Consept

As the late great poet Christopher 'Biggie' Wallace said "Mo money, mo problems"

In my view if you are prioritising enlightenment over your lower needs this is spiritual bypassing. Most of the time you would be using enlightenment as a way not to deal with for example either traumas that you might have or the hard work of becoming self sufficient. If you think of it like everything builds on top of everything else so enlightenment is built on top of having these other needs sorted out. A lot of the time when this isnt the case quite negative things can happen, look at sexual allegations in spiritual communities or people just going completely off the rails on psychedelics. The question would be, why wouldnt you want to sort out your trauma before prioritising enlightenment? The only answer I could think is that you want to bypass it, which is fine but i just dont think it works.

Excellent bro, always remember to enjoy the journey dont overthink it. Youre doing well though

The French team looks great, I've put some money on them anyway. Also the South American teams Brazil and Argentina should do well. A lot of controversy on this wc, even the pundits are getting questioned for working on it. It was definitely bought by Qatar so very strange circumstances

Yeah there's a Ken Wilbur model where he says you need to - Grow up - mature, become self sufficient etc motivation and self can aid this Clean up - work on your traumas, mental health stuff Wake up - spirituality, realise you're not your seperate self Show up - do something in the world, serve I believe if you haven't got the first 2 down or at least made good progress, you'll really just be trying to wake up or show up to sort out the first 2. A big problem on the forum is that the wake up part is sold as the only thing that's important and this can be a big problem if a lot of your members haven't gone through the first 2

I'll qualify again, on average the max you can make is 4% a day as a great trader. So of course you can make 100% in one day but if you were to do that over a long period of time you will probably lose money. I'm gonna be real though, maybe if you really loved trading and spent hours even years studying and practising it might help you escape wage slavery, but even then it's not really providing value. You seem to want to not put in any work or perceived risk and not provide any value but still escape wage slavery. This is not a moral judgement but I will tell you this plan will definitely not work and has never worked, ask 99% of people trying to do it with crypto. Consider that if it was that easy for everyone to make money, wouldn't everyone just do that and be rich?

4% of whatever they put on that day, this is just for day trading btw. So if they put 100 that day they would make 4 profit for example, but that's a really good trader, most people would lose money

100% agree with you here, i think people are trying to avoid trauma healing because its hard and not fun, you cant really sell it in the same way as enlightenment. As you say, most that are looking for enlightenment are really just looking for a way out of suffering but I think if you bypass the trauma work, that pain will always be there. Leo imo oversells the enlightenment work and undersells the trauma work, although i do get it as that not really his speciality so it wouldnt make sense for him to focus on that, but from another perspective I would say it is the most essential. I also have a theory that most would actually drop the spiritual journey if they could work through their trauma and have fulfilling, active lives. I would make the argument that self help is important because it ties in with trauma work and would contribute to you just having a better life. For example you will of course feel better if you sleep well, do a physical activity and have a good diet, this can put you in a much better state to actually face your traumas and do that work. To me its a holistic approach and you really need everything, I just think this forum is to weighted on the side of enlightenment chasing when people havent got these foundational things in place.

@omar30 I don't get why he needs other people to trade though even if he is getting 10%. If he could get 125 from a 25 investment why not just do that himself if hes so sure he can get that return? Why only get 10% instead of 100%. The only reason would be that if he loses the money its no loss for him but if you make a profit he makes money, so for him it makes no difference. the reality is, a phenomenally good trader is not going to make more than around 4% per day so whatever he's claiming is insane.

