zurew

@Danioover9000 I don't even think people have a problem with the length,but more with the lack of structure and with the really long sentences. Sometimes one sentence looks like that it will never end. Imagine, if i wanted to tell you a story which has 500 words in it, but i would only use 2 sentence. Its obvious that he is an intelligent guy, who can share a lof of valuable insights, so if he can work on this, that will be awesome.

@Danioover9000 thats true, however, i think nothing wrong with suggesting to use a more digestable form of writing. its much easier to make sense of, and also to reply to.

I'm triple vaxxed with pfizer. I didn't have any side effects. You can write out all of your fears about vaccine or why you have your resistance towards it. The first most common fear is often about long term side effects. As far as i know, if you get covid you can have certain kind of long term side effects too, and the chance that you are going to get the covid at one point in the future, i think it is still very high. The second thing is that not all people need it. Now, here you can find some nuance, because before it was pushed much more than it is now (before the omicron), because it had worse side effects than it is now. Omicron can spread faster but if i know it correctly,it is not as lethal compare to the past versions. Right know it could be argued how much it worth it for you to get yourself vaccinated when the virus side effects are declining, however you don't want to get vaccinated for protection, but now you want to get an opportunity and you don't want to suffer the regulations that comes with not being vaxxed. There is a lot of stat you can find on the internet, that it can show you that vaccinations were powerful and are effective, but it has to be said here,that nothing has 100% effetiveness. You have said in your text, that you think that vaccines aren't and wasn't necessary for covid 19. I don't agree with you, and if you study about it and look at some statistics you can see thats not the case. Vaccination wasn't just about your own health proctection it was about the proctection of ill and elder people and also to slow down the speading of the virus. It was also about preventing to put more burden on hospitals, there were some cases, when doctors had to choose ,to whom they should pass the breathing machine to(there weren't enough breathing machine in that particular hospital). You could read a lot of other cases, where very healthy,strong young people went to the hospital because of covid. But of course you can say that it is all propaganda, and that its not true. But now thats all irrelevant to your case, i just wanted to clear some stuff up. In my opinion, you should write out all your fears and all the cons and pros that you think you will have, if you choose to vaxx yourself. Right now, you have a fear about the future about the long term side effects. Such fear is based on things that are unknown,but that doesn't mean that it will 100% have very bad side effects in the future, but of course we don't know. However, on the other hand, you know exactly what you sacrifice, if you don't get vaccinated. I also have to add here, that regulations might change over time, especially with covid 19 mutating, and with taking into account that more and more people getting vaccinated and getting some kind of immunity against it. So, you could make an argument, that you want to wait and gamble with it and see if the regulations will change over time and the company where you want to go might change its policies as well. So again, overall i think its easy to get vaxxed, but you should contemplate it yourself, what do you really want to sacrifice here, and write out all the possible conseqences, whether you choose to get vaxxed or not.

Make a video about researching. Using different kind of tools, showing how to use google effectively (with for example google dorks) How to use contemplation to make a web of knowledge of a certain kind of thing How to organize that knowledge How to make sense of the researched information

Jim Rutt article about it: https://medium.com/@memetic007/making-liquid-democracy-work-pay-the-delegates-bd813a9cb60a

@Danioover9000 Yeah, well said. We can add, that sometimes our damage what we do, is delayed in time or not even located in our place, so we will continue what we are doing, because it doesn't have direct impact on us, or we don't recognise that it has impact on us, or we don't want to change because we value other things better, or it doesn't matter to us, because it will damage other places, and not our country. Sometimes, when causality is delayed, the delayation makes it much more harder to make sense of certain kind of problems, because even if it had direct immeadite recognisable cause in a complex system, even then it would be hard to solve it, but with the delayation it makes it so much more complicated.

I think with a dynamic, where you can delegate your vote to others, it can be easy to take advantage of , especially if you have a lot of money. Basically you could directly buy votes from other people with only using your money, the most rich would have the most influence over the issues. If its done better, and if there is some way to prevent this, then it might be a good way to address things, but i don't know how it would look like in practice. Such ideas in my opinion should be tested in a smaller case, before it is used in a larger one.

