BlueOak

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.

Who is they? Its good to define this. do you mean feminine men? Not really, I mean it'd help your argument to separate out feminine men from unstable men, you'd get a lot further with a lot less push back also. Because rather than attacking identity, provoking an egoic response to defend it, you'd be highlighting the instability inherent in many men who rely on emotion over logic. One reason to start us off is that they are quite dangerous; they have the physical capacity of a man while possessing less of the stable restraint. But this also goes to my above points. Mean is an emotion, or at least its a characterisation of an act from an emotional point of view. Being mean for mean's sake makes little logical sense. You can be decisive, protective, embody leadership qualities, logical, strong, emobody endurance, discipline, focus etc and be entirely neutral in your emotions. Its the same way defining someone is nice is an emotional observation, because logic doesn't really care about tone, only the equation and result. *I will add that if masculinity is to mean anything lasting, it has to rest on internal order, not just outward expression. This is a big lesson the world is going through in many aspects on the meta level too. **I am also reminded that stability from a masculine perspective is about integrated emotions governed by principles not reaction. Neutrality is perhaps a flaw when I approach things with a high reliance on logic alone.

It's interesting and a reflection of our current society, where mean is now equated to masculine and nice to feminine. Seems arbitrary. Yet for hundreds of years, people practiced decorum, discipline and manners while remaining masculine.

I understand your point but this isn't directly comparable. People do address smoking, hunger, heart disease, cancer, there is wide recognition of the dangers, education on the subject, psychological or counseling help, and often funded social programs to help. There is less social awareness of the reoccurrences of covid and its impacts on health, but of greater importance, I am not sure we have learned many lessons required for the next large-scale outbreak. You talk about bird flu as one of many candidates. *I also think those directly responsible either died from infection or the serious repercussions of doing that under the Chinese government. My only grievance was they never warned the world. My uncle did, but outside of accidents, people rarely die of one thing; it's many contributing factors. And you could make the case the same was true for him.

It would require addressing things like: 1, The breakdown of international relations between the current world powers of the time. Probably the most significant factor to influence all world problems. 2, Either quarantine measures in China or the food safety of its markets, depending on which perspective you believe. 3, Authoritarian governments' inability to speak about things that challenge their authority publicly, and I am speaking from America, Europe, Asia everywhere the world over because almost every government is unbalanced towards right-wing authoritarianism. 3a, The poor reaction time of many countries in addressing an outbreak with a lockdown because of short-term economic concerns being placed higher than health concerns; this is true in most countries. 3b, China's government's inability to admit the extent of the virus or the outbreak initially. This is implied by point 3 but needs further highlighting. I blame them in part for the death of my uncle as a result. 4, The breakdown of the world's biosphere leads to fewer cures and more virus outbreaks as a natural result. 4a, Addressing environmental concerns over economic concerns. Touched on below. 5, The overpopulation of the world, which removes natural barriers to infection by clustering populations closer together or making them more interconnected. Nobody likes population control terms, but if we don't do it, nature does it. 5a, Engineering an economy to where population levels are not key to success. 6, Conversely, the alleged overly severe measures taken by certain governments effectively condemning millions to death. That's a start off the top of my head.

@Hojo A far better approach is to wait till you are calm, then punish them. This teaches the child discipline, not anger, which is a quality that will propel their life far beyond anything else you could offer them. Then give a proportionate response to whatever they did so they learn. Having experienced the complete opposite to what I describe, I can tell you the results leave someone in fight/flight/freeze and reactions which don't differentiate between leaving an item out of place and being truant, or as an adult, receiving an offhand comment and someone throwing a punch. Failing a grade on a test or crashing your car etc. But discipline, focus and understanding who they are is everything in life, and if you can teach them those three things, their entire life will be beyond what I can describe.

No liberal world order. Far Right and religious authoritarian states being authoritarian states. Brave new world we've all walked into. Wonder when the population will start to think huh, maybe this wasn't that bright.

My life is full of challenge You can always find challenge! I think it would be the adversity to challenge, but the point is taken. Yeah lack of accountability definitely; that's one thing this period of time is correcting. This generally comes about from an immature parent or absentee parent and/or an overly abusive mother/father who instils a fear of authority as opposed to a respect of it (these are by far the biggest factors). Parenting classes, alongside financial classes, would completely change society within 80 years, and mean people weren't dealing with issues for 80 years that a basic class at birth could address. Sadly, nobody who holds strong beliefs of any kind, that I've ever seen, is capable of creating a politically and ideologically neutral template for things parenting classes or the education system. Role models exist, but i'm going to be straight with you: their perspective is often narrow and so only reaches a certain audience. This is why I mentioned in the last post about the people wanting this, needing to step outside of their own perspective to reach a wider audience. The truth is the people who usually hold rigid or strong beliefs are often bound to them. More cerebral theory really isn't needed. The opposite is needed.

I want to also say you can see the problems inherent in getting men and women into physical dating situations now, (hopefully from a few perspectives if you watch them) but that's the key to solving all of this, only it needs to be weekly or daily interactions as opposed to once every few months or a year.

Living online comes out in the often lack of tolerance toward others, but also in the neutering of the masculine and feminine natural polarity you are speaking about. In simple terms: Men and women act more like men and women when you put them together and let nature take its course. It's biological, energetic, etc, its expressed by socialising. You won't get the interplay of social aspects or gender polarities you are seeking if people are not social, or living together and relating. Do you understand? It's all the same problem. But also when people isolate, they often lose tolerance for other perspectives in that isolation, because they are not interacting with it much. Not only tolerance but a healthy social framework. Whereas if we were for example in the room together talking, there would be a million different ways our perspectives might intersect and build a rapport, as opposed to flat text over an internet screen. Which is more like a slice of consciousness or life than an accurate representation. As for people acting like children, I think part of that is because you've grown up, and some people haven't. There are childlike aspects in most people, that's been true forever, we are just more aware of it now and can highlight or observe it in a person and why. If you want a good way to fully engineer the changes you are seeking for lasting change, rather than just preaching to the same choir or remaining in perpetual opposition, look for or encourage a liberal version of it. Some people touch on that here, but it's obvious that'll be the subsequent step when society has adjusted again (or just swung the opposite way as it always does), although it'll probably be outside of my lifetime. Otherwise what happens is one side of the political spectrum will remain antagonistic towards you, when instead they could be working with you for example, or ensuring that change is grounded to remain.

Graduate from the victim mentality slowly into realising you are creating every experience you've ever had. I'd reframe every experience into thinking I can have all the sex I want, and go and get it. I'd reframe it in into speaking to a lot of women, with the mentality a lot of women want to speak to me, and practice a lot. I'd say I'll be more attractive to women not less, and do things to that end. Don't cope. Create. Experience. Adapt. You can have a 180 degree turn on the entire way you are experiencing/observing/creating life.

Socialism is dead because people don't live socially. I've hinted at that for a long time but i've got it down to one line now.