BlueOak

The right traditionally requires corporate approval, and corporations require workers from somewhere. This is more true of the left these days also. Because we've shifted the overton window so far capitalist and right globally. Whatever anyone says in a speech or to camera, unless the numbers of migrants go down significantly it makes no difference to anything. They almost certainly won't as economic pressure still trumps anyone's idealogy, cultural preferences or feelings. Why, because a single mega corporation has more financial power than a smaller country. They could just shift their operations elsewhere, which is sometimes a possibility, but that just takes jobs out of the economy and reduces the quality of life for people living there. The left is just idealistic? What left? Liberal, well yeah it's a liberal ideology to have a push toward open borders. If you mean socialism, no that can be completely closed borders, depending on the type of policy best required for society as a whole. Rightwing Capitalism loves economic migration, to fill gaps in the workforce as quickly as possible. Again we take out socialism, we demonize it, and don't achieve any popular social change that lasts. It's not rocket science. Take any one of the four political pressures or compass points out, and the system operates in a flawed way: Socialism, Authoritarianism, Liberalism, and Capitalism. Can they tolerate a recession, not living to the standards they are accustomed, or being out of a job? I agree with you that's the motivation. A significant part of the population wants a similar culture to theirs near to where they live. If we analyzed why most people say this it'd be: Because those 'other' people are causing my life to be worse than it is. When they are gone who is it next? Its the poor, or the gay people, or the muslims, or them or them or them. Those people over the border, are to blame too. I know how about a war. That's how it goes. Its not everyone, sometimes you get a reason that holds up, like wanting laws that represent their own interests, rather than a different culture for example. But for most people, it's taking their economic situation and blaming another person for it. Rather than the complex set of circumstances that brought it about: Poor people carrying rich people on their backs, globalization breaking down, and the need for all countries to ineffectively try to do more themselves, an increase in other spending sectors like the military instead of social programs, resource shortages, trading routes being riskier now due to more hostile shipping lanes, climate pressures forcing migration, hostilities forcing migration, overpopulation and people's willingness to do anything about it or even talk about it. Climate pressures and war increasing food prices. Worker shortages from migrants being discouraged, a lack of investment in fundamentals like infrastructure, schools going backward in their level of education due to a focus on dogmatic targets vs practical education, creating stupider people. Politicians themselves listen to conspiracy theories and try to base policy on it, rather than the real world. This focus on fantasy not reality is because of spending time forever online, rather than in real life. Social media burying important issues in meaningless personal drama. We could talk about aging populations, more cramped conditions, causing stress, or more frequent illness. Isolation is brought on by technology so people can't or don't want to even relate to each other, it's all cerebral not practical, let alone creating a want to cooperate to fix problems, whereas with in-person communication they are much more likely to reach a consensus. I could go on listing reasons all day. Heck fresh water, something I never thought in my lifetime would become a competitive resource, now is. It's causing the death of countries like iraq, which causes migration, and that's not going to change as the planet dries up further, and more countries industrialize using dirty fuels. With people putting their hands in their ears and saying it's not happening, if I just close my eyes climate change, war, corporate greed, the demonization of socialism, and the 50 reasons I just listed, all the resulting conditions go away if I just blame someone else. Let's blame migrants instead. Let's vote for a man who will ban migration. Great. Then what, we'll all feel better with the new enemy to focus on. Doing nothing whatsoever about the problems themselves.

I am neither gay nor want children. Big shocker though, I liked sex. You can't tell me there are not a ton of straight guys who have that exact perspective, because I grew up with them. Some start wanting to settle down as they age, some have accidental families because they were careless, and others don't do either. I don't buy for a second that somewhere deep in every man's soul is a desire to father children. Not historically and not presently. Often historically it just came about from the physical act not by design, and often historically in some societies, it was a limited number of powerful or successful men who fathered most of the children. I am barely attracted to anyone though these days and that's another set of people, and another conversation. Oh and if you are wondering. I can't afford a family, which is the main reason for me personally during my lifetime.

