zurew

Oh man, this Khamzat guy gonna be a champ soon imo.

Thank you for this share!

It will be painful, especially when you start. You need to build up some practice. Start slow, read only a few minutes a day, make it a day to day practice. At the start it will require a lot of attention and energy to drag yourself to do it. But after some days, it will become more and more a routine, and it will go to your subconscious mind, once it is there, it will require less energy to do it. So basically you need to get through the threshold, after that it will be much easier to maintain it. I think there is no easy way to start a new hobby. You need to be aware that it is painful in the start, and you will feel letargic for some days. Think about the goal, that this practice itself, can give you huge benefits, if you can make it a daily routine and everday practice. But make it in a way, where you don't let yourself to get distracted by anything. Even if you start with 5 minutes reading a day ,thats good, just don't get distracted by anything. Train your attention span, thats a key element for any practice.

maybe relationship, i was wondering too .

Fair enough. Thats why i put 'assuming it was targeted at me' in parentheses. And i understand your position and frustration about virtue signalling, because it really is an issue.(it could be said here, that i am doing a meta virtue signalling here lmao)

Well, you don't know if i actually do it or not, or how much i do it on a scale(assuming it was targeted at me). You asked the question i answered it directly. Virtue signalling is only true, if you can provide evidence, that a particular person is not doing what he preaches. But i think your take is fair. But the answer is still the same. You can try your best, to understand various positions and then you can get closer to an objective image. Basically thats all you can do. Just because a lot of people do some virtue signaling on a particular level, that doesn't mean, that you shouldn't try to understand better. If your goal is to understand, you shouldn't be focusing on or bothered by people who don't do it. You do you. And to not dodge your question the answer is yes, most of the time the issues i care about i actively seek every side of the spectrum to understand better. Of course becuase i have an ego, i will still have some biases and holes in my knowledge, and i have to say this, i don't do this with every single issue, because i either don't have time to search for it, or i don't find that particular issue serious enough to get a more objective image about it.

If you want to get as objective image as possible, then you should. So it depends on your goal. The reason why, is because everyone has their own biases and incentives. The more different kind of sources you use, the better ability you can have to shed light on the biases. If you want to understand ,why the attacker attacked, then the answer is yes. You could argue, that i am assuming rationality, and reasonability here. I think its a good practice to assume rational reasons why things happened, or why someone did what they did. Once you contemplated that, and you spent a good amount time with that, if you didn't find any rational argument why they did what they did, then you can start to assume that there is no rational reason, but you can still be wrong there. Also you can deliberately search for good earnest people and sources, that can represent and defend the side, that you want to analyze.

Ask quality questions for yourself: How this book can change my life in a practicle/tangible way? How can i integrate this knowledge into my understanding of the world? (especially big picture understanding) What are the top 5 pieces that are the most important to me? How can i change my daily/weekly routine,actions or thinking so that i can apply the knowledge, that i gathered from this book? Is this book changed any of my core beliefs or assumptions about the world or any particular topic or subject? (if the answer is yes, then contemplate further and write them out) Similar one: Is this book made me question any of my core beliefs or assumptions about the world or any particular topic or subject? ( if the answer is yes, then you should contemplate why) Basically, what you need to do in my opinion, is that you need to spend more time contemplating, integrating, embodying the knowledge.

@vizual It could also be added, that when Putin say something that worries him in the future, his words will hold much more weight. If he says that he has a problem with any other country joining the Nato, that worry will hold much more weight now. Those worries can't be handwaved away anymore. Even if his worries doesn't seem to be true or rational from the West side.

Yes, but this is kind of a practicality issue. Would you answer every question with the line of "just verify it yourself, thats the only way" if i were to ask you a scientific question? I think its fair to ask some questions, to get some feedback, to get more clear about a certain idea or issue. I understand why you wrote that though. It can seem like, that i am lazy to do the experiment myself, but the one of the problem is that i don't even know how to set the experiment up. The other problem is, that maybe my understanding and speculation of this is totally wrong, thats the main reason why i wanted to get some feedback on this. Basically i am wondering, if anyone has an idea about this, or any experience, how it would be possible to manifest anything out of thin air, without firstly becoming/realising Absolute God. Or to become close to that kind of level of manipulation. Its like if you understand physics better, you can delude yourself , that you can manipulate reality better. But thats just one part how to try to get closer to the manipulation answer.