I have posted some stuff about oil before, because it is important to know that oil is one of the best energy sources in the world right now. To go for renewables, it will take a lot of time, and also it will take a tremendous amount of money as well. But you got a point there, that countries have to become more self sufficient, i don't know how big we are speaking here. I don't think there will be a time where individual countries will be able to be 100% self sufficient . For most countries, its not in their best interest right now to do it so, for a number of reasons. One big reason is the economy. Economically speaking there are a lot of stuff for different kind of countries that they are importing on purpose. Just look at the USA, why do you think the USA imported oil from Russia before the war has started? I think its fair to say ,because on an ecomomic level it was incentivised to do so. But its just one example from the many. I think trading and importing and exporting between different continents and countries will never stop. But, if you are talking about more self sufficiency and not about 100%, then i can agree with you, that it might be good and wise to work towards it. It will only happen if economically can be beneficial for countries and companies, until then, we will mostly use cheap non renewable energy sources. No country wants to get behind in the short term(geopolitically and economically speaking) ,to look forward for the enviroment and make changes for that. For example if you make the oil price in your country higher (to prevent more envirmental damage, and to prevent the world to run out totally from oil), then it will change the trading dynamic ,because before more country would import from you because it worthed it, now they will buy from someone else for a cheaper price. Big eviromental changes will only be possible, if global action will take place simultaneously and not delayed, but such actions are not very likely in my opinion. We will see, but i don't think that most countries can afford that move right now. But even without this move, Russia will be more and more damaged in the longterm. It destroyed its whole reputation. Unfortunately, mostly will innocent russian people will suffer the most, especially in the longterm imo.

I don't think most Europian countries will come off of Russian oil or natural gas, because most of those countries would be in trouble, and secondly they would have to get those resources from somewhere else for instance from the USA. If they make that move, it will be more expensive for them and they are not incentivised to do so, economically speaking. I don't think they will make that sacrifice, just to put more pressure on Putin.

there is something called The C-RAM (Counter-Rocket Artillery Mortar), it could be effective against drones

Because, especially facebook and youtube are optimised for time on site (not just those ones). If you have a business model where you want people to stay on your site (because it will make you the most amount of profit), you are incentivised to do so. You can have thousands of smart engineers and psychologists and neurologists insight to make a website/system where everyone is hooked on. Most of the time on these kind of sites, there will be artificial intelligence used as well. Now, you have a certain amount of freewill to fight certain kind of stimulies, but it can only get you so far. When you try to have a fight with an AI you will lose, and the AI just only get better and better. Its so addictive now on so many levels, that most people can't get off of it.

@mandyjw This is a fair critique and at the same time it doesn't. First of all, it could be the case, that he is not open to any crtisism, however in my opinion this is sort of a content vs structure problem here. What i mean is that he won't engage with crtisisms that are attacking the structure (god realisation on epistemic levels) of his teaching, but he will rather engage with crtisism that comes from the same epistemic foundation as him (i assume here). this is not unique to Leo, because if you look around in science you won't see that anyone will engage with a mathematician's critique about for examaple the field of psychology. Because they are different, they have different purpose and they have a different epistemic foundation. You can only make fair statements if you put yourself in the same epistemic foundations, that you want to critisize. Now, you can of course disagree with that, and attack the structure itself, but i don't think that such arguments could be useful for anyone. Everyone have their own biases, why they want to use different kind of epistemic foundations, so at the end of the day, it all can be argued, but what can be really achieved by that. Different people attracted to different foundations, they can feel free to use those roads to reach their own destinations. You could say, that Leo does attack other spiritual teachings on a structural level and he shouldn't do it, now that would be a more fair critique in my opinion, compare to the ones that i have heard so far. Because this would be some kind of a double standard here, that he won't allow others structural critques ,but he does allow it for himself at the same time. I don't really know how does this related to actualized.org being a cult, but feel free to elaborate if you want to. If you don't agree with his statements on pickup, thats okay, but i don't think its bad when someone presents his own thoughts and knowledge about a particular subject. But it does unique, doesnt it? How many enlightened people you see running around?