I agree with what youre saying and i think it is important, but what i generally see is people looking for a quickish fix and bypassing the life stuff. I feel that Leo, at times, paints this picture that all your problems will be solved i youre enlightened, at least thats how its been interpreted on the forum, you have to appreciate how compelling this idea is for people who want a way out, this can be especially problematic with psychedelics, where people who are just not ready are taking them consistently. Hey good to hear from you man, i do remember your posts. Looking forward to hearing your fleshed out thoughts I agree bro, I think you are probably unique from a lot of other users, I myself have lived on my own since i was 18 and am 37 now, it wasnt really by choice but i got thrown into it, it was incredibly difficult but it does force you to grow up. I commend you for the journey youve been on and yes i think if you are in that achiever mindset you can also get lost in it and you do need that spiritual balance, but even now youre saying that you still have life stuff to sort out, which shows a good amount of awareness. An interesting point is that Leo himself went through this life stuff, where he grew up, worked, made his money etc then he got into spirituality, this is how he is becoming self-actualized. But the issue is that hes attracting those that want to skip the life stuff, either hes encouraging it, concsiously or unconsciously or people are just attracted to it but either way i think its not the best route for most people. @Manusia @SamueLSD Thank you guys

@Tyler Robinson Just as a thought experiment you could imagine what it might be like to take 100% responsibility for what happens to you. This is not necessarily easy but just go with me for a sec, let's say a 5 year old child, they rarely take responsibility for their actions, let's do a scenario, the child is left alone with a friend and they smash a vase by accident, when questioned by his mum the child blames his friend and claims he made me do it, the child really feels this and even gets emotional about it. Now from an adult perspective we can see that the child does bare some responsibility, it was his friend, he was playing a game and he was near the vase, from the child's perspective, it's not his fault at all. A good parent would explain why it's the child's responsibility and punish him, this way he will more than likely avoid this kind of thing in the future and if he can't he will take responsibility for his actions. As an adult it's slightly more difficult and complex but let's imagine we can take a God view of a situation where one might be gaslit. If your partner lies to you or attempts to make you believe something that isn't true, then you can also take responsibility for this even if you don't see it as your fault. God might point out that you chose this particular person, maybe you ignored certain signs that they were deceptive, maybe you stayed with them the first time you spotted a red flag. Now the reasons you did this maybe from trauma, but the point is you have to take responsibility because these things are happening to you, if it is trauma then it is on you to get help for that. So although when something goes wrong in one's life it may not directly be your fault but it still is your responsibility, it has to be as no one else has a motive to take responsibility for you. In terms of empathy of course someone can be sad that something happened to you but whether that thing happens to you again, would be down to you taking responsibility for it.

I dont blame as I dont think hes necessarily doing it on purpose, he would probably make more money with more basic videos, but the point is he doesnt seem to be aware of what at least most people on the forum actually need and also how it can be potentially damaging to offer them this unrealistic way out. Even if you did bypass and get enlightened lets say, you probably wouldnt be that effective if you havent got these foundational aspects sorted out. Its also very damaging when you consider that there will be people with mental health issues, who are desperate for a way out and this can offer them a lot of hope, but the reality of it is that they need to address and fix their traumas and issues not run away from them. We have seen how bad this can turn out in the past, without bringing up those unfortunate incidents. Thanks for sharing, I am happy that you came to this realisation and maybe that can be seen as a benefit of psychedelics, but i also think it would be more helpful if say you were talking to someone you can trust, either irl or on this forum say and told them how you felt , they may have been able to help you reach this conclusion and give you more actionable steps. I would argue this would be a better path to take than to get heavy into psyches and over things. It probably wouldve taken less time and been more effective. Yes this is my point, if youre depressed or vulnerable and someone that you look up to says with absolute certainty that you need to focus 100% on enlightenment to change how you feel, then of course you will do it. But that same person might be depressed because they never exercise, they dont sleep properly, their diet is terrible, they have unaddressed traumas, they havent got social skills. There are so many things you can get to before you start striving 100% for enlightenment.

Gaslighting is a thing, as in someone consciously trying to deceive someone and get them to question their reality but slightly altering it. But the truth is most people who are accused of it are not actually gaslighting, they might just be seeing something from their perspective. For example I might literally see someone's behavior as crazy from my perspective and call it out as such, they may accuse me of gaslighting them by trying to make them think they're crazy but that wouldn't be the intention. I feel like a lot of times now the term is thrown around almost as an emotional defense mechanism, to make someone feel like they've hurt you and it could be true from your perspective but it adds a bit punch than if you just said 'what you said hurt me'.

