spiritual memes

Yeah, I agree with all of these. My main critique is just the overall vibe that Leo and many of his followers give off. For someone who preaches infinite love, he and followers don't really radiate it. Instead he has a vibe of 'everyone else is so stupid and mediocre except me'. He claims spiritual teachers aren't awake and yet they radiate a million times more love than him. I don't doubt that he's higher levels of awakenings through psychedelics but he doesn't embody the love he realized, then there's not much point to it. Instead of telling us how awakened he is, he should show us through action and not words.

There are 2 extremely powerful protector parts responsible for a large portion of my bad habits, one in my upper neck area protecting me from external physical threats and another in my heart area that blocks my ability to experience love. These are really fucking difficult to unburden because they're so well built in. removing them would completely destabilize my mind. There are also more protector parts preventing me from accessing these parts to begin with so its an uphill battle. Breathing into these areas reveals so much tension and inner resistance. This is going to be difficult.

For everyone flexing their high spawn count consider this: If you haven't completed the game after 1,000,000 respawns, you're probably a noob.

I agree that genetics play a role but environment and upbringing have a huge factor. From my observations, mediocre students generally don't have the best upbringing. If 2 identical twins were split at birth and given to 2 extremely different families, their creativity and ambition would likely be very different. Have you noticed how mediocre the typical upbringing is?

Perhaps if they grew up in better conditions and had better access to education they wouldn't be as mediocre. The response to this argument is simply to recognize that socioeconomic and cultural conditions have a huge impact on ambition and creativity.

If he invites you to his house and the furniture is made of human body parts, that might be a bit of a red flag... Another big red flag is if a guy spends a too much time on social media

Tbh this doesn't really affect my relationships that much. Relationships are more affected by the heart and throat chakras. Unblocking those completely changes the way you view your relationships.

After doing IFS for a decent while, I noticed a pretty significant energetic blockage in my neck area corresponding to my throat chakra. It felt like there was energy rising up from my lower body but there was a protector part blocking the energy and preventing it from moving upwards. It took me several weeks to get accquanted with this part and during a session I managed to integrate the part so that it would let go and let energy through. Immediately I felt energy almost like an electric current moving through my neck and head. I felt my entire face vibrating as energy moved through it. Eventually, the energy stabilised and I felt a energy blockage corresonding to my third eye chakra. I used the same method that I used before to unblock it and the energy moved up into the crown chakra where it was once again blocked. While attempting to unblock it, I noticed an intense fear that if I let go, my mind would dissolve and I would cease to exist as an individual. I kept trying to unblock it but I was unsuccessful so I went to bed. While I was in bed, I tried to sleep as I had a job interview next day, however, there was so much energy in my crown chakra that I was unable to sleep. I tried once again to unblock it with a more gentle approach and this time it was successful. I had an extremely intense psychedelic experience where I merged with the universal consciousness. Its like the consciousness/energy in my body was water in a bottle in the ocean and by opening my crown chakra, I had removed the lid and allowed the water in the bottle to merge with the ocean. However, before I could fully surrender to this infinite consciousnes, I was hit with intense intrusive thoughts which showed me my worst fears and must fucked up thoughts (People I love dying horrific deaths). This was a protector part trying to stop me from completely letting go, it convinced me that because my worst fears are technically possible, I could not fully let go. It also convinced me that because I was connected to universal consciousness, my worst fears would manifest due to the law of attraction and my trying to make them go away, I was actually giving them energy which would make them even more likely to manifest. This created a nasty feedback loop which almost felt like a bad trip which stopped my from fully letting go. I decided to use the IFS approach to understand the protector part responsible for my intrusive thoughts. Its trying to prevent me from letting go of fear because life contains fucked up stuff. Therefore I have to have some underlying fear and clinging to be prepared. Its trying to protect the parts of me that are traumatized from seeing the fucked up aspects of the world. This greatly lessened the intrusive thoughts but I was unable to surrender my ego to the universal mind. I also had a job interview the next day which i was worried about which also prevented me from letting go. I lay there in bed trying to sleep. However, instead of going unconscious I started seeing intense hypnogogic visuals almost remniscent of DMT. I started dreaming but I was still conscious and self aware of my dreams although they more resembled weird thoughts and shapes rather than any thing realistic. I woke up the next day fairly normal, but damn what a weird experience. I'm still not sure what exactly happened. Anyone been through anything similar?