Just sad that corporations have screwed things up so much, and left people with so little, that the economy matters less, than wrecking the economy by removing economic migration to feel like you are 'winning', to then go on and blame the government for not magically filling these new jobs immediately as soon as they appear, in a dynamic marketplace. Training takes time as problems arise, and you can't replace manual jobs with an aging local workforce either. Aka Brexit in Britain. This was achievable because socialism was successfully demonized as the enemy giving corporations no pushback, and all the clowns on TV don't realise (or want to ignore) you can't make a retired person go pick potatoes in a field on mass. So there goes one of many industries the country can no longer staff or run, along with many of the others by leaving the common market to increase bureacratic costs, which is what a lot of these further right governments want. It's not just immigration, that's the go-to rightwing blame feel good fest, like gay people, the poor, the homeless, other religions, etc. When you go far enough right, the enemy has to be external as well. There has to be a war to justify the external 'threat' that galvanizes an extreme-right government, fear essentially requiring a strong man protector to keep people safe. That's where we are headed on mass, smaller countries can also be used as proxy's for economic war, political influence peddling by Russia for example, or just outright conflict when they are located in the right place. I am just sorry I resisted Teal Swan telling me WW3 was coming ten years ago. What hyperbole, cooler heads, nobodies that psychotic I said, well we are certainly stacking the deck with people who will shoot first, (and are doing) then not worry about the fallout later. In fact, they'll now not only target civilian populations as a war strategy (Russia) but censor and fire you for talking about it (Israel).

Well let's take those two tragedies then. America built a coalition, got international support from other countries, got some legitimacy for its actions internally and externally, talked to the world about why it was going to do what it was going to do. Planned a complex operation. Used other countries' specialties where they could, and went in with a multi-national force with a clear goal of ridding the world of a dangerous terrorist group, using as much force as required, and no more than that. They were the victims of a horrific attack like Israel were, and they used that political capital to form an alliance. They spoke to any potential allies in the region itself, even tried to empower them as an alternative to the threat they were going after, and prosecuted any soldiers of theirs committing war crimes for example. - This is what's called using your mind, while not ignoring your emotion. Even if diplomacy had utterly failed to form a coalition response, ATTEMPTING IT, allows you a lot more leeway with other countries. To be clear I don't live in America i was a young adult and 100% behind their initial first few years in that country, to this day even after all that's happened I would be again in favor of America going into Afghanistan (not Iraq) Israel told people to get out, at least those that heard the message from a region with cut-off communications, gave a million people a couple of days to move down a road or two, then began to level an area and will now occupy/annex as part of their own country. Killing anyone or anything still in the region. Do you see the difference or the long-term effect or benefit of one over the other? Especially on the surrounding countries' relationships to Israel. America didn't have to remain bordered to Afghanistan either when it was all finished, they could just leave. Perhaps instead remembering the uncomfortable truth that America decided to leave Afghanistan because of how difficult such a task is, having different motives in nation-building, but the same end result to highlight. Israel is closer to the territory they wish to occupy, ethnic cleansing it of population, but surrounded by many more enemies, and reliant on an outside power to carry out these actions. They rely entirely on America to protect them from the results of any long occupation and ethnic cleansing from external powers like Iran. Which is a dumb idea long term if it wasn't clear from everything i've tried to highlight. My goal is honestly trying to make people think of the wider situation here, considering as much as they are willing to. Focusing entirely on the present/future also to keep it focused. *You added a bit more to the post but the overall message is the same. Its very true that my want for something to change barely ever affects the outcome of something, but 'we still keep trying like fools' as they say :). I also wanted to say the summary of why the bias is as strong as it is, was appreciated for understanding's sake.

Nothing in my post was saying Hamas had done anything positive for itself or its people. If you read it I said their leadership's actions in starting this wave of violence had led to their likely removal from Gaza. The entire post was reflecting on Israel, if you want my emotional response, it's to turn off the TV and let the situation play out. Withdraw all military support or intervention from either side, and let the region normalize entirely on its own. This is what is going to happen, as i've tried to warn above, for the reasons i've given above. Instead of reflecting on that, or even considering the end result, you looked at Hamas and said they are bad too. Well yes they are bad too. That won't help Israel. *And BTW to separate logic from emotion, you think through something. You don't go on your first emotional reaction. It is absolutely possible to engage logic over emotion, or with emotion as you suggest, or let emotion dictate logic. Part of the way you do this, is to get outside perspectives and listen to others.

