BlueOak

29/05/2025 Did some refinement on terminology, project is ready for launch. Finished the graphical design work with advice. Still trying to rid myself of dopamine addictions, the mental fog is there but feels different. No gaming for a week, been exercising again and visiting people in my life to check in with them, but still running youtube constantly and get spells of restless energy. - You'll be unsurprised I go to a focus and balance GPT :). but the prescriptions are often the same. Walk around, shake the body, breathing exercises. Apparently, the supplement will help with that adjustment. But usually it's only 2 weeks of mental fog. Had to see the family again, Mother's birthday, she's still bed-bound from the stroke. Had some limited interaction with my father. If you know me, its not a good experience. Trying the usual narcissist lines, but it only derailed me for 30 mins or so when I returned, mostly its the mental fog and pulling focus back when I get restless that costs time.

1, Goals Stabilizing an Income Stream so I can concentrate time on other areas of my life. 2, Expanding Areas of my life that need work. 3, Taking accountability and removing any remaining victim patterns or behaviors I have. 4, Creating the reality that I want, through focus, emotional state regulation and any remaining integration necessary.

Felt like a quick break, created a GPT and did a query. Alien Contact Expert Hyper-rational GPT for designing and analyzing alien contact methods. You said: What is your honest estimation on the existence of alien life, given the most up to date evidence and rational calculations you are capable of making. You can draw on anything here of relevance, and any method of deduction likely to provide accurate results. ChatGPT said: Given the most current scientific understanding, rational deduction strongly supports the high likelihood of extraterrestrial life somewhere in the universe, though it remains unconfirmed by direct observation. Key Lines of Reasoning: 1. Astrobiological Potential Planetary Abundance: The Milky Way alone contains an estimated 100–400 billion stars. Approximately 20–50% of Sun-like stars host Earth-sized planets within the habitable zone (per Kepler mission data). Exoplanet Diversity: Thousands of exoplanets have been confirmed, including potentially habitable Earth analogs. The variety of planetary systems increases the statistical probability that some support life. 2. Chemical Universality The basic elements for life—carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur—are common throughout the universe. Organic molecules (e.g., amino acids) have been found in interstellar clouds, meteorites, and comets, suggesting that prebiotic chemistry is widespread. 3. Abiogenesis Likelihood Life arose on Earth relatively quickly (within ~500 million years of habitability), suggesting that abiogenesis might be a common outcome given suitable conditions. However, the mechanism of abiogenesis is not yet fully understood, which leaves uncertainty about how probable it is elsewhere. 4. Bayesian Reasoning Under Bayesian inference, even in the absence of direct detection, the prior probability of life existing elsewhere increases given the scale of the cosmos and multiple habitable environments. Fermi’s Paradox (the apparent contradiction between high probability and lack of evidence) challenges this, but can be mitigated by: Civilizations being rare or short-lived. Civilizations not being spacefaring or broadcasting. Communication signals being unrecognized or undetectable. 5. Drake Equation Framework While highly uncertain, updated inputs suggest a non-negligible number of technologically capable civilizations in the galaxy. Most uncertainty comes from factors like the fraction of life that becomes intelligent, and the longevity of communicative civilizations. 6. Recent Discoveries Phosphine on Venus: Initially suggested as a biosignature, though retracted or challenged; nonetheless, it illustrates growing capability to detect life indicators. Oceans on Moons: Enceladus, Europa, and others have subsurface oceans with possible hydrothermal activity—environments where terrestrial life thrives. Conclusion Based on current astrophysical data, molecular chemistry, and statistical modeling, it is rationally probable—though not yet empirically confirmed—that extraterrestrial life exists. The existence of intelligent or technologically advanced life is far less certain, but cannot be ruled out without more data. In sum: Microbial or simple life is likely to exist elsewhere; intelligent life is plausible but remains speculative in the absence of evidence. You said: What is your current analysis of the release of government documentation on the subject that has been in the media over the last number of years? ChatGPT said: The recent release of U.S. government documentation on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), particularly since 2017, marks a notable shift in official engagement with aerial anomalies. However, from a scientific and analytical standpoint, the evidence disclosed thus far is insufficient to support the hypothesis of extraterrestrial origin. Here is a breakdown: 1. Nature of the Disclosures U.S. Navy Videos: Three declassified videos (FLIR1, GIMBAL, GOFAST) show objects with unusual flight characteristics. These were confirmed as authentic and unidentified by the Pentagon. UAP Task Force Reports: The 2021 preliminary assessment and subsequent 2022 report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) documented 366 new UAP incidents, with about half remaining unexplained. AARO (All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office): Established to coordinate U.S. military and intelligence efforts to analyze UAPs across air, sea, and space domains. 2. Credibility and Constraints Credible Observers: Many reports come from trained military personnel with advanced sensor platforms, increasing reliability of observation—but not interpretation. Sensor Limitations: The data is often limited to infrared, radar, or pilot testimony, lacking the multi-modal confirmation required for scientific conclusions. Ambiguity: Most UAPs remain unidentified not because they defy physics, but because the data is sparse, degraded, or classified. 3. Scientific Interpretations Instrumental Artifacts: Some apparent anomalies (e.g., sudden acceleration, hovering) can be explained by parallax, frame-rate aliasing, or sensor limitations. Human-Made Objects: Likely explanations include drones (foreign or domestic), misidentified aircraft, atmospheric phenomena, or electronic warfare decoys. Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH): While not ruled out, ETH is a hypothesis of last resort—it requires extraordinary evidence, which is currently lacking. 4. Policy and Sociopolitical Context Transparency Shift: The change from ridicule and secrecy to structured inquiry suggests a shift in threat perception and public relations strategy. Geopolitical Framing: There is increasing concern about UAPs as potential surveillance technologies from adversarial nations rather than interstellar probes. Public Discourse: Media framing often emphasizes mystery or insinuation, but the actual documentation is careful to avoid leaps in inference. 5. Recent Developments David Grusch Allegations (2023): Claims by a former intelligence official that the U.S. possesses “non-human craft” have not been substantiated with verifiable evidence and remain anecdotal. The AARO has found no corroborating evidence as of its 2024 update. Congressional Hearings: These indicate political and institutional interest, but so far lack evidentiary breakthroughs. Conclusion While the recent disclosures warrant scientific attention and improved aerial object detection protocols, no released documentation provides credible, verifiable evidence of extraterrestrial origin or technology. The UAP phenomenon remains unexplained in part, but not demonstrably alien. Continued investigation is warranted, particularly to eliminate terrestrial threats and improve aerospace domain awareness.