Yes , i understand, that in this particular instance, Russian citizens were targeted, but how can you be sure, that you won't ever be targeted, or that if they can do this with Russians, that they are not doing it with other things as well? This is the power, when you have the most used and one of the most powerful search engines. You are almost incentivised to do certain kind of political things, if you want things to go your way. Information parsing and selecting is super powerful nowadays. Especially in the 21 st century, when less and less people are reading newspapers and more are researching on the internet. I am not suggesting here that Google is all corrupt and stuff. But articles like this should make you more critical about google.

Interesting. It seems like we need to use more than one search engine, to be able to do a broad research about a certain topic, especially if its a political one. There are other search engines besides google. For example Duck Duck Go, Bing, Yandex and so on. here is a list of search engines, if anyone would be interested: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/alternative-search-engines/271409/#close

I kind of agree with this, and at the same time i don't. The Absolute contains Everything, in that Everything, there should be a possibility, where I (as a finite self) can control (or it seems i can control) reality. When you are in a lucid dream, once you realise, that you are making the dream up, you can do in that dream whatever you want to do. You have 100% control over that 'reality', and you can change your own apperance, and skills and possibilities as well. I think there should be a possibility where you as a finite self(don't have to be a human, just much more conscious) can manifest almost anything, because God as an Absolute, contains every possibility, even the possibility, that a finite self have a lot of control over Reality ( or it can delude itself that it has a lot of control over Reality). It seems like, there are imagined patterns ,and we need to be aware of those patterns to be able to delude ourselves, that we can do certain kind of things (or to delude ourselves that we have free will). These patterns seems to be really consistent, especially if we are talking about science. These patterns are important stories for the mind to justify order, and certain kind of happenings. For example the action, when you smoke 5meo DMT , that action itself could be described as a pattern, which is necessary for the mind as a story, to open itself up, and to wake up. From the relative self, even when you are smoking 5 meo DMT, it seems like there is a consistent pattern there, because "you" come back from the trip at some point. It could be argued, that you are there forever, because even time is imagined, but it seems pretty hard to maintain certain levels of consciousnesses.

@Adodd yes, check out here:

Its only bad, if we put in in the right context, the context being: a soceity, where more and more people are depressed and lonely. Such people will try anything to fight suicidal thoughts, lonelyness, depression etc. So, because porn is highly addictive, and easily reachable, it can be a self-dectructive tool for these people. Again, here you can say that it is not exceptional to porn, and yes you are right, however, it is one tool that can make their life worse, due to the fact that it is easy to use it. So this line of argument can be used for any addictive thing, but i don't think that it can be totally dismissed. If we see a soceity, where more people are depressed and suicidal compare to the 'normal' ones, then it can become a thing/tool which is destructive for society due to the fact, that it has negative effect on most people (on suicidal, depressed, negative people). So the argument is that,if we know, that it has negative effects on certain types of people, and society has more of those kinds of people, compared to other types, then it is a destructive tool. Is totally banning is the solution? I don't think so, but in the context,what i mentioned above it is a real problem, and it can be considered as 'bad'. I want to add, that you can't find nearly as much people with a water addiction problem, so i don't think its a good comparison . The question is, that would you be able to get aroused if porn did not exist? Because it seems, not just you but more and more people are depended on porn. If fucking with a simulated girl, which is as good as a real one or even better to have sex with it, (because you can customize how it should look like for your needs, and what actions it needs to do), then i think it can replace real sex. We will see in the near future how this will play out. Yes, i understand. Its a far-fetched thing to say that it is bad for everyone. I think it is a tool, that can be used in various ways, but i don't beleive it is a neutral "technology", its has its own impacts on society and on our thinking just by existing.

