Consept

Member
  • Content count

    1,829
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Consept

  1. Just something I've been thinking about. So there seems to be quite a negative connotation associated with making money amongst spiritual circles but I've noticed a lot of it on the forum, someone will advise someone to start a business and the other will say 'I don't really care about material things'. Don't get me wrong it's very easy to fall into the 'never having enough' mindset and devoting all your time to making more and more money, whilst neglecting other areas of your life, this is something that happens commonly. But isn't this the case with any material 'success', for example you can go to toxic extremes with working out, relationships, eating healthy, reading etc, all of these and more definitely have the ability to overtake your life, however people will always advise them because the upside is so good if they're done consciously. Why is it any different with business and making money? This is a life skill that, as long as you don't get addicted to it, can teach you so much and not only that can set a foundation for you to do everything else you want to do and also help others. If you have certain principles like basically dont be a dick and rip people off, then why not develop this skill?
  2. The motive or intention of the thread is to highlight something thats not often talked about in spiritual communities and challenge underlying assumptions that i think some people have. A lot of threads ive seen recently from younger people are along the lines of 'money and material stuff is so toxic stage orange and i want to bypass it through meditation', i wanted to open up a discussion on the counter side of that and offer a different viewpoint, as i think the viewpoint i mentioned can be unhelpful although im open to be challenged on that. If we are looking at the whole its important to look at all sides. What was your intention in posting your first response?
  3. Yeah thats fine we're all the one and every perspective is fragmentation of the whole that we're all attached to. Thats cool but in terms of having a discussion amongst different, albeit illusory, perspectives, it kinda stifles the conversation as you could bring that in to any conversation or talking points. Of course there is value in not even talking and realising this but then it makes the forum redundant, so if we are going to engage in a forum dynamic different viewpoints are kind of the point
  4. Ive seen quite a few examples on this forum and in general. Are you saying no spiritual people see making money as a negative? Seems quite a blanket statement but im open to your perspective
  5. I agree on this and with your post in general. I think there does seem to be at the core bad beliefs about money amongst the general public, either they spend it as fast as they can or they think its wrong to make it or have a lot. But youre right its a real shame that a lot of people who are at least interested in higher consciousness view making money as negative. If you follow the spiral dynamics chart or even maslows hierarchy of needs, the ability to gather resources is a foundational component of self actualisation. @Raptorsin7 Its true if youre ok with having less you dont need money to buy things, but of course that money could be used for starting up positive businesses and giving people jobs or donating or just helping family and also becoming a role model for others to counter act the typical view of a rich person. There does seem to be a lot of spiritual bypassing of this area as you say as well
  6. Its more of a conversation starter to get some opinions, if i cared i wouldnt have a podcast about making money lol
  7. I see this a lot where people want a 'better' life and as you've framed it, that means going out with friends, doing fun stuff, not being in your head etc. What you're trying to do is to not have to deal with getting better at this stuff through spiritually bypassing the need for it. In my experience this can kinda work but what you'll find is even if you do this successfully, unaddressed issues will rear their head. What you need to do is the hard work of sorting out traumas and mental blocks, then you need to actually do the physical work of improving the areas of your life you want to improve ie finances, relationships, social etc. These are do able things but require work. Your current strategy seems to be 'become mindful and enlightened and everything will be perfect'. While that can be true for some it won't be for most, so get going on some tangible things and the rest will come. Moreover you can still practice mindfulness whilst doing the material stuff.
  8. I got the Pfizer one a couple of weeks ago. No real issues but my arm was quite painful and sore for about 2 days after.
  9. I agree with you, i guess the question is how do you talk about these things without one, creating some kind of polarisation if people dont like what youre presenting and two, you yourself across as youre 'for' one or the other side? Ive noticed this isnt exclusive to this topic though, any discussion entered where people have a strong attachment to one side of something, it almost drags you into the binary 'if you dont agree with me youre against me'. I would say i try my best to be objective, look at facts and take on the other persons perspective, but i also know its very easy to get drawn into these polarised position, even when i dont really have any tie to the particular topic.
  10. It's in the name, conservatives 'conserve' the status quo, that's basically the whole point. Some conservation can be good, for example if everyone was far left society might change more than we can handle so you may need that balance. Jedis bring balance to the universe but they don't take over
  11. If that was the case no one would have a holistic view as no one can experience everything. Experience is important but obviously you have to do things like perspective taking, looking at research, hearing people talk about their experiences etc. If you're trying to make sense of things having a one track view is not going to help with that. Men do say bad things sometimes and it's usually shot down by Leo or other people as it's toxic incel mindsets. Your take is part of the picture but think about incels, they could also say the exact same thing, in their experience they always get rejected by girls and they see these alpha male types getting all the girls and girls are shallow. From their perspective this is 100% true but does it really give any context or understanding to male/female relations? No not really, this is the same if you take a dogmatic view on the other side. (not saying yours is as toxic as incels)
  12. Huh?
  13. @Preety_India do you see potential issues with having an unbalanced view? For example you said women that approach guys are exploited for sex, treated badly, rejected etc, now this could be part of the picture, but it's definitely not the whole picture, however you've said it like it's very common and the reason that women don't approach men. You could take a more holistic view and say approaching is difficult across the board, for example even a good looking guy who's good at talking to women would only get a hit rate (number, date etc) of around 10% from cold approaching women, so meaning if he approached 100 women only 10 would show a good level of interest. I could easily say women are bad, they always reject you and lie to you that they gave a boyfriend or whatever, or I can look at it like that's just how it is. If I did say women are bad I could also paint it as that's my opinion and it's what I see and women can improve from what I'm saying because I don't want to sugar coat things. Do you see the problem? Your opinion, in this case, is like taking something that happens (generously) 5% of the time and saying people should act as if it happens all the time and put judgement on a whole group of people based on this opinion.