@Leo Gura When the mind dies and collapses into consciousness, do you believe consciousness disappears also?

28/05/2025 Last Nights Progress, not sure i'll have time tonight as its getting closer to crunch day. Module 1 and 2 are done. I've refined the GPT team, had to reign in the management GPT from negating the other's perspectives, and thus i've done a systems integrity AI to monitor team overlap, so the management AI can tier the instructions and feedback given. Before I restart work on the 2nd from my holiday, I want to have launched the product today or tomorrow. Deciding how much to reveal here as its cutting edge the framework I am building, eventually on the backend but first I need a stable income stream that isn't taking me away from the project. - I've dedicated a no-nonsense financial AI that has given me a grounded plan. While i'm not giving you every key, I'll be giving away snippets to those that read this. I will say, without a doubt, some guard rail GPT's are essential. A legal advisor GPT drafted a disclaimer for shipping with the product, but more than others have proved invaluable to negate the overly positive or theoretical bias of the GPT's involved. That and making sure you question things which feel off. Like the management GPT telling me it could interface directly with all the GPT's, which was a flat-out lie. It can simulate them (or have a method externally crafted), but the benefit to working this way is their perspectives integrate, not a single perspective. Thus the system integrity Ai was essential in facilitating their own configuration updates, and other essential frameworks, that I ask them for time to time, to make sure nothing was lost as the roles as sync up in a cohesive team form. - I cannot describe to you the level of magnitude this can propel you to when you can simulate permanence or a combined focus between GPT's, projects and conversations. BTW i think I understand now why quantum computing is so powerful on another level, and why all life is evolving into that. Its doing this only for considerably more perspectives. I will be dedicating a GPT to explore that eventually, as a tertiary task, to simulate it within this structure as I design the backend more later. Assuming the project is successful initially, as it is refined with feedback through appropriate GPTs designed to handle customer feedback. - Even if its not, I am learning so much I can just drop a second project idea in and run with it, assuming IRL work doesn't tire me out too much. *Additionally I am often wrestling with, do I use this platform to enhance and build out what I am, or simulate what I am not. This seems simple to say both, but in a daily workflow you have X amount of hours in a day, and the core of this is structuring perspectives to complement either or both considerations depending on the task. **Ordered this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0DKC2FCBD?psc=1&smid=A2UMIVYWOVPPOE&ref_=chk_typ_imgToDp To help negate some of the tiredness next weeks return to work will bring, and allow me to be more focused in the downtime I get. This was after consulting with a vitality GPT, describing my own states, goals and patterns, to rank the supplements most useful to me (and available in england).

