BlueOak

Also I should add even those memories we have, we develop more understanding of them as we age. So all the connections between cause effect, or events, emotions, that we form change, deepen, or are broken in some cases. So even if somehow you were able to consciously recall everything you've ever experienced, from not only your immediate perspective but the many details you will have missed, understanding about what that event meant to your life will be forever changing and thus remembered differently. This is because life is based on connections, relations between one thing and another, especially in regards to your mind.

Don't expect any method or system to be full proof. Anyone can be useful as a mirror, depending on how much routine, structure and general dirt is in the way of the reflection. Talking to someone in itself is sometimes enough, even if the answers are only there as triggers for you to understand something. Its why pets are extremely useful, because they don't have complicated structures or methodologies in the way of any reflection you are seeking to understand. Obviously memory isn't always present unless you have a photographic memory that recalls every possible detail, from every possible sensation from birth. To suggest otherwise isn't logical in the first place. I think its things like a mix of fear that the method they've based their life's work around could be improved, a want for certainty in their life, and that they also fear the unknown in things like hypnotherapy, regression, dream interpretation etc. Which can be scary to a highly structured mind. Its why I could/can never embrace or become part of any rigid discipline, I spend all day questioning the foundation and structure of it. Some employers don't mind this if you work hard, some think you are undermining them personally because they are attached to the structure or method rather than the outcome. - Don't be one of these people, favor outcomes, no matter if your therapists method is flawed for example. Even in the case of photographic memories, it's still based on what the conscious mind was focused on, which is a fraction of what is currently present in that moment.

Mine or Yours = Ours. In all things. Responsibility. Ownership. Profit. Security. Safety. Organization. Cleaning. Governing etc. There are many steps required to have two individuals having equal ownership over and investment in something, a marriage is an example of one that highlights many of the potential difficulties on a larger scale, albeit it a bit too intimate to example most relationships. Inwardly, tribes might be another example that we've cast aside too much of. The idea that ensuring the safety and nourishment of a child is everyone in the tribes duty to preserve the tribe for example. The sense of community is lost in urbanisation as each voice is drowned out in a collective, this was best seen by me when the village life in England died out to urbanisation and towns. Conflict was lessened when the police were part of the community they were protecting, they knew the troublemakers who to speak to, and importantly it was their community too so they cared. Outwardly, borders would have to go. Its the only way that conflicts between nations ends. Its gone so far the other way in the publics mind though that even I appreciate borders and want to see them maintained strongly, but I also see that with borders mean we have conflicting interests. Divided populations and a splintered world. All of this is so pie in the sky fantasy but I will excuse myself the fantasy because so is the question. Its a fictional world view that would have been nice to live in. The utopia where all had what we needed, and then just worked for what they wanted. The utopia where two cultures are not fighting over who owns a bit of land but both owning, maintaining and caring for it. As a longshot, in the current world. If you want to tackle nationalism from a positive place, where its not 'mine' but ours, that might help with nationstates. Its a boogeyman at present, with so much baggage, racism and war associated with it. I wouldn't envy whoever took that analysis or work on. Identities based on countries are prone to attacking or seeing others as separate by their nature and so are the personalities they attract.

@Arcangelo For several years Australia I have realised has shifted more authoritarian in government, in no small part due to its proximity to China's sphere of influence. Its happening elsewhere but its even more pronounced in the australians I have seen comment on things. Please note, not right left, authoritarian constrasting liberal. Authoritarian Social + Capitalist Liberal Meaning personal freedoms are being removed in favor of collective identity. I'll be in resistance to that till the day I die, which is why I was banned from commenting on youtube, but it seems the new generation is more mallable to it.

Oh and back to what we've always needed to do forever. Organize. Keep creating structures on this topic further, that is scientists, to speakers, to industries, to politicians. The flow of information. If you can be involved in any of those four or organizing them, breaking down the information between each stage, great.

In their current state, energy companies decide everything about energy companies. So either we can reform energy companies further to the point they reflect a desire not to set fire to the ground they are on, or equalize power back to people. The first is easier but the second can be chipped away at. 1) Legalize Hemp for bio fuels. 2) Universal engine design standards in vehicles which are constantly updated to be as efficient and environmentally friendly as possible. 3) Further financial Incentives for renewable power generation. 4) Competition monopoly laws. Stop them intimidating, buying out and redesigning existing vehicles or machines, against people who create more effiecient versions or upgrades to what they have. 5) More Research Grants for Renewables. 6) Highlighting and developing out the link between immigration and environmental change, food production, overcrowding, poverty etc. 7) Unions and Protests. An environmental union would be helpful, billed as economic protection on the above issues, as well as furture protection for our children and grandchildren. 8) Highlighting just how long we have left before the different stages of no return on the environment. We've past some for example. They define what the future weather, ecosystem and quality of life here will be. So we could have models, this is what the world will look like, then this is what the world will look like. 9) Talk. Lots of talk on this, reasoning and not judging people. Constant education. 10) Encouraging cultural identification to renewable energy, a solar community, a wind farm family etc. I mean you can tackle things like money out of politics and corruption too, as these are indirect benefits.