@PepperBlossoms If we radically change the chemical levels in your brain and body, your perception of 'reality' will radically change as well. Not only just that, but your identity will change automatically as well. Why do you want to be attached to only one state? What you think you know about yourself and the world is only attached to that one state. You can discover yourself from different states and you can do that with the world aswell. Why and on what basis assume that one state is superior to another? The main reason why you think you are a human is because you took this state for granted and think that only this state can provide the right perspective. Even the 'chemical level story in the brain' is attached to this identity and knowledge that you try to ground reality and yourself in. Also what you can't forget, that even if you assume that there is a reality out there outside of you, even within that framework you can only experience your version of reality. You cannot escape your peception. You always distort reality and can only experience your own distortion of it. Name one thing that was outside of your experience. You basically cannot do it, because it will be automatically be in your experience in one way or another. Also i want to add here, about your perception of your own self and about your identity that it is also distorted by you. You don't see yourself in its whole form, because you only experience your distorted, biased version of it. Thats why most spiritual teaching is about ego death, is because if the ego is dead, then the distortion and bias will be gone automatically. If you take up any finite identity, there will always be some distortion and bias. You don't have to agree with that, but just think about it, and contemplate it.

Yes, i agree with that. If someone is not even open to use different kind of epistemology to ground his/her worldview, then the whole discussion is a waste of time. And I agree with Leo on that, his work first need to be deeply studied before anyone tries to critique it.

What's hard here is that, for example in an academic field there are commonly agreed upon standards and you need to get through those first to be able to test you hypothesis and ideas. But in the spiritual field you can't assume any standards so all the critique that you recieve can be dismissed rightfully or not rightfully. So how would a good critique would even look like, i don't know, its very hard and tricky in my opinion. Becuase you can always say, that you haven't got there yet. Or that you can test in on your own. There are a lot of spiritual teachers out there, and it doesn't seem like that there is an agreement everywhere and in every direction. So basically because no one can hold anyone accountable, anyone can claim anything and basically no one can attack anyone's ideas about anything in the spiritual field. And basically anything can be dismissed according to that logic. Basically you can't ground spirituality in anything, because it is the ground itself. I think the main problem lies here.

So according to the definition you use, it seems like actualized.org is a cult. What has to be changed for actualized.org to not be a cult anymore? Please be specific about it, the more specific the critiques are, the better.

I think what he meant, is that they would have the attack of suprise, not the other way around, however you could say now that is wouldn't be much of a suprise if Russia would attack other countries, so arguments could be made on both sides.

i think its time to watch some history videos too

Do you have anything specifically, why their future is not looking very bright? For me right now, the only thing that comes to my mind is maybe because Chinese people become more conscious and won't let the dictatorship to continue forward, however i don't know how much time it will take (I assume it won't happen any time soon).

Yeah, i agree with you, they seem to be ultra focused to be as effective and efficient as they possibly can, and this optimisation seems to work for them especially on an economic level. Of course, there are a lot of tradeoffs from the individual rights and possibilities perspective.

I agree with that.

@Knowledge Hoarder Do you have any ideas about how could China or North Korea become democratic or to what it takes to make them democratic? The reason why i mentioned those two especially, is because those are tightly related politically.

The whole World use so much water it is insane, and we don't value water nearly as much as we should. Here is a Netflix video about our insane water consumption : Here are some stats from the video: To create a bottle of coca-cola we need about 35 liters of water (for ingredients and for the packaging in whole) To create 1 glass of beer we need about 74 liters of water To create a cup of coffee about 130 liters for a T-shirt about 2500 liters To produce 1 kg beef we need 15000 liters of water if we calculate almost everything into it The Water crysis from a google stat: "Unless water use is drastically reduced, severe water shortage will affect the entire planet by 2040. There will be no water by 2040 if we keep doing what we're doing today". The point of this post is not about planting fear in your mind, it is about making you more conscious about this issue. If we were to evaluate really every item's cost you use or what you consume you wouldn't be able to have it. For example, if we were to really put the right price for beef , you would need the price of 15000 liters of water for just only 1kg of beef. In this case were were only evaluating for the water quantity what is needed to produce the beef for you. If we put this lense on we can much more appretiate everything and every item we have. The solution from an individual point of view is that we really need to value basically everything much more, and not waste anything . Be mindful about every action you take or don't take, because overall it would be very costfull for you, to pay the Real price for everything.