Israel is dropping bombs on itself, in every way you'd like to imagine that word. It is causing violence for itself, and on itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism - Is no better than moral equivalency. When you go through tragedy, the worst possible thing you can do is act on that emotion immediately. You sit down, work through it and come up with a strategy that serves you not only now but in the future. Men call it domesticating their emotions, not ignoring them but not living under their thumb either. There were four or five options that were more logical than this, which I thought of in 5 minutes, let alone a group of intelligent people could do with time. Instead Israel chose the most extreme unilateral action from the get-go, and is now locked into a course. (Unless they finally engage their mind not emotion). Palestinians will likely no longer exist in Gaza because of the actions of their leadership. Look into the mirror and consider very carefully what being surrounded by enemies, while occupying Palestinian land in Gaza will do to Israel in the coming decades. Do it as logically as you can. Taking into account America keeps moving rightwing or at least isolationist, likely eventually aligning with autocracy. Iran is with BRICS, so your other potential partners can't back you in this act as you'd need them to. Regardless Russia's capacity to project power is diminished greatly for a couple of decades. Occupation cannot just go away. It remains a sticking issue permanently.

Traditional Western values are on the way out everywhere but Europe, and even there it isn't guaranteed anymore it'll hold. I think Russia, and Ukraine's defense of its government, managed to push those values back to the front of people's minds, but whether that will stick I have no idea. Trump has been praising dictators every other week, if the overton window shifts anymore right (which it has been gradually for 20 years), forget that concept entirely outside of Europe.

When I say 'not much changed' for America it was a bit dismissive. I think it brought together the Middle East against American interests more, into alignment with BRICS and Iran more. That should be recognized, but as America will be slowly becoming more isolationist, unless something major changes, ultimately the only people that will be affected is Israel. BRICS will by its nature take over the region into its sphere of interest again, like Russia used to. I don't think it'll ever stop someone from selling oil to their customers, just perhaps tipping the balance in economic wars more often. Like Saudia Arabia did in Russia vs Ukraine.

Yes. But don't worry it was pretty terrible anyway outside of Europe or the Pacific. As for neutral parties. Those that care about reputation will still care, those that don't won't. Nothing much changed. Biden just made Trumps victory more likely. Though when trump is in court all next year, he's broke financially from his civil trials, lawyer fees and constant losing, its not going to help him outside of his most infatuated supporters adoring the victim complex or anti-establishment chest beating. Rightwingers traditionally only back winners, and prefer strengthening institutions, especially ones responsible for law and order, but it'll be increasingly clear trumps losing repeatedly and running against these same institutions they want to preserve. It'll be a battle as to whether: Leftwing Populists want to support a corporate conservative in Biden, in an eternal cycle that kills all leftwing populism and encourages it on the right. Add to that now the ethnic cleansing guarded and supported by the American military which will deflate the democratic vote. OR Conservatives want to continue to burn down American institutions by electing a criminal, via Trumps continued attack on the FBI, the Courts, the Vote, the House, Homeland Security, even the military now, aka everyone who doesn't kiss his narcissistic behind. It is the epitome of both sides having to vote against their own innate interests, confronted with what they hate. Of course, there are people this serves, people who love corporations or people who love burning institutions down, rightwing anarchists for example, see Argentina for that result. On the extreme, I've heard some leftwing anarchists starting to lean towards Trump's rhetoric or at least to go third party, as don't forget you still have 4 potential people on the presidential ballot even when the primary is over with. If it was done right now, those two alternate candidates would pick up more of the voting share than America has perhaps ever seen happen before. Why do I care so much? Because England tends to copy America in some fashion, only with more supposed civility and less overt physical violence. That and the descent of America is the rise of the authoritarian replacement BRICS. If in any small way can slow that impending reality and disaster down till I am no longer on this Earth, it'd be useful. *Its Israel that this occupation will affect more than anyone. As the world becomes further and further right from this point, fewer people will care about what happens to anyone outside of their borders. Israel will be an occupying force entirely surrounded by enemies with a recent ethnic cleansing against Arabs to deal with.

If I had to reflect the counter to my own argument, it could be because of all these factors, Israel has decided now is the time they have to remove gaza from the equation as much as possible, as horrific a conclusion as that is. Long term though, all of this has pushed back any potential reconciliation of this issue in a broader sense so far forward in time, that I still feel unless something else majorly shifts in the region, it's going to present a tragic set of conclusions long term. Imagine a world where Israel was protecting Palestinians as members of their own country. Rather than expelling them they were welcoming them into one nation and making strong efforts to integrate both people into a state. Removing Hamas of course, as it has an incompatible worldview. No Arab nation would be the aggressor, because they would face the same wrath from other Arabs for attacking their own. A different world.

