BlueOak

Yes to the first part, decided upon in part by somewhat randomly by the collective and in part by an all too small group of academics who then do their own versions of their dictionary. No to the second here at least. There is no limit on languages which can be spoken, written or read in the UK, and its fairly common to hear other dialects. Though its polite to speak in english in the company of strangers, as its a universal dialect here. Language itself at its root is based on symbols with rigid meanings, which are far too easily open to individual misinterpretation in the message. Before language pictures were used and these were in part easier because the wider meaning of a picture allowed for individual perspectives to coexist on the subject with less disagreement. A mountain is a mountain. Food is food. Shelter is Shelter etc. The less strict or rigid a language is, the better imho. Which to be fair to english, it is better than some in that regard as its flexible, there are many ways of describing something or using a word, tone etc. This makes it harder to learn also. *I will also say I support things like gaelic being preserved but I have a bias toward the culture. Latin also.

I wouldn't comment on American's language only the things i've interacted with. You can pull statistics that say spanish is relatively well known and studied. I would guess english or spanish is the primary mode of thought from those i've spoken to, but I wouldn't like to state it for a foreign country. Myself. Maths if you consider that a language. Touch. Imagery. Music. I tried learning mandarin for 6 months from the rosetta stone software, which is great. I did learn different computer coding skills. I do think of myself as sympathetic to celtic or folk language, art, music, because I am half scottish and I enjoy those cultures. In the UK its still largely english that we communicate and think in but that language originates from many nations and cultures, you can see that best in the variety of names in cities or towns. Roman, Saxon, Norse, Celtic etc. The language and dialect came from these different cultures and others. Modern day there are more cultures here that are part of our national makeup for example these are interesting: What employers in the UK see as useful languages (2015) https://www.indy100.com/celebrities/the-10-languages-uk-employers-most-want-their-staff-to-speak-7278966 There are a few % of people here that speak a different primary language: (2011) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/language/articles/languageinenglandandwales/2013-03-04 (2013) https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/30/article-2270638-173FF389000005DC-320_306x448_popup.jpg But honestly for the massive majority they all speak great english. Its difficult to find a modern day graph or census but this has continued to rise since those graphs were published 10 years ago, and is skewed towards london and other urban areas. Where I live for example further out in the country its almost exclusively english, and only english native nationalities here. Indian languages are probably among the more common languages you'll find in communities here, along with Cantonese communities from hong kong, both of which we have/had a lot of good relationship with over my lifetime. Pakistani and Polish or Eastern European communities are also reasonably common. All of those things, cultures and influences have had an effect on my language, thought patterns and behaviors.

I just realised something critical. The mix of operating under both UK and US law heavily curtails UK Independent media as it has to satisfy both to operate.

Empathy. I would like the best possible instruction you can offer on how to be empathetic before I put up an emotional/mental wall. I am happy to discuss almost anything right here so it helps others. How do I default to being empathetic and understanding before I default to judgement and distancing toward someone who is doing the same. If I see judgement I tend to reflect it. What tips, tricks, behaviors, processes, advice anything can you offer. I do try and bridge when I see someone disconnected, as I recognize it in myself and then I try to meet them where they are. I've done that all my life if I saw someone neglected or outside of the group. But its rarely been my first action especially if see someone in a judgemental mindset. As years went on the pull to the behavior of distancing and judgement grew stronger rather than mellowed like most of my emotional reactions did. Thanks for any help. *I realise most people are operating from a place of disconnection and a mental wall, which helps to know. **If you can meet me where I am in this statement I would really appreciate it reflected

I am from the UK so my frame of reference is partially that. We are stronger than america for example in some respects about freedom of speech and weaker in others. We can't use news or sports clips for example in a video, whereas Americans can. While I feel we are less censored than Americans are in large media, our debates for example tend to grill the person speaking more thoroughly and the prime minister can get a question asked to him each week from any elected official. Our large broadcasts tend to have a wider array of opinions shown at once but its all still for the status quo, and any large media broadcaster in the UK will heavily censor their comments or replies on youtube. Our independent media scene is almost non existant over here sadly, and what existed has been squashed by youtube or google. When you can find a channel the discussion is much more blunt and to the point, the replies are less censored, more honesty. Independent media is ever reduced partially because of not being able to reference existing news or video clips, a youtube monopoly, corporate interest, and also the nature of the average person here trusting the established media more. Any discussion outside the status quo I do usually falls on an american website/service. Because UK specific video sites or large open discussion areas are less common. My experience is straddling the two, as well as european law, growing up under the EU and communicating across a few European services (which of course is a multitude of different laws). Websites in some european countries have much more well defended freedom of speech laws, and are attractive as a result for discussions. So its a mix that i've encountered over my life time.