Be the father you wished you had

when I was 14, I was beating my meat like it owed me money

@Kalki Avatar Yeah that makes sense. In that high consciousness state, it felt like my thoughts were indistinguishable from reality and by experiencing my fears, they would become real. It also didn't help that I had a job interview the next day...

Fair enough, what changes are you advocating for? In this case, the community would quickly intervene. But, you're not building something from nothing, the community can provide existing resources in exchange for production that meets demand. In socalism, its not about money. Its about meeting demand. If the community has lemons and the want lemonade, they will give someone the lemons so they can make lemonade in exchange for labour vouchers. Why not? Yes, that is the point of socialism. Fair, play but if a corrupt edit went unnoticed, it probably wasn't very important. Try editing a political wikipedia article and see how long it takes to correct. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere productive. instead of arguing over capitalism vs socialism neither of which we advocate for, what actual societal and political changes do you want to see to address these problems with capitalism? What would your ideal society look like?

Yes but any biased edits would be noticed and reported to the community. I don't but its much harder to corrupt 500 people than it is to corrupt 1. Any law that restricts the owner of a company from making company decisions for the good of its workers sounds very socialist to me... Also, how would this law be enforced? What's stopping the boss from making up a reason? Yes but you cannot ignore the negative effects of bias and profit incentives either. I provided the case in my previous argument. Production is collectively owned and exists to meet demand. Why would the collective waste manpower and resources on shit they don't need? For example: lets say a factory worker thinks 'hey we should make some essential oils and sell them to increase profit' He pitches this to his fellow workers and they would probably be like 'Why the fuck would anyone need essential oils'. But lets assume they actually liked the idea. They would then need more workers to produce the essential oils so they would pitch to the community their idea and the community would be like 'lol no, no one wants essential oils'. And so the idea would end there.(Unless people actually wanted essential oils) In a fully socialist society, money is replaced with labour vouchers that expire after use. You're under the impression that profit incentive is the reason people do anything. If there is increase in demand, the community will decide to create new means of producing goods and services. Because they demand it... Why not? This is a baseless assumption. If you were hungry, would you make yourself a sandwich even it there was no profit incentive or starve to death? Depends on the type of socialism, but most likely, it would be local, but with government approval as well. In market socialism you can start a business whenever, but it must be democratically run.

Okayyyyyy, time to leave actualized.org

Since socialist organizations are collectively owned, decision making would be far more transparent and any unfair or corrupt decisions would be more easily exposed. For an example, look at open source software or websites like wikipedia. How exactly could someone corrupt these? On the contrary, capitalist organizations have no incentive for transparency. How would you even know if corruption was going on? Bruh, capitalist organizations can and do fire people for whatever reason they want. What is more likely, that a more than half your workplace are ideological assholes, or one person is? Who would target the boss if he is bigoted and ideological? The boss police? In capitalism, the owner has almost no accountability. Plenty of CEO's have been accused of a toxic workplace and harassment but no one can do anything about it. Big pharma perhaps the worst example you could have used. They are to blame for the opioid crisis, increasing drug costs, a lack of transparency in clinical trials. For example, the price of insulin is extortionately high in the US compared to other countries. This is what happens when companies prioritize profits over human wellbeing. As for research, for profit research is much more likely to be biased. This is not necessarily the case, workers would prioritize better working conditions. Creating artificial demand just makes workers lives harder. There is no profit in a socialist society. Goods and services are produced for use. In socialism, if you want to start a business , you pitch your idea to the community which then decides whether to start it.