An ideology is not a virus it is an ideology. People are not a virus they are people. Of course there is a defense mechanism triggered in people against attacks. It's called survival instinct. Look in the mirror. You are doing the same. You are attempting manipulation right now, by using the terminology you are using rather than the word itself. Rather than discussing the flaws of the ideology in a practical manner, you are understandably running on emotion from the suffering you have endured. Rather than talk about how the Palestinian ideology has brought about the destruction of its own people, because that will force you to acknowledge the same from your own government, and the precarious nature of being surrounded by enemies. Enemies that you are further enraging while dealing with an increasingly isolationist American guardian, who probably won't hold the absolute power or the will to project it in the coming decades. This is a strategic blunder. Israel's occupation of this land will justify a 100 years of violence towards your own country, in the minds of people who think like that. That won't be able to be reversed by any amount of diplomacy while you occupy it. You either choose not to see this or can't see it yet. Russia or China might protect you, but so far their alliance with Iran has deepened significantly, almost to the point of bringing China and America into a naval battle. This is the last decade America will have significant naval dominance over China, and their aircraft carriers will no longer be able to offer an absolute shield so you can act on emotion rather than reason. I know I know I have a virus right? Sure, let's go with that.

Its the same thing. Things happen in a cyclic pattern. You choose. The pattern repeats slightly changed. Others are talking about a greater you controlling you, which is also true. There is no separation. You, the greater mind, the pattern, it's all the being you are. Much of life is realising whatever you are talking about is also you.

Man realises he can't change people's perspectives. Man demonizes them for demonizing others. Also because they wouldn't convert to his perspective on mass they are bad, and wrong, and just bad people. Conservative tries liberal art piece and it goes backwards. If he wants to do conservative art, he'd be better doing subtle and minimalist not expressive and creative. The video comes off like the cartoon creativity of a 5-year-old, because it's not his specialty, and he's going against the very things that make him who he is to create it. Eh. People have to learn though, and many only learn by doing. It'd be like me trying to be an engineer, and the bridge collapsing in the first five days because I tried to be creative with the supports. If he's got money just let AI do an average job at a video message for him.

Depends how identified with something someone is, and if you consider that identification useful to society as a whole or not. *Then you'd have to consider how useful everyone else sees it, and if what you are doing is helping or harming as best you were able. Which to me is too much to juggle or consider.

A one-state solution is a more bloodless way of achieving stability, as opposed to constant border friction fought out in physical expression of rockets or gunfights. You instead would get that same fighting in the government with the occasional bout of political violence, which is extremely preferable, as both parties are working on a larger structure of stability as opposed to their own narrower competing interests. At the moment in America for example, many people are pushing in the opposite direction, to rip the union apart. They are not working on a union or stability but instability and disorder. This will increase political-related violence as it's manifested not only in leaders coming from those communities that become divided, but in the social fabric and culture, such as differing school systems educating children to be further divided from others in differing states. Violence and suffering may be enough to stop it and bring people back to work on stability/balance, or it may go further into division. Ditto BRICS vs NATO, playing out in smaller border conflicts, becoming institutionalized competition, which leads to ingraining cultural competition/division now as opposed to a globalized move towards harmony. Ditto Anyone on this forum not speaking from a place of union but division.

Both sides need to Pick one. Either political union or division. Unions like a Federal republic or Confederation. Division as two recognized states with formal diplomatic relations. The middle ground is what both current governments thrive off. If they have an opponent they get to stay in power. It's the ultimate flaw with all states that have gone too far right. An opponent is necessary and to the extreme, an external opponent is required to maintain the military. Hatred towards immigrants, the poor, or gay people can no longer sustain the ruling parties identity. The need to feel morally superior is no longer enough, a direct military action and victory needs to be shown.

