Kksd74628

@zurew So now we agree that happiness/love is the thing that we both try to have, but you wanted to make sure that I understand that development plays key role in that thing, I agree. Now we get back to where we started and also you see why I asked that imaginary question. The point was to show you that whatever makes people the most happy in the big picture should be correct decision. So now you also see why my statement - IF taking voting away WOULD make our society the most loving and the happiest that should be the correct decision - was actually right. What we are left is question would it actually make us the most loving and the happiest. So maybe you start to see that we aren't so different like it has maybe looked from our conversations in this forum. The difference is that I always try to break things down to little things until we agree on the little things and then we can combine those parts to the main point until we agree on it too. That's how tier 2 mature discussion looks like to me. So the key insight that you could have is that we actually don't dissagree on things, but my way of expressing myself is a little different from normal people you see in this forum or almost anywhere. It takes time to get me, be patient my friend . Love yo <3

@zurew Fine, let's make it even easier for you. If you'd live only for 1 minute, would you choose to make it the best experience possible or to read some book to gain development on any choosen topic.

@Carl-Richard What do you mean by self-efficacy and how does it relate to the topic?

@zurew That just shows that you didn't understand the question. I agree that development is important part to be happy, but you should see that my question was imaginary. In the scenario, that I made up, the point was that you either get development or happiness. Don't argue if you get happiness from development or vice versa, because that wasn't in the question in the first place. The whole question is just about if you could chooce only one which one you'd choose happiness or development. That's an easy question if you don't think it too complicatedly. I am trying to guide you to understand my perspective.

@zurew Which life would you choose. A: Beautiful happy life (Btw this is overall better) B: Sadder life, but with more development. (This is overall worse)

@zurew If hypothetically giving voting away would increase happiness that would be good decision. That is the thing I think we should first agree and after that we can test if that for real would happen and if not what is restricting that and could we adjust something so that happens. Could you agree on that point with me?

@zurew I said that we should change the voting number to paper to more voting by other actions more systematically. It would actually boost the good impact smart people could abuse. Again the reason I don't like this normal voting option is, because it gives false sense of power and that makes people too passive to actually stand for good things. That we can vote our "opinions" leads our politicans also to fight their "opinions" instead of actually going for holistic conversations which we need. I just showed one possibility and as I said we can build great society with any system. It was just great thought experiment.

@zurew What if nowadays things go downhill and society starts to exploit you ... ... ... vote more ? Don't you see that voting isn't the only way to impact to your society? I never said that suddenly everyone is slave to couple people governing whole society. If you really think that our number to paper based voting is the only thing keeping our society in its place then you're too brainwashed, because that just isn't true. There are alternative ways to impact and I think they're just better and before you ask what they are read my previous messages so we don't need to circle around this thing forever. Who said that I was speaking for totalitarian system ?

@zurew It's not about will people vote for them or not. What I am talking about is that would it be beneficial or not. Those are completely different layers of discussions. If it would be beneficial, but people wouldn't vote for it then that would just prove my point that voting oldish way number to paper is not the most optimal way to do politics, because we don't get the best decisions available. If happiness, love and peace would be optimized with zero free will then in that imaginary case that would be the correct decision. Love is the last measurement for are we doing well and I agree that freedom can boost that, but if it'd really be the case that society with zero free will would have more love than one with some of it then we should go for the society with zero free will. That's an easy choice to make if you aren't too biased to see that. People who don't care too much about politics, have enough understanding about politics and take real action would have less say. You are correct and that's the point in that thought game. We'd be better off without sheep people voting for whatever looks best on the surface level. Do you really think that we get the most optimal opinion from people when the majority of people vote based on all stupid reasons like their biases, traumas and their favourite person doing the politics? We misuse the power already so that wouldn't be anything new. People with more followers on social media have stronger impact than the one only voting and everyone deplatforms people so they can't express their opinions. Youtube or even that forum doesn't allow you to to discuss the negative sides of corona politics for example and people are so well brainwashed that they even think that this cencoring is done with good reasons. Don't begin talking to me about misusing power, because our system is doing it already so well that majority of people don't even see it. Again that is the point of taking voting away so we break the false sense of control in decision making among the people living in that society.

@LSD-Rumi I am happy that our dialogue made you realize something important . Also if you want to go deeper into these subjects and life development just pm me and we can have voice conversation about whatever you like <3 With love -joNi-

@LSD-Rumi I'd say that love is the most important thing yeah, but without proper peace the connection can be hard to find.

@LSD-Rumi I'd say learning zen-teachings makes you cooler person imo. I haven't met too many people who naturally seek for peace. Everyone is just in hurry to go to next moment. I don't know what you refer to by peace zombie, because that sounds extremely interesting to me. I am not saying that you can't do anything in your day to day life. I don't say that you should be lazy, but when it's time for enjoyment you should just relax, stop your thinking process and focus on what is actually happening. All these zen teachings teach people to slow down and I'd say that in nowaday society that'd be really appreciated just by looking how stressed people are.