Well it does in part, because he's equating the morality of actions to be refected in the level of advantage a country has over its neighbors, or at least the ability to research and develop new technologies, and that relies on a variety of factors which shape moral character by the virtue of them existing. Certain technologies existing do by their nature also remove survival concerns or fears which in turn shapes the ethics of that society. Technological development and certainly a level of advantage over your neighbours require a great deal of progress within society. Cooperation internally and externally to acquire speciality or resources, a lower level of corruption, a well-functioning education system, a healthy economy, and the huge supply chains that necessitate not just delivery but development, which stagnates in climates of conflict or great stress on these factors. The regulation of them, the institutions responsible for sustaining them, and a healthy culture which inspires or demands it. Technology, in the modern setting, facilitates stage green to then occur because we have the advantage (in the zero-sum game, orange plays), of time and space to indulge in it, while society here is still largely structured to be orange. Yes it requires safety, security, and law and order also, but more development than that is necessary by the people or country involved. Can a country regress in its moral or ethical character while technologically advanced, yes. I would argue the last 20 years are clear indications of it. But its very difficult to argue these points on their own, even citing what I have, because morality is largely subjective and certainly acting along ethical or moral grounds is far from guaranteed even when they are in place. *Also as it does this it tends to regress, as demonstrated by people restructuring education/culture currently so it regresses in some regions of the world, or what is called the brain drain as people abandon their society for something more aligned with themselves. I mean here in England we are slowly eroding our food standards, which has slow but gradual effects on the population from health through to intelligence.

I fully understand reality is subjective, because reality is entirely in your mind. - Beauty in this case. What you do not understand is that states are often created before logical thought rationalises them. I've explained some. We'll do an easy one. Being wet. I don't sit there and think to myself am I actually wet, I am just wet or dry. We can experience this differently, but wet or dry is wet or dry. Certainly, you can example a bear mauling you, and ignore survival, but reality contains survival in it. In actuality, I should be shooting or escaping the bear, as it's a horrific experience to be mauled. Certain constructs within reality simply are, and these evoke different states of being. Survival is a key factor in life, as are the human needs; they are baked into the experience of being a human, not dependent on belief, patterns of behaviour, identity etc. Then you are exampling perfection (whatever that concept is) and beauty, telling me they must be seen everywhere, because why exactly? Where is it written that everything must be beautiful and perfect? Who told you this, and why is this the default, overriding state? Why is that belief system the overriding one? I'll answer, because it makes us feel better, and thus, feeling better generates a better experience. You consider the imperfect or ugly as lesser or not wanted (insert your term here) because reality does have inbuilt triggers that generate states within you without any conscious effort at all. - One of them being beauty and ugliness.