Political Money. - Threats to campaigns from special interest groups. Strategic Regional Interests. Convenient Moralizing. Good guys | Bad guys | Victims - That's why many votes are cast in elections, though victimhood has largely been seen as a negative in western society of late, it's trying to make a resurgence via Russian and Israel media outlets. American - Iranian relations. If you have poor relations with Iran you automatically get a better reaction from America. Ditto the reverse. Military Industrial Complex - One of their biggest customers. Oil Industries. - War feeds the oil industry but also strategic interests mentioned above, for the regional oil it requires partners in the region. *BRICS - BRICS has positioned itself as the competitor to the west, and thus the world is eternally to be divided into us vs them until that is resolved or changed. Anyone above saying my country doesn't do these things in some form is misguided or lying. There is no country that uses systematic thinking as a basis for its policies and works backward from that methodology or avoids closed-loop limited reasoning in how they reach their decisions.

As mentioned. I'd second martial arts and boxing etc. This gives you red/blue in a healthy balance if you have a good teacher. I'd pick defensive martial arts personally, as it tempers these aspects of you, I did this lifetime and I probably will the next. Writing characters that are warlords, or violent in stage red and see it as a natural part of life. Acting, filming etc these types of characters. Then bringing these characters into some blue structure (integration) during a character arc. You can do the same in any sort of art painting for example or crafting, if that's your type of expression. Picking something that stirs these aspects of you personally. What really gets you angry that you want to fight for? Then find a structure or institution that holds space or facilitates it.

Yes that's war, no win zero-sum games being played in an infinite universe. If we just got off Earth into a near-infinite space, we'd no longer consider a few KM's of land worth any notice at all. Re: Oh no AI's are going to take us over, yeah really in a universe so big the earth isn't even a grain of sand, i'm sure an intelligent creation would waste their time here. That's what all people in power do, often have a very limited perspective and play zero-sum games. Not so much populist sentiment, as that's built on predictable emotional responses. People in power have greater propaganda tools than ever to trigger that emotion, and a press that's entirely bought out, they use these tools to control how others at least 'feel' if not see the world. There is some observation bias in your words. There were huge protests over the second Iraq war for example. Anything where people are directly involved and civilian casualties happen in the West gets pushback. These days as the entire world has shifted so far to the right over my lifetime, there is less care all around. I railed against it for decades but I've realised my wanting that to be otherwise is utterly pointless. People have become more unsympathetic on mass, to the point where protest itself was not only vilified but suppressed for a time, that's why these things can happen with more ease. The populist left is utterly suppressed and dead, (except a glimmer of hope with unions), and all the anti-establishment sentiment or populism is on the right. Guess what that takes us further right in democracies, but hey ho I can't tell corporations or people in power because either they want it to happen or would rather ignore the obvious. However, you are looking at it with an unnecessarily limited perspective, if you think moralizing isn't many people's entire existence and the most important thing to them is to feel like the good guy. You dismissing that is robbing yourself of a more complete view, at least of past actions like Iraq, if not so much present ones where fewer people care, and the people in power really don't care about populist socialist or liberal sentiment

Both are true. They always have been and always will be. You are all those people at once, and yourself. The best way my logical mind could put it rationally was, to imagine jumping between a billion lifetimes every moment of every day. This all happens simultaneously in patterns that repeat, but if you want a logical way to put it, you could think of it like that to help model it. You are right now you, and me, the other poster, and everyone here. Individually and collectively. What you do to them, you do to yourself. In a complex and neverending pattern. You are in, and are nirvana. You are in, and are the most horrible circumstance you imagine. You are everything in between,

I don't understand intelligent people's obsessions with walls, I was reading mid way through and saw it brought up. They are not that secure, even if they are patrolled regularly, over a large area they are next to useless. You can go over them with a ladder or crane, under them with a shovel, or through them using a vehicle of enough weight. I understand that politically 'let's build a wall' in America makes people feel good, and gives them something to chant. I am talking to people who are not running on emotion, capable of some deductive reasoning, a wall doesn't stop much unless people with guns are walking along it, or close enough to respond and there is some sort of complicated motion sensor system checking under the earth, over the wall, and the wall itself. A block of concrete is not much, sure its something in the way of rapid transport like trucks or cars for an armed force (provided there isn't just a guy on the other side with a vehicle), but unless there are mines or something else with lethal consequences, it's not much to deter someone on foot or determined to get in.