So you are saying that it can easily have negative side effects if its used too much.For example, the lack of motivation, exhaustness, feeling depressed, brainfog. The real problem is, that it is highly addictive. Of course there are a lot of things that are addictive. The difference is that porn is super easy to reach out to . If you have something that is highly addictive and easily reachable for everyone, then it could cause some problems. if there is an argument (i don't know really if it is true or not) that porn is as addictive as heroin or closely addictive, then we can fairly say, that it can have or it has huge societal consequences, as any other highly addictive substance or action. It can give you false beliefs about how real sex works or how it should work. You basically don't need to work for to have sex or to ejaculate, because you can access porn without basically any effort.There are more and more people, who can't get aroused, because only porn can make them aroused. Now, this can be questioned whether it is because of porn, or because of something else, but i think its worth to notice it. Why would you strive for dating woman or to work to be able to have sex, if as the time goes, more and more addictive porn is easily accessible for you? Vr porn is getting more and more advanced, not even mentioning deepfake porn. Deepfake porn even in its current form is addictive as hell. Probably that business will be very very big, especially combining with vr. We will be at a point where porn will be much better and more enjoyable than real sex. Will it be bad? I don't know, but i am sure that it will has its on consequences, that we are not contemplating about right now. So i don't want to suggest here, that porn in an of itself is inherently bad. It can be used healthily just as anything else, but to say that it doesn't have different any consequences on society, especially on the new upcoming generations, i think is false. There are people who have problem with porn, i think its worthwile to investigate what are the real underlying factors of that.

I can agree with framing it that way.

Maybe @mmKay's suggestion is the best, you can free up some bandwith, with the move, where you upload the blog videos on youtube, not necessarily on the main channel, you could make another channel for that, or you could use the main one. Or, you can search for another platform, which has more payable prices. Of course i'm aware that this move would require also a lot of work, because you would need to upload all your past videos there.

Its a good and underrated movie.

Do you think that meth is inherently bad/harmful?

It is though. There is something that is either seperate or not, that tries to figure itself out. From this human pov we call it 'changing its own states'. We can say other things but that describes it fair imo. This thing can change itself to be aware of different kind of things. If i use your position, then i can say, that everything that zurew said above is just false, because his relative pov about this problem is coming from the finite self, and not from the infinite self. The infinite self (which is exactly true compared to the finite self) realises its True nature. Everything that a relative self can do or make sense of is either false or just partially true. There is no other, there is no separation , its just Isness. No manipulation, no doing because it assumes a doer, or a manipulator. When you realise that you are absolute, there will be no more questions, because there is no one that could ask those questions. But with all that said, for example if a question pops up that 'is there a reality out there?' . This question assumes a lot in an of itself, but it can be investigated with infinite number of different kind of tools ,and states of consciousness, and then at the end of the day you can say that yours is the right one, and maybe you will be right, but maybe you won't (again here is an assumption that there are others, I think making different kind of foundational assumption can create different kind of paths to explore, without assuming, that there is only one True way). Now, in my opinion, that above is cool and all, but Reality or God can be investigated from infinite different kind of states of consciousness, and not just that, but it can be investigated with different kind of epistemic tools. For me, every tool is just a tool and neither of them holds more speciality compare to the other ones. Of course again it could be said, you just say that only, because you think you are this finite self and that you think there is a seperate investigator. I know the very need to explore God from more perspectives and with different tools can be questioned and could be called problematic in an of itself, but right now, i am (limited ego talking here) holding this position.

Do you think, that what you say is not just a perspective? Because , so far what i have seen about these enlightenment arugments, is that there is so much disagreement between person and person, that it suggest, that there is much more place for not knowing compared to knowing. But again, how do you arrive at the claim, about what I am. You are using the so called infinite consciousness, to derive at the conclusion that I am God. So you put more emphasis on that level of consciousness compared to the other ones. And now you can say, but at that level there is no one to have a perspective, but again, why do you want to make it out to be that it is more objective? The level of consciousness which one use is the gatekeeper here. It basically changes everything.

Yes, but isn't most claims on this forum comes from the place, or from the claim, that the so called infinite levels consciousness pov is the "right", and from that pov we can basically allow ourselves, to make absolute claims, but on the other hand if someone disagrees with a certain position, then it can be dismissed or shut down, because he/she doesnt use the same level of consciousness as a basic foundation, to derive truth from.

Thats fine, if i want to say that those states are more true compare to the other states. However, most arguments are around 'from which state of consciousness can i make sense of reality the best' or 'How could i know, what is True?'. I know its a problematic statement, because it assumes a lot, but because langauge is limited and relative it will always be problematic. We can make every claim relativistic, even the God ones if we want to. If you truly want to be objective, why would you put more emphasis on the God levels of consciousness compare to the other states. If i change my brain chemistry enough with 5 meo dmt, then my ego could be crushed and my perception of reality can change and also my knowledge about my identity as well. But why would you put more value on a certain state compare to the other states. Also, i want to add here, that from that state, there is no one else but me. But again, why would i appretiate that state more to derive the Truth compare to the other ones.