Social connections are good. They help have a sense of community, and level out the extremes just by sharing life together naturally. VR is nice but you don't see VR taking the place of 2D video games for example, because its niche. People at home have kids to look after, how many want to shut off their view of life entirely? A few, but nowhere near the numbers needed. I remember when second life gave people this fear it'd take over actual life, and for some they built shops there, built communities but did it? No. It was just part of life. It was a fun visit but in a few years the novelty fell away. What's to stop it happening by default. 1) The current human nature. Greed. Businesses won't lose money or customers for a cultural change. That is blindly evident on things like the environment but it also works on things like, not getting rid of physical money in favor of using credit cards, or forcing people to have/use a phone. Their profits would take a hit, because the people that won't pay on the card or don't like to, won't or won't be inclined to as much. Same with the phone. Same with any technological development. 2) Novelty. Technology gets a few years and then shifts to something else. If its not built on real life, it only lasts so long. Nothing is permanent but the next technology development is never far away. I've seen so many virtual worlds go through this and many were social, and several had real incomes or communities attached to them. 3) Distractions. Have you ever tried to live your life purely in distraction? Rather than real life? I have. I was a master at it. But you always get depression coming back up, the connection here in this idea adds a part missing in traditional distractions but its still not enough. Fictional communities lack meaning. You'll have to trust me on that, i've immersed myself deeply in some of them, and they don't last. Connections with others are not solid, they are broken easily, and they are abandoned over trivial things. Because they are not real, lasting or often meaningful (with a few exceptions, fond first memories for example). Finally some thoughts. So far all i've seen from the internet the last 20 years is its gone in the direction of censorship and removing that which communities don't like. If that trend continues, less and less people will consider it as platform to build a significant part of their life on, because parts of them won't be welcome. It won't stop existing, but I think the idea of a metaverse replacing life is overexaggerated. Like most technological changes that have come, they are there, but I get a sense people are getting tired of spending too much time on them. The gradual reaction to facebook, and other social media is an example of that. As for moving maybe, i've considered it over a large enough issue before. I do think its healthy to be in a community that you feel at least comfortable in, makes a big difference in your life. Where I am now its down to earth, sometimes too conservative for me, but it doesn't shift much. Are we living in a metaverse, a bit yes with connections like this one we are having here or electronic transactions. Like I say if you want an example of a metaverse that came and slowly declined take a look at the history of second life, or Entropia Universe etc. These had real incomes for people but they never were popular enough to replace real life for the masses. Countless MMO's and virtual worlds have come and gone over the years more than I could ever count. So don't fear too much. If you don't want it, chances are you are not alone.

Food Comfort, this chair. The internet and sharing of information. My Body and Health The human spirit. Communication Here with all of you. The many teachers that helped me from my pets, to a friend, to a guru. Leo here. People still now trying to help the world, even with all they go through. Roof over my head. This thread, Gratitude The state of gratitude when I focus on it. Warmth yes! Especially now This jumper and my small electric heater. Games Writing Feeling, Touch, Smell, Senses. Meditation Exercise Emotion Security and Safety Understanding Mother, Brother. Happy Memories Art Nature, where I live, I am blessed by it.

Also anything that is entertainment not news, should by default be forced to remove the term news from their name. Whether this is a 1 person channel or a multi billion pound enterprise. Because this is truth, transparency, if its not news again by law and definition it shouldn't get to tell people it is.

I've never read it so I did a google. On wikipedia it describes it as threatening violence, etc. So you missed where i said: Quote: The only exceptions to this are matters of safety, calling for violence, or breaking a law by harming someone. As long as people are safe and secure, not calling for violence to occur (theft, violence, intimidation etc) which I think is a definition which could be expanded to include certain associated rhetoric, then let people express their opinion and view. End Quote: Further as I hinted there about rhetoric, I feel the current laws are inadequate and behind the digital times when it comes to what is actually enticing or threatening, stiring populations up to action. People get to hide behind anonymity or double talk, hinting at something but not really saying it to their audience, and covering their identity with a moniker. A few can demonize people to the point their audience no longer considers them as people. This could be regulated against with some discussion on the topic, so that slander for example is still slander and can be taken further in court, or hate speech can cover things like claims that try to indirectly stir people up to cause violence. There needs to be repercussions for what people do. Law, not companies deciding what people can say or see. None of that means people shouldn't be able to speak their mind. I'd rather know something than have it hidden from me for example. If people really feel a certain way, its better to have it in the open, so we can see it and address it or understand what they are really saying. Not unconscious and unknown, or going on in secret, that is far more dangerous. Have you seen the figures about how many criminals have been caught by facebook evidence?