From your posts you are looking at a shadow, full of fear, resentment, distrust, etc. You see a tide pushing people, drama, suffering and resistance. Whatever the aspect of shadow work is collectively those people are going through. Complexity comes from what part of it you are looking at it, what meaning you assign it and what you view the process to be. Example: You could view it as a natural process. A battle between perspectives. A dystopian nightmare coming alive. People working through collective shadow issues. The end of a really difficult period in time. A changing of fundamentally how the world is structured. The death of individualism, losing what defined you. Resistance to change. An opportunity to grow, contribute or help. A last ditch attempt to save the environment from collapse. Those in power oppressing others and consolodating power. A combination. You might even see it as all of these.

@Bojan V If people are going through what you say they are, then wouldn't they behave exactly as you say they are doing? Otherwise they wouldn't need to. And also, isn't that the process? *Focusing on assisting, as you are doing here at the end, is one option.

Emotional Intelligence Practice and natural Ability. Good looks, exercise, health. Appearing presentable and taking care of yourself. Reducing judgement, as has been said. If we could reduce judgement across everyone there would be a net benefit to the quality of life we all enjoyed. Being more open to talk about anything with anyone. Money and Opportunity to socialise. Safety and Security to socialise comfortably. Confidence. Ability to Agree, give praise and console. Eye contact, interested body language Having socialable friends or co-workers Having enough things to talk about, interests, hobbies etc. Keeping up to date with current events, enough to hold a conversation. Being able to read expressions, moods and bodylanguage. Being able to include others in the conversation and not talking over others. That's a few that come to mind. *I would sum many of these up to mean social intelligence, and the others emotional intelligence.

I remember a flashy looking 3D Holo image, looking a lot like a ceremony conjured with fire by priests. Different tech, same results to the crowd.

I remember brexit and people telling the brexit people how bad they were, rather than talking with them, it entrenched their position. It went so far that when I tried to have a discussion about a particular industry (supplements), I was dismissed a lunatic for not being pro europe on it, despite the fact there was a large push to cut their effectiveness down to EU standards. I had a relatively neutral position on brexit at first (didn't vote), as I prefer regional government not national or international power. Then I came to vote to stay in the second vote after hearing out both options in more depth, so I was hardly a hard core brexiter either. I just experienced and watched the judgemental, holier than thou attitude that was present. I have yet to see anyone talk to someone who hasn't had the vaccine and ask them why, instead we all sit in judgement over them. This is one aspect of modern society I loathe to my core. If the same amount of effort was put into talking, as was judging, there would be a considerably smaller divide present in society. On this topic and an increasingly large amount of others we can't even talk about it anymore because its banned! So I guess the divide is here to stay. And yes, I realise they do it to you as well. Judge Judge Judge.

No. I can think of plenty of wars that left things worse off than before for example. I was going to make a more ambivalent response but on this one no, war only teaches people to hate war. For it to be the absolutely last thing you want to live through in your lifetime. The alternative is bits of people die inside to survive it. Not everything that happens in life has a net benefit to people or in this case countries. Its a bit naive to think every challenge or problem you come across ends up to your or our benefit. Life just sometimes sucks and in the case of war it sucks for everyone involved. Can a war end in change that comes about for the better, maybe, but paired against all the suffering it took to get there, I'd question it, and i'd also question if peace wouldn't lead their anyway.

While the method and name of it depends on the country. Money can be used to counteract individual vote numbers or the popularity of an industry or further enhance it politically. This is one function of a lobbyist or advertising for example. On Voting rights. Popular industries get the popular vote already, it already benefits those in power to represent them. Left to a natural state more votes will be popular than not. If a country is trying to get back to relying on purely neutral statistical voting rather than having to have large swings engaged by party consensus to achieve everything, then the necessary people that money would have to sway will be greater. Cynically you can also reason it means those voting can demand more contributions for their vote, for example in the US senate, if votes can more easily be swung by an individual, but i'd still go with it costing unpopular industries more long term not less. *Please note I am trying to be as general as possible speaking about money interacting with voting, all voting in a general way. I'd appreciate it if nobody tried a gotcha moment, as i am sure different countries have different safeguards and procedures that can be better defined than this.

Unpopular industries can't support it. Popular ones can.