Here is the Political Minds Analysis of the this page + some core strategies: Hyper-rational political analyst solving complex issues objectively 1. Moral Symmetry vs. Structural Asymmetry BlueOak’s Core View: Emphasizes personal accountability and balanced attribution of moral responsibility to both Israel and Palestinians. Advocates for depoliticized moral clarity: “Israel committed genocide, Palestine committed terrorism. Period.” Proposes that acknowledgment by a large public can pressure enablers to change behavior. Strength: This model aims to depolarize discourse by drawing moral boundaries in equal terms. It rightly emphasizes that clarity and shared consensus can be a catalyst for international or domestic pressure. Limitation: It risks flattening the asymmetries in power, agency, and systemic structure. By asserting equal responsibility without equal context (military power, statehood, international support), it may obscure the mechanisms that make one actor vastly more capable of destruction and impunity than the other. 2. Zazen’s Systems Critique Zazen’s Core View: Argues that the U.S. is the structural enabler of Israeli impunity. Distinguishes horizontal development (material, technological) from vertical development (moral, ethical). Emphasizes that asymmetric accountability leads to asymmetric power consolidation and further violence. Urges focusing on levers of influence, not just surface actors. Strength: Deep systemic analysis that traces power from battlefield actors to geopolitical structures. Effectively challenges assumptions that modernity or liberal democracy equates to moral superiority. Rightly points out that moral development is not guaranteed by institutional development. Limitation: Could be read as downplaying Palestinian agency, even when acknowledging structural oppression. There's a rhetorical risk in emphasizing structural causes to the point of appearing to absolve non-state actors of their moral responsibilities. 3. Leo Gura’s Civilizational Hierarchy Framing Leo’s Core View: Argues that Israel is a "lesser evil" due to being more “civilized,” governed by law and constraints (even if selectively). Frames conflict outcomes in terms of “civilization vs. barbarity,” with survival as the arbiter of moral legitimacy. Strength: Points to institutional differences and behavioral norms in warfare (e.g., IDF aborting missions to avoid civilians). Invites pragmatic evaluation of regimes based on comparative harm reduction. Limitation: Relies on an uncritical civilizational metric that confuses development with morality. Risks legitimizing structural violence when done by “civilized” actors while condemning reactive violence as inherently more evil. Neglects the colonial origins and moral relativism that underpin such “civilized evil.” 4. The “Greater Evil” and Asymmetric Warfare Debate Multiple users (Raze, Zazen, Twentyfirst) challenge the idea that more developed nations are inherently more moral. They note: Israel's historical and ongoing use of disproportionate force. The selective application of international law. The moral danger in using “standards” that privilege state violence over insurgent violence, when the latter may be more understandable (though not necessarily justifiable) given systemic oppression. This aligns with: Frantz Fanon’s and Hannah Arendt’s theories on violence: that oppressed populations often resort to violence when peaceful channels are structurally closed. Realist critiques of international law, which point out its selective enforcement and geopolitical bias. Final Synthesis To effectively hold all parties accountable: Direct Responsibility: Moral clarity about atrocities should be affirmed. Structural Accountability: Systems that enable atrocities must be scrutinized, particularly U.S. support structures. Asymmetric Contextualization: Accountability must reflect material and institutional asymmetries (power, resources, international protections). Ethical Consistency: Moral standards should apply across contexts, but with contextual nuance (e.g., state vs. non-state actors). Policy Levers: Targeted sanctions, arms embargoes, and international legal mechanisms must include enablers, not just perpetrators. Do you want a proposed model of how a multilateral accountability framework could look (e.g., involving a UN-mandated mechanism, ICC jurisdiction, and trade conditionalities)? You said: Yes and also suggestions for individuals or small collective groups to assist A Multilateral Accountability Framework for governments and institutions. Actionable Recommendations for Individuals and Grassroots Groups seeking to promote justice and accountability. 