Jirh

The best social place for survival is minimum wage. Being invisible. Away from danger. But we all know the hierarchy isn't about survival. It's about ego. Dating up is a feature of the ego. But raw attraction is not that. Raw attraction is what pulls you despite your ego. So women might marry for money or social status. But they likely will cheat with a more compatible guy, who might even be a loser. Raw attraction doesn't care about social standards.

It's tragic that you can't recognize a good woman when you see one.

Male or female, platonic or romantic, it's not easy to find a tier 2 thinker. Especially if you're already 30+ years old. Most people at that age are busy with work and daily struggles and don't have much time for deep friendships. Even if they are tier 2.

Accept her as she is. She's already more than enough. She brings peace and love into your life. These are not small things. And more importantly, these are not easy to find in a partner. She's a rare gem by today's standards. Accept the fact that she is a unique person with unique interests and not a replicate of yourself, nor does she have to be. Focus on the many pros that you listed and make your relationship about them more and about what you both share. For the intellectual loneliness, consider it something for you to work on. Find friends who share your intellectual capacity (which is extremely difficult, btw) or make your peace with it. You don't have to sacrifice a perfect partner for a potentially more perfect one. Grass always looks greener on the other side.

sorry I had to post this

–– James Reason

I don't have any answers. I'm just appreciating and enjoying the consecutive mind-fucks haha 🤯😵

This topic is so cool and mind-fucking! If you press the power button on your laptop, did you actually cause it to work? I think probably yes. I think maybe you can argue about the dog yelping, but you cannot argue against a system of our own making.

The argument is structured as: "Premise A is true, therefore conclusion B follows." But in using the word "therefore," they are demanding that you accept a necessary, non-arbitrary link between their premises and their conclusion. If causation isn't real, "therefore" becomes a meaningless word. By trying to prove that causation is fake, they are relying on the reality of causation to make their case. They cannot escape the grammar of causality, because grammar is causality encoded in language. Also, logic itself is a practical application of causation. Causation is in the DNA of logic.

Yes, that's the illusion caused by relative stability, aka the dream state.

I don't view it as teaching. More like sharing what I know and learning more in the process. I prefer to call it exploring. Well, that's way too much to explore 😅 physicality, reality, real, illuminating. Each is its own journey.

But this requires an infinitely complex and regressive system to occur. We take the infinite complexity for granted and reduce causality down to a few number of comprehensible reasons that we probably can control, for simplicity. The dog has to have an intact neural system, and gravity should work with its current settings, just to name two variables in order for the dog to feel the pain and yelp. If you do the same experiment on the moon, it will not work.

Cool. What is the nature of thoughts, though? You don't have to answer of course. I'm just enjoying the inquiry.

Maybe not placeholders, but more like hijackers of the stages. The stage is the underlying human capacity. The need for order, meaning, morality, transcendence, etc... Religion is a parasitic interpretation of that capacity. It doesn't generate stage Blue. Just like self-help doesn't generate stage Orange.

Yes, absolutely. Spirituality is necessary and encoded in our brains. No arguments there. But my point still stands that religion is a placeholder for the laws, not the source. Then, self-help and religion are both placeholders of personal laws. Not chronically related, but different, almost opposite placeholders.

I would ask Hume, though, what about the causation of causation? Did infinite complexity actually cause us to create the concept of causation? If so, then we have a clear and direct causation relationship between infinite complexity and the illusory concept of causation. It's fun contemplating this stuff, especially the mind-wrecking aspect

The governing laws of a society don't have to be religious or spiritual. It just so happens that they mostly are in stage Blue societies. In this case, religion is a placeholder for the laws, not the source.

Dude, why are you insisting on this idea? It's as if you're getting something from it. The differences between religion and self-help are enormous, both in content and structure, they are practically opposites. The differences make any similarities negligible. Self-help does not even attempt to answer the big questions. It completely bypasses them and focuses on material gains. I would love to see an example of religion's philosophy on improving life. All I know of religion's philosophy is that it says you shall pass through this life as a guest or a visitor and only take what's necessary for the trip from life to death, nothing more. Martyrdom is another interesting concept that contradicts self-help. It's a complete annihilation of the self, and it's completely religious, completely the opposite of self-help.

Why assume that consciousness requires change/time to amount to an experience? You can have consciousness of a static object that's not changing over time. It's not rocket science.

Lol. People be obsessing, trying looksmaxxing. My GF gives me fashion advice because she thinks I'm outdated How I got her with my outdated looks? You'll never know Your girl should take care of your looks, you shouldn't. You just follow the rules she gives.

Actually, no. That's just ego attraction, based on comparison. Raw attraction is a seperate thing. It's a reflex. Something you cannot fake or make your way out of. My opinion depends on which one you're interested in.

@Natasha Tori Maru I think you're nailing it. Good for you! I don't think you can top magic. It's just the best state to be. I do the same mostly. Sometimes, more intellectually, and other times more intuitively, depending on context. And generally, I try to balance my thinking with my feelings and vice-versa. You seem well-balanced.

Sounds like a word salad that doesn't make any sense. And actually my experience suggests the opposite. But thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Are you saying awareness is not aware? If it's not aware, then it's unaware. And awareness cannot be unaware. That would be a contradiction.