  14. @Preety_India would you say you have quite a negative opinion of men?
  15. Everyone would have to transcend their individual ego and think in at least a world centric way, which is probably 1000 plus years away
  16. Alan Watts had a quote that I'll probably butcher as I can't remember, but it was along the lines of, the first person will make a statement, the second will disagree and the third will say that they should be above arguing. It's all ego games and I guess there's nothing wrong with them it just is good to be aware of your own games and what you do. And yes giving advice on this could be one upmanship as well as claiming I'm aware of what I'm doing, it really can go on forever lol.
  17. I accept what you say, I think where your coming from is that this dynamic does happen but there are reasons for women selecting a guy based on wealth, status or education that are logical considering what the woman wants. So its not as shallow as just selecting for that its more about how they would fit considering the womans socio-economic position, if these can be worked out with the man being lower than potentially it could work. I agree with this, i didnt mean to simplify the reasoning, obviously the statement from op is a simple way of saying it, the reasonings people use for getting to that conclusion is different thing. We are switching to a world where women will eventually have as much money and status if not more than men and thats cool but the rub is that traditionally men of higher status have never had a problem with dating women who are lower, or who make less or who are less educated, they have focused on other things, including looks but also co-operation, peaceful nature, femininity etc. Women who are highly educated and high earning do have a problem with dating someone lower status or lower earning, even if the reasoning is they need someone who can keep up with them or they need someone they can look up to or whatever it is, in general women dont go for men lower value than them, the research is pretty clear on this. If they did there wouldnt be much problem, theyd definitely find someone but the reason they dont is because of their standards, so something has to give if they want to get married, either they drop their standards or the look at what a man of a standard they desire wants and try and fulfil that. Theres a lot of research that says the most happy marriages are when a man is earning and a woman is looking after the home, much more than when theyre both earning the same or the woman is earning or when the man is a house husband (although this is the next happiest situation). Now there could be cultural reasons or conditioning behind this i dont know, but thats what the research says. - https://theconversation.com/most-couples-are-less-satisfied-when-the-woman-earns-more-131659 The problem with the old school mentality was women werent given a choice, obviously thats wrong but now that there is a choice it doesnt necessarily guarantee happiness, as you say its a cultural limbo
  18. @intotheblack good vid BTW, I agree with pretty much everything he said
  19. It is stage orange yes but remember higher stages usually incorporate lower stages not completely jump, also this dynamic would've been the same throughout human history, from purple to orange and above. Women can be more picky yes but the problem is majority them (according to the research) will not 'settle' for someone lower in education and/lower in income. So they wouldn't even consider someone in this bracket to even build a connection with. This is fine but as they become higher earners the pool of men that fit into an 'acceptable' bracket shrinks, meaning they would have the choice of 'settling' or dying alone. If it were just about connection and not income this would not be an issue. You will get men who are intimidated by success of a woman but many will be rejected before it even gets to that. This is all fine, but I think what men get pissed at is the women that complain that there are no good men around, when in reality their criteria for good men doesn't include majority of men.
  20. My bad then, maybe I read into what you said too much. An interesting article I just came across, basically saying that marriage rates are down because women are becoming more educated than men and earning more themselves, so because they are looking for someone who is earning higher its harder to find an 'acceptable' mate. https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/marriage-mismatch-husbands-wives-earnings-education-jobs.html
  21. @wwhyWait hold on, you're inferring that I'm blaming the woman for picking a higher status guy, I've never said anything like that. I understand that Beyonce would be forced to choose someone of higher status because of her position. Even if it was a normal girl who picked someone of higher status I wouldn't assign blame. I'm simply pointing to a pattern in society, I've made no judgement on it, what's led you to think I have?
  22. Nothing is 100% true, esp with so many people in the mix. If we're trying to find patterns in society, this is obviously one for the majority
  23. I don't know who any of those women are but I'll take your word they're famous. Looking at the first one she went out with a male model, so not exactly a run of the mill guy, they were also together 14 years so prob before her fame at least and they're now broken up. But I've pointed to the guys who are with the top females that other guys have rated, so I don't get what the argument is, are you saying this isnt the norm in society? Keanu Reeves is quite a trend bucking celeb in general, so I'm not saying everyone follows this script but it is the norm
  24. Point to where I said a woman is superficial and a man's not
  25. I said its a common denominator not that its only based on it. True but these women will also come into contact with many good looking guys constantly, especially when they live in places like LA where everyones an actor, still somehow they all chose the not so good looking high status guy, not the good looking low status, or the not good looking low status guy. The other point is that these guys success has zero to do with their looks so its not a completely even match. Yes Kanye West would marry a woman of lower status, he was in a long term relationship with Amber Rose who was a relatively unknown model before West boosted her stardom. This applies for pretty much all men, they dont care about status, George Clooney, Idris Elba, Matt Damon, Snoop Dogg, the other Jonas brother, loads of high value guys have married women youve never even heard of. Just like the common denominator for women is status, for high value men its looks. Point to where i said that No youve completely read into what i said, a high value man doesnt care about the woman status as i mentioned before and as plays out in the real life examples i gave. If a girl just looks pretty guys will want to get with her, but obviously if she wants a top guy she'd have to have other things going for her, which wouldnt be status but more like how they and how they fit with the guy. Remember he can get many beautiful girls so he can pick what he wants, status isnt usually that much of a factor, at least not as much as other things. But in general it feels like youre trying to hold onto a position in the light of quite obvious evidence. Its not for me to convince you im just presenting an evidence backed argument, if you want to hold onto your argument thats cool