why not? How do you get the good and effective leader in power in the first place as opposed to an inept ceo/dictator? If your boss was incompetent and there was someone better, how would replace them under capitalism? can you elaborate on this? why would it be harder to find under socialism? My first answer would be market socialism which is a bit different to traditional socialism. In traditional socialism, there are no wages. All hours of labor would entitle a person to an equal (in terms of labor hours) amount of goods and services required for the daily reproduction of their labor power. Interestingly it was labour unions that campainged to bring about the first minimum wage in america. i.e collective actions by workers Lol I agree. Why are we even debating in the first place? Yeah a socialist society would require a miniumum stage green center of mass. Yes but keep in mind that most for profit research doesn't really benefit society as a whole. In fact, for profit research sucks up extremely talented people to work on pointless shit that only exists to generate profit. For example my friend who is a maths and computer science genius is working for a finance company to develop ai to help rich people cheat the stock market, He's not even allowed to publish his research as it would give competitors and edge. I agree with you on the fact that socialist societies would still have corruption, but the original topic I was talking about was overconsumption and artificial demand. Since, state owned companies exist to meet demand rather than create profit. There is less incentive to create artificial demand. Would there still be a bit of arfiticial demand? maybe but there would be much less than in a capitalist country. Thats why they vote on people to make those decisions just like in a regular democracy. I think this discussion has gotten off topic. Keep in mind that I'm not advocating for socialism here. I'm only saying that overconsumption is caused by capitalism primarily and that a socialist society would not overconsume as much. As for real world examples, cuba is a good example. If you want an example of first world countries that have adopted socialist policies, the scandinavian countries are a golden example.

Actually they could depending on the type of socialism. Are you saying that state owned companies cannot make quality goods and services? NASA, a state owned organization landed a dude on the moon. If you want a better example of collective ownership look at open source software like wikipedia or python. These are extremely high quality yet collectively owned. If its much easier to see and measure a good and effective leader than a janitor should be able to see and realise it and therefore should be able to vote on it. But businessmen in capitalism already do a lot of shady shit and are not held accountable as they can buy their way out. So should people in replaceable jobs not be allowed to vote then? I agree I have explained in my previous replies that socialism has much less incentive for the types of corruption that you are talking about. As for your argument about innovation, you're under the assumption that innovation is only possible with a profit incentive, however some of the biggest innovations of our time did not have a profit incentive. e.g Moon landing, internet etc.. see my first point.

When I was connected to the universal mind, I felt like I could completely let go of all my attachments and reach enlightenment. However, I felt a strong sense that I couldn't let go just in case my fears came true. I then had that thought than because I was connected to the universal mind, I could manifest anything I focused my mind on. But because I was focused on my fear, I thought that I was going to manifest them.

A socialist enterprise creates products for use rather than profit. Therefore the incentive of a company would be to meet demand of the community. remember that the community is also a shareholder. In capitalism, the goal is profit no matter what. That is the fundamental difference which I am trying to get across. Why would a socialist, company want to dominate the marker when it is owned collectively? if you want to take it even further, a true socialist economy would just be comprised of state owned corporations with no competition. What you're criticizing is democracy. My response to that is why should we let people vote for a government instead of a just having a dictator make every decision? Second of all, a janitor contributes to the success of a company because they keep the buildings clean. Try running a business with shit all over the floor. Y'all take cleaners and janitors for granted. What I am arguing for is UBI in a capitalist economy. The rewards would be the same as they are now. How would someone dominate the workplace if the workplace is collectively owned? Socialist societies would also have laws against corruption. Again your argument against socialism is that in the worst case scenario, it might have elements of capitalism... Can you not see the problem? But in your previous argument, you were saying competition was bad???

Unburdening an exile is an incredible experience. The uncomfortable knot that has been in your body for as long as you can remember suddenly dissolves into a warm loving, vibrating, golden light. This light spreads through your body loosening any tight areas. The protector parts, touched by this light, begin to vibrate. From a systems level, the equilibrium has been disrupted causing a chain reaction of healing but also destruction. What an amazing experience.

its easier said than done.