Let's put all the labels together and make ourselves the ultimate victim, that way I can justify anything. No you are all my enemy, I can now say and do anything to you and if you say a word against it, your a nazi, or an anti-semite, or insert the worst label I can give you. So agree with me. You have to. I said so. Ignore everything else, do exactly what I say, and allow me to do whatever I want. No? You're a nazi then. This thinking has caused some of the worst behavior in my own life when I used it, and around the globe. From a purely Western perspective, his argument is flawed. Western countries were not supplying Russia with weapons or taking part in Russia's leveling of Chechnya. They give Israel the ability to carry out their actions, and they shield Israel from other countries' nearby natural response, which allows it to continue. If they weren't Israel would not be doing this, because 5 other countries around them would already be at war, and they would not have the weapons to fight it. He of course also underexaggerates all the protests over things like Iraq's urban areas being targeted, or the outrage over Russia bombing urban areas. He talks about Tibet? Plenty of people protested that, almost everything he talked about were protested but we had no power to change them. Here we do. Civilian casualties draw protests, but usually in greater numbers when we are involved somehow. Then he goes on about hundreds of years old banking, yes in feudal times people vilified everyone they could when it suited them. Religions, minorities, social classes, other kingdoms, not much has changed, it was just worse. Women brewing beer I believe were targeted by the church for example, so the monks and male brewers could take over the trade, that's where all the witch pointy hat nonsense came from. I can't speak for all the other Muslim countries' differing interests between Chechnya and Palestine, but proximity, relation to those being killed, the strain of refugees, and how much it destabilizes the nearby countries, as well as undermine the surrounding governments if they do nothing, are responsible for a larger push to do something. As it was with Europe and Ukraine. Many brothers, or families in Eastern Europe were being killed, and millions of refugees were pouring into nearby countries destabilizing them. As well as other factors unique to the conflict, food, energy, threats to expand further, etc. The best thing the west could do, would be to not shield Israel from the natural response of the surrounding states when they are on the offensive. This would be to bring a natural balance to keep the aggression in check. Coupled with of course taking out the Hamas leadership across the globe, and when Israel has moved to a logical approach, get as many hostages back as possible. Only to act when Israel's rank and file troops are inside its own borders and it's on the defensive. The current approach of occupying more land, I understand long term despite the brutality and horrific nature of it, that it will stop violence from that particular area. The occupation itself however adds another 50-100 years more justification for violence against Israel, in the minds of those who think that way. Its even got Iran and Saudia Arabia talking again. There is always a claim to be the victim, everyone wants to be the victim in any conflict, as it means you justify much more. Yes a lot of people died in a terrible brutal way. If he'd of just said we lost a lot of people, we needed to take action. I'd respect him a lot more and the argument you and he are making. Instead, you have to make up all this moralizing over hundreds of years to justify the death of children, and the extension of hatred toward Israel in the region for the next 50-100 years. Worse this could be the trigger of a much broader war, and some in Israel are calling for exactly that.

How do I stop identifying with an observed authority? So that I no longer mind when it changes? The authority or form it is in itself isn't important, only that I take authority, system, and structure into my identity, and then respond adversely when it changes. This can be a remote authority like watching a foreign government, it can be a regulatory body I operate under changing, a new manager at a job or company taking over a business I work for, it can be a conversation being censored. Finding out a system I am used to has altered. The structure I perceived or observed changing. I would like to stop doing this as much, because it's a common thread of suffering I bring on myself. I also believe it's holding back my personal and spiritual development. Thanks for any thoughts.

I think its the method and structure I am addicted to, the lingering enjoyment of resistance to a perceived 'other' external authority, and the analysis of it all. Running through a logical loop that is comfortable and certain, learning its ins and outs, then identifying what I perceive are external authorities that are trying to 'change' something and feeling good when they are stopped. I can swap one authority with another on a whim by focusing on something else, and I do it a dozen times a day. But when the perceived method I was observing alters, I resist it, because in taking the time to understand it I've taken that system or method as part of myself, which means things that are not 'it' are viewed in the moment as not 'me'. I struggle with perceiving my relationship with authority as clearly as I'd like. Thanks, I am reading through the book and i'll see what comes. @rachMiel

Meditative states are numerous and none of them is 'wrong'. This sort of thinking, makes people think they are doing something wrong when they sit down and close their eyes. Nothing after that point is wrong, whatever comes up or happens, happens. *Externally or internally, same thing. People call it cultivating a state of receptivity. Not passive or seeking, actively receiving.