1. Multilateral Accountability Framework Objective: Create a scalable and enforceable mechanism that addresses the actions of both direct perpetrators and structural enablers of large-scale violence, like the Israel-Palestine conflict. A. Core Mechanisms Level Instrument Description Legal Universal Jurisdiction & ICC Empowerment Reinforce the mandate and reach of the International Criminal Court (ICC) with binding jurisdiction over war crimes, regardless of state ratification, through a revised UN Security Council resolution. Include enforcement provisions for state and non-state actors. Economic Targeted Sanctions & Arms Embargoes Impose smart sanctions (asset freezes, travel bans) on political/military leaders responsible for war crimes, from all sides. Implement arms embargoes via binding UNSC resolution (with automatic renewals and independent verification). Diplomatic Multilateral Conditionality Agreements Link bilateral trade, aid, and security cooperation to human rights compliance. E.g., require demonstrable progress on civilian protections and humanitarian access as conditions for military aid or financial loans (modeled after Leahy Laws, but globally applied). Verification Independent Observational Force Establish a neutral UN or BRICS-backed "Accountability Corps" composed of civilian monitors, legal experts, and forensic investigators to document violations, verify compliance, and issue regular public reports. Conflict Resolution - Regional Negotiation Bloc with Enforcement Authority Create a regional dialogue mechanism (e.g., Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, EU, U.S., BRICS observers) with power to propose binding solutions, mediate truces, and enforce arms suspension agreements with third-party monitoring. 2. Suggestions for Individuals and Small Collectives These actions are designed to work within the limits of personal agency while leveraging broader systemic influence: A. Educate, Frame, and Amplify Host teach-ins, reading groups, and public forums that examine the structures of violence (e.g., arms trade, UN vetoes, IMF conditionalities) rather than just focusing on visible atrocities. Emphasize distinctions between horizontal (technological/economic) and vertical (ethical) development in public discourse. Use precise, system-aware language: avoid "both sides" flattening but articulate asymmetry without absolution. B. Targeted Advocacy Lobby politicians, especially in supplier states (U.S., Germany, UK, France) to end unconditional arms support. Join or support campaigns like: DAWN MENA, Jewish Voice for Peace, Democracy for the Arab World Now. Stop Arming Israel (UK) or CodePink (U.S.). Push for city-level resolutions (e.g., boycott-related procurement policies) as symbolic yet momentum-building acts. C. Material Solidarity Support reconstruction efforts and medical aid through vetted organizations (e.g., Medical Aid for Palestinians, Palestine Children’s Relief Fund). Fund independent journalism and legal monitoring bodies (e.g., B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence, Forensic Architecture). D. Platform Resistance If you control or influence a platform (social media page, university club, podcast, etc.), create space for historically marginalized perspectives and long-form context—countering misinformation and narrative reductionism. E. Strategic Civil Disobedience Engage in disruptive nonviolent actions where appropriate: sit-ins, protests at weapons manufacturers or government buildings. Use legal leverage (e.g., human rights litigation, FOIA requests) to expose complicity by local institutions in enabling arms transfers or foreign policy decisions. Final Thought Accountability is not a zero-sum game—it must be multi-scalar. To address state-sponsored violence or terror, accountability must scale from the personal to the planetary. Effective action requires a distributed network of pressure: governments, institutions, and people.

