Jirh

No more theory for you. No more teachings. No more teachers. You must kill the Buddha.

@Sincerity Me too. I hold a similar position to you. Although, I don't think a clarification is necessary. Common sense is enough.

That's different from recording alien transformation. Sign me up! I'm all ears.

He already addressed this issue when he brought up the idea of noise vs. signal. I don't remember when exactly. He said his communications are mostly signals, but they can contain some noise. That particular alien example was clearly noise. Everyone makes mistakes. The question is: Can we let them go?

If what you're saying is true, then enlightenment is the natural state of everyone. But clearly, it's not. It's good that you're learning to be more aware and authentic and truthful and transparent. Most people never and will never have that kind of self-honesty and self-awareness that you have. But still, that doesn't mean you have a clear picture of enlightenment (self-realization). The problem with the idea you're presenting is that it paints enlightenment as a pointless temporary chase that you should just drop and move on. In reality, that idea is like trying to win a race without running the track. You just take one step back before the start/finish line, then one step forward, then you've magically won.

The disagreement is not with Actualized.org's core values. It's precisely for those values, actually.

@AION Most normal people are natural psychos. You just don't know it because they put so much effort into hiding it. That's how they look 'normal'. Conformity is no joke. I like to think that we're all psychos in some way, shape, or form. It's just that some of us know how to hide it better than others.

Sometimes, I wonder if Leo even truly understands what he teaches.

It's alright even if it ends up with sex. You've grown. Maybe she's grown too. It wouldn't hurt to say hi and give it a try to a new fresh start, as if you're meeting a new person entirely. The point isn't to never go back to someone. The point is to never go back to a toxic dynamic. Good luck.

It is absolutely bad. Generally, you should never respond quickly. Instead, you should divide your time into blocks. And only within the dedicated block for social connections you may reply. If it happens that someone messages you in that window, you may reply quickly, no problem. But never outside of that window. You can make that clear that you're only available between x and y hours. You should value your time and attention and treat them as sacred. Otherwise, people won't respect you.

That's all normal. It's called indecisiveness and having second thoughts. You're afraid of making a big decision that might alter your life forever, and your body is reacting out that fear. The tension and anxiety are signals from a conditioned system that is approaching a psychological change that is perceived as huge, which might not be huge at all except in thoughts. Think about it this way: Instead of asking: "Is she the one?", ask yourself: "Is the life we build together the life I want to live everyday?". And I think you know the answer is yes. Because you listed many pros and not even one single con. And most importantly because you have been with her for 8 years and never felt that you're in the wrong place. What you're experiencing are fleeting thoughts; What if this? What if that? And none of them matter. Because they're concerned with potential not the actual. What truly matters is the actual thing that you have and experience everyday.

Argentina is fragile, almost like your precious Brazil . They haven't faced any tough opponents so far. England has better players and a better coach and they will win, but Messi will make it harder than necessary.

Yes! 💯

@Someone here Yeah, me too. But I think Messi and Yamal will meet on the bronze match.

I don't see the connection. A change in regular perception is called a hallucination. It means you're on a different frequency. It could be any level of frequency. Anyone can take LSD and experience hallucinations. That doesn't necessarily awaken them.

Tragic. Probably had some delusional idea(s) that killed him.

Sure. But my point is that context is what defines how the term applies. A Norwegian will not flaunt being a Viking in a courtroom where he's being prosecuted for being one. He will call it out as racism. Norwegians are aware, on some level, of the dark side and will drop the aesthetic the moment it incriminates rather than empowers. It's intentional selectivity, even if it's mostly unconscious.

Context matters. And it's much simpler than this. No Norwegian is thinking about killing the other team or enslaving them. They're just demonstrating that they're coming from a strong origin that's not to be taken lightly. It's a way of demanding respect from the opponent, confidently and shamelessly, without actually committing a crime. Vikings represent strength and victory. That's all.

@Nevon You don't have to remove the idea. Just stay with the recognition that it is just that; an idea.

Absolutely, I hate it. It hurts my eyes and my brain actually.

It's not either or. You have to be able to hold both sides, not simultaneously, but at the appropriate time and place. Being a simp and being a dick are two sides of the same coin. They both can spark attraction at first, but they cannot maintain it or take it to the next level. You have to be grounded in your masculinity and lead from the masculine core that you have. Only then you can show emotions. Because emotions without the masculine container are just more chaos to the feminine. Strength comes first, then a hint of vulnerability. Women need that masculine container to hold their emotional system and allow it to breathe freely. They delegate the responsibility of logical thinking for that masculine container. That's what inspires trust, emotional and relational safety, which is the most attractive thing. Not simping. However, in desiring this, many get tricked and ignore their intuition and then fall for a simp or a jerk.

I was pondering about the topic of boundaries (the absolute most important topic in relationships); how and where and when to draw them. Most of that process seems subconscious and automatic. On observation (of myself and others), it's clear to me that boundaries are regulated by our emotions in the moment. Because it's too much effort to be constantly alert and consciously monitoring our boundaries with others, so we delegate that to our subconscious, which acts as a bridge between our conscious and unconscious minds. The subconscious mind (ego) has access to both layers and characteristics of both. It is fast, and responsive. Cost-effective. Anyway, right now, I am trying to understand the role of boundaries on a deeper level in order to make this part of my psyche more conscious, to make it less reactive and more proactive. But I'm kinda having trouble with knowing what's right and what's wrong. How do we even know right and wrong in this case? If identity is imagined, then boundaries are imagined too, and we can push in any direction with no real limits until it's already too late, and even then what can we conclude from that stretch? As an example, how do you know when to forgive and when to withhold forgiveness? This questions your boundaries directly. When someone you've known for a long time acts in a certain way that violates your boundaries, what do you do in that case? Do you try to understand them? Give them excuses? Do you give them second chances? Or do you let your subconscious take care of it and react impulsively? Which one is the right choice? And what if understanding and excusing become a pattern of your subconscious? Then you become a doormat, no? It all seems way too complex, not even context is enough to draw a conclusive boundary or set of boundaries. Not even being flexible with boundaries helps, because the original premise is compromised. I don't know what's right and what's wrong. It's not arbitrary, but it's also not easy to discern at all. I guess I'm just generally confused as I'm not really familiar with or used to being a "self". Not the old, completely unconscious and reactive self, at least.

The coke example is a repetition of the same strawman argument that I responded to by saying permission is not promotion. You are equating the two again, even though they are completely different and their effects are completely different. No one is advocating that you should commit suicide. In fact, you are told to avoid it at all costs. But if you've exhausted all of your options, then suicide might be a possible solution. That's very different from marketing coke. You cannot compare the two. The permission is specified with rules and conditions, while marketing plays on your basic desires unconditionally. Interesting example. Reminds me of when "13 Reasons Why" first came out. I watched it and thought it was stupid as all the reasons were silly from my pov. Hannah had no real reason to commit suicide. All that's happened to her was high-school scandal and some light bullying. And yet she killed herself and recorded 13 reasons for why she did so. By your logic, Netflix is directly responsible for many suicides. Yet, the law gave Netflix the right to broadcast it even after it was sued for it. If you have a problem with the law, that's another story. Yes, I'm serious. I'll take that as you conceding. Message is not delivery. Someone can be bad at delivering a message. That doesn't make the message false or harmful, just the way it's delivered.

@Joseph Maynor What do you mean? It's confusing to me. Because they could be coming from trauma, or misunderstanding, or pure malevolence, or maybe something else that I am not yet aware of. What would be the right action in each case? Would be delightful to discuss this deeply.

Not everyone. Some people are playing life. We actually have little time for games.