Even if the question is just about safety. The question becomes do you want unconscious zombies acting out things without realising or a population that's aware of what is going on and can take appropriate action to safeguard others. People are aware of what they are aware of now because they saw, experienced it, heard it, read it etc. Limit what people see and it still occurs, you and they are just no longer aware of it. If you limited this study from being published you wouldn't have access to the information and we wouldn't be talking about it, for others it would be an unconscious expression that happened anyway but they were not aware of it. The idea that silencing someone will stop something is simply untrue, and worse is when you ask me or someone else to decide what should or shouldn't be permitted to be broadcast its even worse. As now i get to impose my way of life on you by default. The only exceptions to this are matters of safety, calling for violence, or breaking a law by harming someone. As long as people are safe and secure, not calling for violence to occur (theft, violence, intimidation etc) which I think is a definition which could be expanded to include certain associated rhetoric, then let people express their opinion and view. As an example. A few years ago I was personally globally moderated off youtube/google for speaking about a diversive topic before the current media was ready to talk about it. Which it now is. Realising I could no longer speak on youtube, without having all my comments filtered by a third party (not the channel itself but the platform) I went elsewhere. I still have those views, I still express them and if I didn't they would still be unconsciously in me and acted upon.

Seems you are missing the collective aspect that endures after you as an individual are dead. If you have no family, friends or funeral costs sure. Family might need taking care of, friends might benefit from a funeral, celebration, or moment, and others unrelated to you would benefit if you have enough money in your bank to take care of the arrangement after you die at a minimum. I mean if you work out how to leave money to your next life let me know , otherwise its only others you are thinking of if you do something like that.

I remember when I used to listen to tony robbins as a kid, someone who dedicated his entire life to financial success. He would say even he wanted 10% escapism time, and that's someone who for me is focused too much in the direction of materialism. Nothing wrong with that, just from my perspective.

It hopefully will allow people to do what they want to do. If they still want a factory job, they will be supervising and repairing the machines. If they still want to drive, there will be jobs for drivers, just a lot less of them. There will be new jobs created not only for engineers repairing AI, designing AI, selling AI, but other industries will open up by virtue of necessity. If they don't then employers will be forced to have a certain amount of staff for their level of income. Why? Because jobs = money, money = jobs. There will not be a factory producing things if people are not buying them. Of course the change could be more dramatic where money is no longer the motivating factor for doing something, or work becomes something for the collective rather than the individual, but that takes a certain level of idealism or imagination that I do not possess, or foresee in the medium term. *Also how likely do you think it is people on mass will want an AI doctor? I really don't see it, that's an incredible leap of trust. Maybe the AI can present options to the doctor at a click of a button.

For me peace can't have violence in it. People being stuck in camps isn't peaceful, violence is in the oppression of their movement or way of life. Even comparing your statement to the dictionary definition I just pulled had: 1. The absence of war or other hostilities. - No unless you mean just external. 2. An agreement or a treaty to end hostilities - Yes as nobodies around to treaty with, only your own people. 3. Freedom from quarrels and disagreement; harmonious relations - Definitely No. 4. Public security and order: was arrested for disturbing the peace - Not if there is active resistance. 5. Inner contentment; serenity: peace of mind - Definitely No

Somewhat. Its not quite as mallable as I think you are making out. There are certain physical properties that can be easily demonstrated in front of someone. I had the benefit of doing a year or so in optics so vision being subjective was assumed from an early age. Now you are going to answer that measurements are subjective, yes but anything that can be physically demonstrated is what frames reality and makes a useful thing to form objective beliefs around. *If you need an objective physical property of an apple, drop it into your hand, you and everyone else capable of touch will feel its solid not liquid.

I don't know if this will help it may just anger you. The response you are getting here is what is seen globally. At the very least it gives you an idea of what is there, and by experiencing it you have been through it which has value. Although we are different in what we seek as I expressed. If I speak about my beliefs for what an ideal collective is, I am sure to (and have) got the responses of the same tone you did. The push back from the status quo is always there when any kind of change, even tiny ones about a small aspect of culture are expressed, and this a large contrast to what exists currently.

@MarkKol We are becoming more conscious, that's why you are aware of what you are now aware of in society and yourself. That's what the internet is an accelerator. We haven't just started to have the immaturity you speak of, I would call it state of being, its been there forever. Even just speaking developmentally, all points of view are useful for development, by limiting what people are exposed to into a narrow band or a handful of perspectives we limit their and our development. What's missing is: Space, understanding and reflection in processing the information given to us. Discipline, not anger posing as discipline, actual discipline. Social connection so its not all processed individually, or in a single channel, a handful of speakers etc, and has communal mind to balance it. Group channels that hold different perspectives are more valued in that respect. Trust. By constantly shoving one perspective into people, and saying this is how it is. People can quite easily begin to question that perspective. Its like trying to cover something that exists by cutting off other aspects, ultimately it leads to failure and resistance or struggle. Like this thread or me commenting on it. What we are doesn't go away, it just manifests somewhere else or worse builds to a large or traumatic release.