@zazen That is the crux of it. How do we do hold all parties accountable for their actions. It is the perfect question to ask and ask repeatedly. With the majority focus on Israel and Palestine, and not to negate your perspective, a secondary focus on those fueling and supporting the conflict. For one, we acknowledge it. Right here and now, you and me. That Israel is responsible for a genocide. Palestine is responsible for a reprehensible act of terror. We don't go any further than that, we keep it simple. We don't make excuses for either country; we put them at the top of the list, directly responsible for making those events happen. They are personally recognized for it. For two, once an understanding like that is agreed on by a large enough group of people, political pressure mounts. Though we don't have to ever agree on every detail zazen, (we never will ) we do need to agree on that much for it to stick. That political pressure slowly influences the secondary parties to stop enabling the behaviour. Again I am not equating anything, there is no excuse here (that's the point) I am stating exactly in clear terms what both parties are directly responsible for in this period of violence. --- As for the deeper question on how to help, or the how of something, which is a noble one, let me offer that below:

1, The world may say ethnic cleansing is morally wrong but they do it anyway because, for the most part, they are not stage green. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_cleansing_campaigns It's easy to condemn something and do nothing. 2, The US is one of several suppliers of arms; if they withdraw, someone else will arm Israel. It doesn't solve the problem; in fact, the only leverage they have over Israel is that they supply arms. to the extent they don't step over a line. If the US did, Israel just goes to one of these 25 countries, or others, or independent contractors. https://247wallst.com/special-report/2023/01/11/the-25-largest-arms-exporting-countries-and-who-they-sell-to/ They are far from the only dealer they can buy from. This is why I put blockades higher up on the list of topics to focus on. Besides, if they did, they would lose a major strategic interest in the region, at a time when BRICS are expanding all the time, which would be a misstep. Especially nearing the possible 'official' start of a larger conflict across the globe. 3, If anything, the US having 700 bases weakens their ability to focus on Israel. If they had 5, those 5 would get their full focus. Shall we estimate a dozen in the region? It's more their aircraft carriers which project power. 4, The weight of history does not support your assertion that the west is responsible for most of the wars. This is sadly your bias. I mean we could do a breakdown, but let's accelerate that topic: I'll refer to large periods of history, you'll point to specific regional conflicts in a recent time frame (while also citing things that go back 100's of years), I'll go to wikipedia and link all the conflicts BRICS have been involved in, you'll try to justify it, and at that point I'll probably get tired out :D, which is what usually happens. We can start there instead this time? Me justifying western conflicts from their historical perspective, you are justifying BRICS conflicts from their perspective, with me continuously bringing you back to the 6 human needs that drive all of humanity and reminding us all humans have fundamentally the same drives. Then i'll add on top that authoritarian regimes rule through more violence than liberal regimes, so it's a constant state of increased violence day to day, and we'll argue that vs larger-scale conflicts, etc. This is where I say you don't apply systematic thinking to western nations. You probably could, you could entirely put aside bias of them, take their perspective, and explain it. I do this with Russia sometimes when I want balance. I don't know enough about China to do it effectively, though, only surmise it. 5, UN resolutions won't restrict Israel much. Though i agree for what its worth. I wish they would restrict countries more. We could have an authority greater than nation states, stopping wars and enforcing diplomatic negotiations and a mature, neutral resolution. But the problem is, it's set up to require all the people from different fractured groups to agree. I mean we can't even agree, and I've got respect for you. This is just a micro of the macro. Voting is just a poor way of coming to a conclusion, we'd vote differently, but we could draft something with both our perspectives in and implement it. 6, You brushed over the main point I was trying to make. That you are not putting enough emphasis on holding Israel accountable for Israel's actions. You defended Palestine, when my comment was largely intended toward Israel at this moment, as they are the aggressor. To the extent Palestine was the aggressor, yes they need to be held accountable for that also. But i'll go further, we should start looking at them both collectively in this case. So blockade the region, the entire region, from getting arms. Negotiate with the entire region at once. These kinds of things. Make continued trade contingent on both sides stopping violence. I would rather a multinational force kept the peace, but now I am shooting for the stars. We have to, we absolutely have to put the main accountability on the parties involved, no matter how they are doing what they are doing, or who is enabling it. This is the critical misstep not being made. - Parents enabling their childs drug use are not doing anyone any favors, but if the kid was held accountable for taking the drugs, that would start to build that inside themselves, which is why prison sometimes works for example.

Yeah I wasn't equating cities to being ugly, they can be, but there are some fine ones out there. But I disagree that all things are beautiful. Unless you are going to say all things are ugly, in which case you are making a purely relativist argument, and okay. If not: In life there are certain things which create beauty without logical thought due to there being an existing framework for it; one is the golden mean ratio , creating natural symmetry. This is a natural occurrence in plants, animals etc but applies to all things. Another is the harmonic sounds of certain sounds and symbols. This is why a lot of feminine names have an 'a' on the end, or have 'ell; in them for example, due to our language structure, these tones evoke certain responses when spoken or seen. As for your comment here: Standing or sitting where you are right now. Anger lust happiness boredom laziness every feeling is in your fov. Wether you choose to react to one is up to you. Yes but I wouldn't override my anger and call it happiness, for example, nor would I override my established framework for ugly and call it beautiful for the sake of telling myself it's possible, I already know it's possible, I created it.

I know I misread my apologies. I deleted it but not fast enough I should be working, and i'm splitting my attention, it was an engaging chat though.

To be clear, creation isn't the logical focus of the mind, though that can direct it, it's the direct state and experience happening right now. So with no mind, there is no focus, or framework, and thus creation becomes everything.

True. Creating the current thing is more fitting a term.

They never started Leo. You are arguing a temporal reality that doesn't exist. Its only observable because you create it. You'll just create the next thing. Maybe as a slug, maybe as a being that can shift between realities at will, or maybe as Leo Gura mk2, only this time as a vegan

Okay. So when death occurs, it is your contention that you won't be observing it? I can't dispprove you obviously, only point to the multitude of times i've been out of body, and communicated this to the self. *Or better yet, you won't become the entire universe itself. Which is what happened last time.

I'm sure you know mind is a concept you've invented Leo. The death of mind is something you've invented to frame this concept of mind. Proof is also, the concept of a universe is also. This is why I say this philosophy, while extremely beneficial in things like assisting to dissolve egoic conflicts, is ultimately a framework in of itself. How will something that never existed in the first place go anywhere, end or start? How will anything die that didn't exist to start with.