I think there's the potential to become more funny, because you're not as strongly tied to any side you can see different perspectives and also you can see the funny side to them all. Things are no longer 'sacred' and your take on them is more loose. With green or orange they hold their particular ideology as sacred and you can't make jokes about them, which adds a certain tightness about them which is not the best condition for humour.

This is real, I think a lot of people go through this stage where there is a fear that they can be effective pr successful in the world, from there you have to options 1. Do the hard work and become better or 2. Blame the world and highlight how shallow it is that other people are trying to get better. Humans will more than likely choose the path of least resistance and so a lot of people will go down the second path

It would be great but why would I want to go against my biology? I'm not saying you shouldn't see women as people obviously do that, but you can't ignore your biology which is in the mix with your interactions, you can't repress it but you can let it be there and choose when or not to act on it. You don't need to demonise your biology. Could you do it though, be with women you find unattractive? Or would you aim to be able to do it?

I don't need proof for myself, its great what you say and I agree it would be amazing not to care about attraction etc. So your solution would be to try and get with girls you're not attracted to and love them deeply, that will sort out all the issues you have outlined as well

Bro, I actually dont know how to explain it any better as much as ive tried. Of course most if not all women and even men actually, need their emotional needs fulfilled its very important. But without the biological needs being present there probably wouldnt be romantic relationships, it would just be close friendships if anything. As i said if you didnt have the biological need to be with a woman romantically you wouldnt care in the same way, asexual people, if they wanted a partner, would care more about compatibility and having a companion, they most likely wouldnt care about any biological needs. You on the other hand have said you wanted an attractive partner, therefore your biological needs are going to be inseparable from who youre attracted to and decision of who youre going to be with is not independent and not just based on emotional needs first. If my experience tells you something you dont agree with you want to dismiss it? Very open minded bro. But ill leave it here anyway

How are you getting on with that?

@Mesopotamian Bro i have the solution for you and i think youll be happy because it fits your logic. You say women should go against their natural tendencies, i propose you go against your natural tendencies for finding a young looking, attractive woman and go for a physically unattractive woman. You only want an attractive, healthy looking woman because it signals that she would be fertile, with modern science you can quite easily check if she is fertile, so all of that really is unnecessary. Just because shes unattractive doesnt mean she doesnt deserve love. Next time you cant find love, consider questioning your underlying attraction and you may end up with someone.

Women and men may not be aware of why theyre attracted to what theyre attracted to, you would only be aware if you looked into evolutionary biology of humans. Women of course may say theyre attracted to confidence but the reason this is attractive is because it means that the man is likely to have confidence in life and be able to gather resources as well as look after the woman and her children, if throughout history low confidence men were able to gather resources more effectively then low confidence men would be more attractive. With men the reason why youth and fitness are attractive is because that signals fertility in women, this is why looking young is very important for women in terms of attraction. Wearing lipstick for example makes women more attractive to men as red lips are signal that the woman is ovulating as this is what happens naturally, men are not actively thinking about these things, theyre just thinking that the womens hot, but these are traits that have evolved over millions of years. 'Getting rich making you confident' is a strawman, i didnt say you should get rich and then it makes you confident, its the other way round which is why confidence is actually more attractive than just having money, confidence is an indicator that you are resourceful and you can get what you want. If you got rich without being confident then youre trying to mask your lack of confidence. There are plenty of rich guys that are terrible at attracting women. You choose to create it because you have these desires in you from your biology, if you were asexual or lost all your testosterone you probably wouldnt be bothered with attracting a woman, you definitely wouldnt have the thought process of improving your life situation so that you can have what you need to get the right woman. Your goal of attracting a woman is from your biology and from your ancestors and how they evolved , you may not like this and try to rationalise it by saying that all attraction is low level and youre above it but the fact is your still spending a good amount of time planning how youll find the right woman, this is not just a choice that you made for the sake of it. Take these biological urges away and you definitely wont choose to have that experience. As i said love and attraction are two different things, no matter how much you talk you can not change what women are attracted to as much you cant change what youre attracted to and the fact that you wouldnt even consider an 'unattractive' woman because of the 'work' you put in would suggest that. I'm not saying that you cant and shouldnt try and get to true love, but i would say i think its actually quite difficult in romantic relationships, it is hard to have unconditional love in these circumstances, there will always be conditions on the relationship. In terms of experience, its not something i want to prove, but i am 37 and can guarantee you Im a lot more experienced than you are in this respect. Ive also had these deep conversations with women in intimate, vulnerable settings so when I speak it is from direct experience. I have actually learnt the most from women from my experiences with them and my initial ideas about them completely changed after these experiences, I dont know how old you are but if i talked to the me at lets say 18 I wouldve been completely clueless but probably thought i knew everything

