrinated with beliefs that you need to take for granted and you can't question them because you get punished if you do. Where do you draw the exact line between femininity and masculinity? Do you think you only have masculine traits? Do you think there is woman out there who is much more masculine compared to you? Where does femininity and masculinity exactly coming from and what decides how much masculinity and how much feminine traits you are going to have? Again these things doesn't fit your model, and you can't make sense of them you just label them as: 'exceptions to the rule' there are a few million exceptions to the rule then.

This is again a generalization. Not all woman will want to get a phd, just because they can get phd. And then even if they want to get a phd, that does not mean, that they don't want to start a family before they finish their phd-s. There are carrier woman out there, and there are some conservative woman as well. Just because you have a choice to eat everything that does not mean, that you will eat everything that you can, it just means you have more choice. I know there is a study on this, that suggests that if a woman don't have a family after x age then she is much more unhappier compared to other ones. But again we have to be careful how these statistics are structured, because you can use statistics to sell any narrative , if you only focus on certain aspects and ignore the others. Even if that particular statistic is right (about having children = more happiness for woman), Feminism does not cause directly unhappiness to a woman, because again feminism and not having children is not directly related. I have seen it in my own life aswell, when a "bigger" status woman dated a "lower" status guy, and now you can say that is exception to the rule again. There is a very blurry line between man and woman. Why? because you can clearly see in our modern society, that masculinity does not only related to man, and femininity does not directly relates only to woman. You can see more and more masculine woman, and more and more feminine man. Yes i am not denying that redpill has some truth in it. But has some toxicity and generalizations as well. Again, most of the time if you want to create a model and you want to force a narrative you will end up with a lot of 'exceptions to the rule' because your model won't fit reality. Red pill is not reality, redpill is a model to make sense of dynamics in reality, so it will be only partially true.

You are watching too much fresh&fit and redpill. They are generalizing a lot, trying to sell their narrative by ignoring the nuance in these situations, using cherrypicked statistics as if i couldn't bring other statistics that could prove the opposite what they are talking about. There is a lot of difference between woman to woman in values depending on a lot of stuff. f&f only focusing mostly on Miami woman. There is a very specific dynamic and a lot of money hungry woman there, but thats not mean that every woman is that way. You need to look for nuance, because you can get trapped into these ideologies. Anytime anyone shows you an example that not fits your way of thinking you can say that 'that is an exception to the rule' or you could think about making your model more nuanced. What about sugarmommies? Are they dating up or down, i suppose they are dating down, and there are more and more sugarmommas out there. Btw equality between genders not necessarily mean, that all the dynamics between sexes will just suddenly change and that everyone will treat the opposite sex just as they treat their own sex. When woman talk about equality they are mostly talking about rights and opportunities, not that now they won't date up or down. The point of not toxic feminism is to make as many opportunities for woman as for man, and the end of the day to have the same rights. Its a net benefit for society, especially if we are talking about economic growth, if more woman can get educated, and more people (in this case woman) can find their own way in life, the more positions can be occupied. You might not like that change, that more woman can earn a lot of money, because you can't use your money that easily at the dating market, so you need to build yourself up, and show why you are a special compared to the others. I think this dynamic change in the dating market is beneficial, because you really need to put some stuff on the table, and you won't just be able to get woman with your money. This dating stuff is all about understanding yourself ,your values and knowing with what type of person you can go well along with. If you like woman with x values, then you need to work yourself to be adequate for the dynamic that the x type of woman will bring. Its all about adapting to the situation and person. If there is a more feminine guy, who wants to be leaded by a masculine woman because he is that way, you can say that he needs to work on his masculinity or he don't have to strive to be an alpha, and then he will find a woman, who likes him that way, and attracted to him that way. If this particular guy attracted to more to masculine woman and his partner like that she can be the leader, then whats wrong with that? I think we really have to be careful with trying to put everyone in a box, so we can make sense of the world in a more easier and reductionistic way. Its too reductionistic and sometimes there is a lot of nuances that being missed on.

Hmm this is an interesting one, not necessarily agreeing with the cult part, but Leo often says that everyone should focus on his work and not on him. Then he start talking about how he achieved this state and that state and that no one has ever been there yet, except him. So yeah putting himself on a pedestal can distract some of his viewers about his work, ironically.

Not yet, but trying to get there. I am studying Software engineering at my university right now, mostly to get the degree to be able to get jobs easier down the road. I know its not necessarily essential nowadays, but still there are places which requires a certain level of degree,depending on the positions one wants to take. Right now i am really interested in NLP (Natural Language Processing). Its became a hobby of mine to study it in my free time. Its interesting, a lot of cool stuff can be built with it if one understand it well ( I am far from understanding it deeply ). I have to study it a lot more because there is a lot of information and knowledge that can be collected there just as with almost any field. There are some good projects that can be bulilt using machine learning and NLP and some other tools. For example imagine, if you could build an AI that can recognise information and organise that information using a spiral dynamics model. It is a very hard problem and that particular AI should be trained a lot to get more and more accurate, and the other problem is that sometimes i feel like the spiral dynamics model is not too tangible (depending on the context), so it would be very hard to make it tangible for the computer. One good thing with machine learning is that you don't necessarily need to make something super tangible (for example if you make an algorithm you need to put everything in the computer mouth because we know that nothing is trivial to it), however most machine learning models are used this way: This going to be framed very simply, (but of course a lot of nuance here that i don't mention): transform your data in a numerical format organise it feed it to the machine, decide how many neurons you want to use and how many layers, and then here comes one of the hard part: making the output well, making it tangible, so the AI knows exactly what it needs to optimise for. The very cool stuff is that even if you don't know and can't necessarily see the order, if you have a lot of data(lot of input and output data), then the AI depending on how advanced it is, it will be able to recognize an order between the input and the output, and hopefully the more it is trained the better it gets at it (sometimes it produces worse results, depending on optimization functions and stuff). So in theory if i were to collect and organise a lot of data, (websites and information using the spiral dynamics model), then if i were to feed that information to a trained AI it would be able to organise those websites and information and put those into and organised structure like a spiral dynamics model with x level of accuracy.

Good luck with that! Do you want to be a frontend developer or a backend one or a full stack? Do you want to get into that field because of money or you are just interested in it? One skill that is going to be essential down the road is a good googling skill and the ability to being able to read documentation. If you can google for the right questions and if you save some sites that can help you to find answers for your bug problems it can save a lot of time. There is this thing called google-dorking. You can use google dorks to get much more specific results for whatever you want to search. For example: if you use site:actualized.org intext:love ---> google will only give you pages that are on actualized.org and all those sites will have the word love at least once in them. But basically a good rule of thumb is that whatever coding problem you will have down the road the chances are that someone already solved it or encountered with it, is very high. So if you don't have a lot of time to struggle or grapple with a problem, you can search for it. Firstly recognise the problem well and then articulate it in a google search way.(Of course there are some cases, where you need to use google just to recognise what errors or problems you have that is also powerful) One other helpful thing to solve coding problems better, could be using different kind of coding forums and asking your questions there.