Mind is a concept in your mind. X or Y is a concept in your mind. Reality just is. Anything you put over the top of it, labels, definitions, reactions you put there. Then we get stuck trying to convince what we consider or define as 'others', that other labels and definitions are correct or not. Here for example, most people on the forum don't realise this one, maybe it'll be helpful. It's not selfish because there is no self, its the complete dissolution of the self. Then after that, it doesn't get easier. Because you get to be construct aware, that is every single thing that ever happened in your life was created by you, all the things you've assigned as trauma, or bad, or painful (and all the good stuff too), you created. That is impossible for most people to accept, because it defines their identity and concept of self. Which ultimately doesn't exist. ^But all of that, including the initial reaction I had, was me attempting to convince you (my reality) how I decided to frame reality was real, even if I stepped back and tried to macro it. So Solipisism isn't there yet, but its a damn good framework (claiming to not be a framework ) It's closer though, I understand that much. *Also i'd contend it was more individualist in nature than collective, whereas the spiral dynamics model is more collective in nature. So its an interesting pairing here.

Beautiful is the resonance of the letters and symbols in your mind, or the symmetry of an image or its proximity to the golden mean. As an obvious clear example: We'd struggle to equate the word Xngggakaka to beautiful, or a very distorted image pattern, even if we tried. This is why many feminine names have certain tones and sounds, also why certain people appear beautiful universally. - Not attractive—that's a different factor, but beautiful. *Some of this helps demonstrate how language structures shapes reality. We can certainly go against this innate harmony and structure, to say anything is beautiful, but it doesn't negate that it exists when we attune to it. A bit like you can ignore nature and live in a city, but when you start focusing on nature again, there it will be.

Everyone lives in different realities because reality is entirely constructed in your own mind by your senses, filtered through perceptions, and often identity; Represented to you by your beliefs, convictions, opinions, and patterns etc. Further than that its a reflection of you, though most people resist this because they resist themselves, and as mentioned elsewhere, something you'll probably agree with, people not wanting to take accountability or responsibility for their own lives. What they say they want isn't always what they want. Often emotions can rise and fall, and its often the man's role to give them space for that, and at best, when you know them well, help them express or move through them when they want to. I enjoy a partner also helping me through emotional states, so I don't confine this to one gender. Because men are visual beings, we tend to picture this strength and stability as a well-muscled guy, but in reality, its better represented by internal order, empathy, and focus/discipline. - It's very helpful for a man to engage his body, it makes you feel stronger, gives you energy and confidence, which is then reflected in your interactions and externally. Nobody knows what women want as a collective, because if you interviewed 20 women and asked them, they'd all have different answers. I would say both perspectives can be observed. Because I hear plenty of people say what @Alexop says, online mostly, not where I live. So there are obviously plenty of people who hold this view, and then I hear plenty of people say what you say, mostly online, addressing those online. In my real life, people say things like: There is no loyalty anymore. (Both genders tell me that) They worry about their personality meaning people won't like them, when actually its their weight, for example. It's quite common to avoid addressing something by using a scapegoat, or just hiding behind it as a fear to go out and try. They've given up on relationships because too many failed, or they are happy in relationships because they found the right person. Or they come in beaming, happy because they are in love. Its all temporal. None of it really extends past the next relationship, only whatever belief they carry with them, which they should drop because the next person could be entirely different. And give them entirely different negative/positive experiences. But I will say loyalty seems a harder thing to find these days in the younger generation, at least where I live they tell me that. That's a big factor hurting the birthrate right now, and contributing to family breakdown and thus the negation of positive gender roles. The lack of loyalty people express, and the ease of finding other partners, plus the wealth of choices at their disposal. But again, should I hold that belief outside of where I live, probably not no. *Economic pressures and modern society not prioritising family being other huge factors obviously.

Progress: 27/05/2025 Creation of a Chat GPT Team, and Project Coordination templates that I can trial different projects with. Using different specialists as and when needed. This leverages my ability to swap between perspectives inherent in stage yellow, integrate them as I have done all my life, while playing to my love for technology, psychological patterning and cutting-edge development. Also incorporating aspects of challenge and visual progress within the project. Essentially representing me, if I were a business task. Grasped understanding of the macro trend, that the expression of masculinity inherent in authoritarian regimes, their populations, and their wars is the same reflection of the hatred of expression of liberal behaviours, their wars, and their populations. This has allowed me to fully integrate all aspects of this line: Masculinity only functions healthily when based on internal order, not external expression. Thus, full accountability remains paramount for a healthy mind or a healthy society. I feel this was one of my remaining patterns that rebelled against different expressions of order when it came in different forms, because I hadn't fully equated how both sides of this are showing the same thing to me.