What would a 'solved problem' look like? While artificial demand may exist in a socialist economy it would be significantly less than in capitalism. The capitalist structure greatly amplifies artificial demand which is the problem. That was my point. A tiny bit of artificial demand is not too problematic. But when an economic requires artificial demand to function, its a problem. That is called democracy... Its 55 people making the choice, not 1. In capitalism the 55 people don't get a choice. Your example is considered corruption in a socialist society but its standard practice in a capitalist one. At least the people in your example have the choice to say no. Can you not see that your worst case scenarios in socialism are daily occurrences in capitalism? Negative income tax or universal basic income. How would regulations reduce artificial demand? As for competition, that's pretty much the whole point of capitalism. Fair play But then it wouldn't be GDP, but some other metric. The whole point of GDP is that it entails all goods and services. I guess consciously created domestic product would be a better measure but the problem would be who decides whether a product is 'consciously created' You're talking about competition which isn't necessarily a problem as it healthy competition can lead to better products. Government can also intervene it competition gets of of hand. However, a hardcore socialist government wouldn't have 2 businesses making the same thing in the first place. There would only be 1 business with 200 employees which would be more efficient. Since the businesses are collectively owned, why would the community decide on making 2 competing shoe businesses in the first place when 1 is sufficient?

Artificial demand exists in capitalism because privately owned companies must maximize profit for its shareholders. It can do this by creating a supply which meets the demand. However more profit could be made if they created artificial demand through what basically amounts to psychological warfare on consumers. Why would there be the same amount of artificial demand in a centrally planned and collectively owned economy? Yes, a market is just a place where people buy and sell stuff. There would still be a market in a socialist society. Not sure what you mean by networks. If someone decides to fuck other people, the collective will vote them out. Yes, but demand and competition isn't necessarily bad. Only when it gets out of hand, which would be mitigated by central planning. Depends on the extent of socialism as it is a scale rather than a fixed system. That being said in a purely socialist economy, you would pitch your idea to the community rather than private shareholders. In a weakly socialist society, starting a small business would be pretty much the same as it is now. Large corporations would be heavily regulated and collectively owned. This is an example of linear thinking. I never said GDP growth was bad. If a country is poor then GDP growth will improve the lives of most of its citizens. However this correlation is not linear. Once a country is significantly rich, GDP growth no longer improves peoples lives. The us economy grew by approx 40% over the last 10 years yet life for most people is worse. Capitalist countries proritize gdp growth over human wellbeing which causes all the problems you see today. These problems have nothing to do with gdp growth. For the US the solution would be more wealth distribution. Yes but a socialist society would not prioritize GDP growth over human wellbeing. (Unless it was very poor in which case gdp growth is correlated with human wellbeing). I never said it was... In first world countries, GDP growth means nothing if all the money lands in the hands of ultra rich people. See all my other points. Keep in minds that I'm not even a socialist. My main point is that the problems of overconsumption and artificial demand are caused mainly by capitalism.

How would you regulate it? First of all, I am not advocating for socialism as I do not think it is realistic. I think social democracy like the scandinavian countries is the best path in the short term. That being said, in a socialist society, collective ownership and central planning would result in decisions that benefit the collective stakeholders instead of purely maximizing the profit of shareholders in a capitalist system. This would naturally result in less artificial demand. What benefit does the collective have in engaging in psychological warfare with itself? Thats because almost every economic system is capitalist. You have just proved my point. The capitalist system demands continuous growth no matter the cost to the wellbeing of the people or the environment. 0% growth is unnacceptable to every capitalist society. There is still a market in a socialist society, its just that the means of production are collectively owned by the workers.

But why is there artificially created demand? Capitalism A system where the means of production are owned collectively. The US is structured such that overconsumption is required for economic stability. The US economy/ politcal system and culture is based on neverending economic growth. What do you think would happen if US economic growth was 0? would people be like 'This is fine.'?