Yes, and also what is chosen for us.

Yes. This would be your relative or subjective view on the nature of apples. I would see them by type for example, that would be my relative or subjective view of an apple. I categorize and label for ease of reference. This opinion and post I am giving you now, its phrasing and structure is my relative view of your post. Relativism for me is the outward version of self inquiry.

I stopped using youtube years ago. Its been focusing attention on the major channels for a long time, and now it intends to keep their audience. Only its doing it in too obvious a way. As a very direct example which I suspect holds true for everyone. Search news and see how many results you get for independent or smaller news outlets.

I agree there isn't a zero percent chance of everyone, not someone, but everyone in the world making/living in peace with those they come into contact with or have a relationship with. Group consciousness or group behaviors can influence people enough to put peace before violence for example, by simply leveling and reinforcing those around them to a common perspective or action, but they can't remove the possibility of violence entirely, externally or internally. If you wanted something constructive to think about, working on methods of separation before violent act or emotion would be useful, allowing space for thought or intervention before simply acting on instinct. Emotion - SPACE - Action [Discipline]. This will be simpler than trying to get people on mass to show empathy for strangers, or dissolving an illusion that our lives are not connected. Part of me resists this after living with an addict for so long. If everyone in the world is capable of something, then purely by that definition it can happen again, there are so many people to allow for it. Even setting aside things like greed, bad upbringing, social issues, drugs etc which may eventually be addressed to a more peaceful resolution. There are mistakes, emotional reactions, psychological conditions, and violent accidents to consider. On a happier note, yes if people can heal something it fades. So if everyone in the world is capable of it, then yes it can also happen.

1) Always :D. It has to be a tough job on any one person's shoulders. So many factors i'll never see influencing them. We need to be looking to elect not just them but their entire team around them to have any hope of achieving what we need. Not a party, not an individual but a group of individuals in their roles. 2) Yes. That lie of not being able to admit fear drives leaders to do all kinds of stupid things to cover it. Like any truth or emotion. Thank you for the discussion.

I know little about the man so I can't comment on him, only the concept. I wouldn't live there as it takes part of life and over emphasizes it. Also living under a single figurehead of any kind for me is intolerable, because they can't be held accountable or removed if they do something harmful enough to warrant it. I realise others appreciate this type of government/leadership so I am not looking for the pros and cons. However everyone receives opposition from the status quo. That's why things change very slowly and also why you receive these answers reflecting experience. A couple more theocracies on the planet won't hurt it much more than other government types have done, it might add something as a collective we lack. Its isolated on a small island so I don't feel its situation or fate will be the same as Tibet. You need plenty of what spiritual people are inclined to overlook just to hold a non status quo position, let alone make a change. So it will be interesting to see what happens to it. An experiment on an island seems a good place for it. Watch from a far and see what happens.

I don't know of it'll help but a lot of men i've known have struggled with the same issue. Especially if you are young and the drive is there to do your own thing. This seems to be a core issue. Never get children unless you want them and they are right for you. Even if you are a nice person you can do a lot of damage to a kid if you don't actually want to have them or the responsibility of them. >>I’m not sure that I’m ready to settle down for the rest of my life and that’s the direction my relationship is heading. >>But on the flip side we’ve build a great thing over the last couple years and really vibe. After a long think and time alone on how you feel. Time to do the hard thing, talk to her and see how she feels. If you are feeling this way and its not just nerves talking. Phrase it in the not being ready for a family and marriage sense, be honest, open and you'll know if it can work out anyway. How the relationship goes is her decision as well, not just yours, that's the tough bit of relationships. But with communication you'll know if you can last together anyway. Wish you the best.

I had to uncondition myself. To understand emotions were natural and healthy to feel, that took 10 years or so. There was a period people were considered to be over emotional at large, but I feel that was simply decades or more of men being told not to feel coming to the surface collectively. You have emotions and if you don't use them, you are cutting off part of yourself, like an arm or leg. Now I speak from the heart and the head together (Most of the time ). It also removes the need for lying that people talk about on the forum, I just realised that right now that they struggle with, so thank you. Don't get me wrong, people can still be too emotional for their own good, just like they can be too cold for their own good, but that's not for me or you to tell them.