@trenton Yeah, we could definitely argue, that paradoxically the more efficient we get thanks to the technology, the more resources we use. Before the industrial revolutions, we only used a very small portion of resources and energy to maintain out lives.But inventing new technology is not neutral and it has a lot of impact on our lives, and we don't know before the invention how its going to affect us, and we are not interested in contemplating before we drop the new tech, that what impact it will have, and what it will cause. The more efficient we get the more resource we use due to a lot of reasons. Firstly, we require more and more resource to build more and more machines, if we replace humans with machines, which we already did in many cases, most of the time to run those machines we use energy sources that need a lot of time to reproduce for example oil. Thanks to the efficiency some workers lose their jobs they need to be applied somwhere else, its immediately changes up the workplace, and the economy. With more efficiency we produced more food, built better security, started bulding up new systems, at one point we started building everyone a lot better and more abundant life, which wasn't required or expected before. Population growth was somewhat connected to the efficiency as well. Nowadays, you could argue thats not the case, but before, when the conditions were so much worse and most people died because of diseases and lack of food and nutrition, the population growth couldn't be as fast as it is now. We can see now, that at one point this dynamic changes up, and after that point it doesn't matter if you have better lifestlye and more abundant life or not, because you don't want to have more kids than before, rather we could argue we want less and less kids now. Just because of the invention of the plow, that invention itself drastically changed our lifes and our view on ourselves and on the world. Before, there were more religions and traditions that admired some animals as gods. But we realised that we could use them to work for us ,so we immediately had to change our view about them because we can't use gods as our slaves. Because we could make more food, population growth started to emerge. Thanks to the more rapid growth of population we had to build better systems to produce enough food, shelter, water, jobs and so on. Because we had to build a new infrasturcture, new jobs were coming up, new problems emerged, new and more developed thinking and mindset had to be taken place. We could go down more deep in this rabbithole, but yes it is very interesting, how just inventing one tech can change up everything even on a fundamental level. I could add here, that now because we could use animals to work for us , now we felt that we are a superiour creature compare to them, because we can make them do what we want. Our expectations and requirements to survive is vastly different compare to the past. Ironically, we need so much more resources to survive in this ages, than what we needed before. So overall one big reason for the growing energy consumption is thanks to the development of new tech, and the better efficiency. I agree with this 100%. We can manipulate some things to achieve some result, but that result won't be sufficient or it doesn't look like that it could be sufficient enough. This shows us how much we should change just the economy system. The biggest problem here is that if only one nation is conscious about this problem, and they change their prices up(to make it harder to accumulate certain resources that are scarce) then they will be in a worse geopolitical position immediately and also it will hit that nation on an economic level as well. This could only work, if every nation would change up their prices simultaneously, but it sounds ridiculous right now just to say that. Yes, it is very complicated and nuanced. The first time i listened to it, most of the stuff went over my head as well. It requires a lot of attention and studying to start to understand and to make sense what is really going on and why. The more you study it, the more you realize, that it doesn't have one big cause, but a lot of different causes that are all interconnected with each other. No, i don't. It seems to me , that it is too much to ask for right now, but i need to study this issue a lot more. Thankfully more and more conscious person is thinking about these global issues. I think we managed to collect a good amount of tactics and ideas to use. Not any of these ideas is really effective, but maybe combining them and using what we can , maybe we can achieve some results. We use what we have and do our best and thats what we can all do. I think even if we are really pessimistic (as we should be, rationally), we need to use what we can if we really want humanity to survive the 21st century.

@somegirl Yeah thats a great point. If we just think about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, then we can immediately realise, that we would be doing the same thing probably too. Maybe the lesson here is that we shouldn't try to require too much from these people who is in a dangerous situation, we should be more empathetic, and not necessarily engage with the emotional responses, rather with their ideas and points.