Arguing morals about a population is often a waste of time. You are arguing with a still small segment of the population (stage greens) using a moral or ethical framework that differs between different countries. I know you are capable of systematic thinking, not just capable, but in social and political dynamics, extremely skilled, but you only apply it to those countries you identify with. Despite their attempts to cling to power. The US hasn't effectively been the world's police for about 20 years. The countries involved in these problems have to start taking responsibility for their own positions and actions. Otherwise, nothing will ever improve. Its exactly the same with people's personal life. Macro/Micro, especially now most of all, its part of what is being shown. So laser-focused on Israel, Palestine, and the groups involved. Yes arms to these countries and the political, cultural or religious influence of those countries surrounding them play a factor, but its got to be put lower on the scale of accountability and responsibility than those directly involved, else guess what, Israel will always feel like they had less agency in this than they do too! And nothing changes. If people don't assign accountability to someone, there is no pressure to take it. --- Now i've appealed a quasi green-yellow argument, because yes I used morality or at least ethics there too Someone is always going to ship arms to warzones. So you can try to block individual countries, but you'd be better off advocating for blockades of the borders, and even better off addressing the hostilities themselves, calling for the arms. Even better off addressing the fears that cause the hostilities and even better off addressing the pressures that cause the fears. Arms < Blockades < Hostilities < Fears < Pressures Causing them | Additionally Belief Structures Contributing to the pressures --- The other thing on full display is that healthy masculinity has to rest on internal order, rather than external expression. I.E get things stable at home, rather than look to attack your neighbors or blame anyone else. *NB At full accountability and responsibility for personal actions weapon shipments would naturally be lessened as a result, because nobody else could hide behind the victim excuse for one example, they'd be carrying the cost of it themselves and actually want to do so.

Never had a penny to my name mate and I get called one of the kindest people you'll meet... somedays. If I help people that person thinks of me as 'kind', and the next person I refuse to help because I weigh their request to be unreasonable will think of me as 'mean'. I don't place much value on these labels, only that the act of helping makes me experience a positive feeling, unless its causing me suffering, in which case I weigh whether the suffering was justified or don't do it again. *On reflection, I can see why you'd say I am seen as kind when I have resources and by implication, mean when i do not.

Well not exactly no, but the point isn't to argue the definition; I might as well shout at the wind. It's to show you the conflicting definitions that exist under such a label. To highlight some of what you are facing and how to counter or deal with it. This comes out in the interactions with people. I don't know how much you agree that you create the reality you exist in, the outside reflects the inside in terms of conflict, as an example, but on a practical level, because you'll be assuming one behavior, identity label, or pattern links to another. Among other things. I don't doubt you meet a lot of Karens, Darrens, and fragile people in life. I don't personally, because I live in a conservative countryside area in the UK, which is more hardy by its nature. Living off the land, a lot of workmen etc. Politeness is important here and linked to what we call nice. You can be polite and unkind as an example, but again, the definitions aren't important; only showing the differences are. Though I take the meaning of her video, i've seen and commented on it before. I generally think this is one of her poorer videos, as its basing what she's saying on subjective labels, which will definitely change from one culture, country even region to the next. Ditto her containment video for similar but even more definable reasons, where the phrase 'providing protective space' wouldn't carry all the negative connotations the word containment does. I generally find Teal's videos on outward society lacking in this area, whereas her videos for the internal state of a person are significantly better. If you were dealing with a population that didn't get as hung up on egoic identity or labels, then it wouldn't matter as much, but you are. Which is where some of what you call childish behavior is often displayed. So you can engage with it, argue with the child (which won't go well), educate, side step, lead by example, help them, whatever, but argument rarely works well with the childlike aspects in human psyche. - Because you'd have to engage the childish aspects of yourself (or sink to that level) to do so often times.

Thank you for sharing that. I agree with much of it; it's helpful to establish. It goes to the problem you are facing in dealing with people, at least in part. For me nice means: Helpful, sincere, and polite. If i were to boil it down. So the problem comes when you communicate that nice people are bad; inevitably, there is conflict on the meaning of a label. This also comes about in nonverbal interaction.