@mr_engineer Where I disagree fundamentally is your claim that women are not naturally evolved to be attracted to physical attributes or the ability to require resources. I'm not excluding that they are attracted or can be attracted to deeper things. But what you're suggesting is essentially a conspiracy theory that all the powerful men have gotten together over the years to influence what women are attracted to and that it has worked on them. It would be easier to just go with the reality that women's attraction has evolved over millions of years and men have tried to subvert that without lasting success as you can't change evolution that quickly. If you go as deep as what you're suggesting, the need for a romantic monogamous connection would most likely fade away and you'd just connect with people in general, rather than what you said you're doing which is improving your career and making yourself more confident so that you can find a woman that's suited to you and then get her in a one on one relationship, if you have enlightenment you won't need all of that. But anyway as a say you are fundamentally wrong on evolutionary biology, in that you're dismissing the whole field to hold up your theory, which to me doesn't make any sense as a lot of the findings literally play out in the real world. The fact that you're dismissive of such relevant research of what you're talking about would suggest that your mind isn't open to truth, you have decided upon your idea and it fits into your untested reality which is why it's hard for you to shift from it or even acknowledge different points of view. Have you noticed that you haven't conceded a single point or said you understood where anybody who engaged with this thread has come from, despite the fact most that have are way more experienced on the subject than you are? You should question why that is.

I think youre fundamentally wrong on this point, evolutionary psychologists will say that the reason men are driven to gather resources and power is specifically because thats what attracts women, this has been the case throughout history and is also the case in the animal kingdom. Gorillas for example are motivated to become the strongest because if they are it would make them the most attractive to females, they dont force females to mate because they are powerful, which is essentially your argument for humans. Within many species of animals, the male has to gather resources to show that he can look after the female and kids otherwise the female will not consider him. Other species the female will be attracted to males that have what she considers good genes and mate with them. Our society is literally led by what women are attracted to, men who abuse power and try and restrict female sexuality through religion or ideology are doing that specifically because they are not attractive to women. Even if a women in the past did marry someone just because of how powerful they are, they most likely would be attracted to someone else, which is why marriage came in the first place, to guarantee paternity for the father. If powerful men did have the power to literally control what women were attracted to, to the extent that women themselves didnt recognise it why would they bother conditioning them to have traits that were hard to attain? Why condition them to like physically strong men when they could just as easily condition them to like overweight men? You can make the argument that marriage to someone they werent attracted to was kind of pushed on them as a societal norm but the argument that what they were attracted is enforced in them, literally goes against nature, i think would be pretty impossible to achieve this, especially within a relatively short period of time evolutionarily speaking.

True but your claim is that women dont know what they want and what they do want has been programmed into them by men. You're taking a higher level position and saying that the traditional ways attraction that has worked for women is essentially nonsense, so what im getting at is why are you able to keep the traditional male ways attraction that are intertwined with traditional womens attraction, but women have to change what theyre attracted to? Also do you need find it a bit hypocritical that you as a man are defining what women should be attracted to whilst simultaneously criticising men for defining what women should be attracted to?

This doesnt fit your logic, you said what women are attracted to is due to the patriarchy putting ideas in their head and women dont know what hey want. So why is that different to you, youre attracted to certain physical features because you too have been programmed that way, if you want to love on a higher level i dont see why physical attributes should come into it, if youre expecting a woman to transcend her requirement for physical attributes and just go directly to love, wouldnt be incumbent on you to do the same?