@Batman Excatly! It should be like there are different subjects and we shouldn't fight subject against another one, because the point is that you learn what you want to learn. Maybe it is that doing psychedelics and focusing to experiences makes you realize something these monks don't, but I'd argue that those monks feel more peaceful in day to day life. Also Neo-Advaita people usually train their mentality to more relaxed mature one which is something which is very cool and important to the opposite of what we have right now in our society.

Taking couple people who talk about no-self from youtube to present whole Neo-Advaita group would be equivalent to me make Connor Murphy present whole group of people who say you are god. If you decide to have discussion about these subjects atleast don't attack their weakest side, because it would be abusing argumenting tactics to seemingly win. The point I am trying to make is that Neo-Advaita and those buddhists who aim for peace are more useful for masses than these ultimate god teachers and that's why they are popular. It's called free market, boys.

@zurew I already stated in my original post that in the content level things can vary and a lot, but this discussion was never about it. Point is to gather information and do smart decisions based on those. For example adding philosophy, system thinking and maybe even spirituality in some form to our education system would be overall good decision. In that we don't need to know how individual people use those in practice, because those are important even to your thought process, self-development and happiness. Only reason we haven't done those decisions is because people who vote don't see those possibilities. They are wrong then. Freedom can be important in order to get happiness, but if you'd need to give little freedom away to get happiness, any mature human being would choose that, because that's a correct decision. It's like asking which is more important the overall taste in your soup or the amount of pepper used in it. Those who argue for freedom argue that the amout of pepper is more important than the overall taste (happiness, love and peace of mind). They miss the bigger picture and that's why those shouldn't even be allowed to vote in the first place. They clearly lack understanding how they should think about these things. You make it sound like we take all control away from people when in actuality that boosts control in smart people who actually put effort to go to discussions, make youtube videos and essays. Always if you want you can even send your ideas to the people thinking about the correct decision or maybe you could finally put yourself into the equation and study the school that I explained and you could go yourself to participate in politics. Again I see from your type of writing that you're pretty lost in the idea that voting nowadays gives any control to people. Wake up from the matrix, because by only voting you have zero impact, period.

@zurew Basically people should just participate more into political discussions in an internet if they seek for any reasonable amount of impact on how things unfold in our society. Everyone's top value is love and that could be good starting point to our politics. Holistical thinkers for sure would have better solutions than what we have right now. I am not seeking for perfect equation nor I never said that. What I said was that we should treat political questions the same way we treat physics which is not through biased "opinions". Opinions don't change what is good for us and what isn't. Our opinion based politics is just very childish and oldish approach which has nothing to do what really works.

@Danioover9000 The question which remains is that why we need to vote after we know hard facts about which works and which doesn't?

@KH2 We continue politics normally maybe trying to aim little more holistic sides for example by requiring education which includes study of system thinking, important models and morality which is based on high values. Only big difference actually is just that people start to vote by their actions like the videos, debates and essays that I showed. Point is to activate society by breaking down the illusion of control that all the sheep have.

@zurew The point is that it is not people's fault if the system is made so it didn't take into account their needs and basic behaviours.

@Someone here If I make game for people which requires 3 hands to play, is the fault mine or the people playing it?

@something_else As long as you have real intention to grant the best possible life for your child, I don't have the problem in it. That requires skill to match your own personal life journey with parenting, but everything is attainable if you really focus and give effort to it. It's not too much about your ego, but development level, life situation and overall values. Just remember to build your child better than you ever were, whatever that means to you. Having permanent job, trying to go with your journey and raising a child can be hard though. That's when we come to family roles again; another one does the work and another one cleans house, is with children, cooks and goes to shop.

@eTorro There are levels to which degree you can be yourself in a group of people. The most important thing is to understand that the less you try to hide things about yourself the more you can be yourself there. You have to be first okay with yourself and not judge yourself of how you are and only after practicing that you can implement your skills in a public space with people around you. The biggest fear is that people will say something bad about you that you unconsciously believe into and that makes you hate yourself and you don't want that to happen. So basically acceptance of yourself is the key thing here. -joNi-

@Someone here But that's content difference, what I am talking about is that they are the same from absolute perspective.

@Someone here I don't even know what to say to this. This is not even close to truth . That's why you get wrong conclusions, because you don't take everything in account. With the same logic I could say that we should stop selling ice cream, because if we just focus to the fact that it costs money, will make people suffer from obesity and there's also chance that it drops to ground and makes you angry. If you want to have great conversation then try to be as holistic as possible or you'll be biased and you'll not cover all important parts. So don't let your own ideologies affect to your thought process in these topics. There will be also less theaters and restaurants .

@Someone here If you aren't talking about content difference then there's none.