I feel the only way to straighten out propoganda is to understand the history of the region and then by definition the history of the powers that have influence in the region. Otherwise what can happen is you'll get swept up in one perspective, someone who will really sound like they know what they are talking about, and perhaps they do, but if you take too much information from one source, it is difficult not to align yourself with that perspective entirely. If you've got the grounding inside of why things are how they are, and why the people involved are doing what they are doing, then you are more grounded to make up your own mind.

Let's lay a foundation here: The above is not everything, that would be impossible but its worth 15 minutes of your time. WW1 and WW2 I would say there is not a more comprehensive look at the WW1 and WW2 period than this. https://www.youtube.com/c/TheGreatWarSeries/playlists https://www.youtube.com/c/WorldWarTwo/playlists Which even goes week by week if you want everything from the period, as the people saw it at the time. You can only understand geopolitics if you understand how it all came about and this helps remove/filter modern day bias because you have the history to reference. It has been suggested these are both one period in history, and the more you learn of it the more you can understand that. Like any huge event it shapes everything. Beyond that for historical, geographical or political I think you are best picking a region to learn about its more indepth history. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eArjf9OzZE Very generalized European Parties Explained. Some centrist bias but not much. Light hearted Look at geography: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmmPgObSUPw1HL2lq6H4ffA Probably will rub some the wrong way but he treats everyone the same from what I can see. As a personal example, here it will show you how certain areas of england were romanized but the scottish areas were not, which begins the start of the divide in the UK still lingering here today. Then you can see the many cultures that made up the UK from the start and part of why it developed its view toward culture or foreign nations that it did. You can also seen the beginning of the troubles, between england and ireland, which had many violent episodes even when I was growing up in the 80's. You can see why England doesn't like european hegemony for example by its history, and many wars with france, which were part of the roots behind brexit and never really understood (because few understand the collective psyche of a country or where it came from). The only way to really understand a region and why something exists is to go into its history like this, so pick a region you are interested in and do some research. The videos out there these days can be very short and a fun summary, or very detailed with heavy material.

Thanks but you didn't. I was offering the perspective of a 20 year old me, how I would have felt, that's over 20 years ago now! Asking a genuine question if people that have gone through a certain event should be the ones that decide if its free speech or not, because they will be the ones that have the loudest opinions. Pick a less charged topic if you like to consider it, I am honestly not sure. On terrible commentators, I was attempting to show some empathy that the reason some people want free speech changed is because they hear someone they don't like on a regular basis saying outrageous things, and thus base their want for law or moderation for the entire collective on their over exposure to a few loud people. I was picturing a few of the currently banned media commentators from when I used to watch youtube. These days thanks to some big loud names getting banned and thus changing laws, that number has stretched into an obscene amount of banned channels or commentators. As to my views on locking certain criminals up. It has not been demonstrated to me that sexual offenders can be reformed, until it is I can't agree with you. Safety of children comes first. I would of course run prisons entirely different to how they are now, as I think most of us would. Dehumanizing people doesn't lead to reform.

There is a lot of trauma out there yes, less than there used to be if you can believe it, but things are improving as people do. There is not a detachment from your parents until you age, and thus become your own person. So you can absolutely psychologically and emotionally abuse your kids, because they are a part of you. Eventually we can and do seperate out those emotions as our own and our psychology as our own. This can be increasingly difficult because it often happened before we were able to form conscious memory of it, meaning its all unconscious and doesn't come out until we realise, or someone else does and points it out in a way that person can accept. You have trauma related to this. Which I triggered and I apologize. It might be helpful to think as if you are talking to a wound, and in that case if you see the behavior, ask yourself whats your goal in talking to them? You can accept them and then comfort, you could offer neutral information but most other interactions to a wound are not going to yield a positive outcome from your point of view. Also picture you are speaking to a wounded child, as its likely its coming from that place unknowingly and you can temper your expectation accordingly. You are the adult in that conversation. For the moment they are in that state its a big kid shouting at you and not realising, the other 99.999% moments of their life they may be a functioning adult but they haven't seen or accepted the unconcious part of themselves yet. As for what they are seeking it could be acceptance, certainty, relief, anything that you can picture someone might be lacking that never had a stable family environment.

We are perhaps in the minority that we both want to see us to be multi planetary, the possibilities are literally endless in the infinity of space and so worth any investment in the here and now. I also wouldn't mind him getting money or at least optional assistance in doing this from any and everyone willing to contribute. I think at the moment they are not yet including enough people, in either fund raising or on a technical level actually producing what is required to overcome this monumental challenge. While it is broader than the last space race, I would like to see more optional assistance and inclusion. Now you know my feelings on the man and the fact I like what he's doing. Proposing to take away peoples optional choice of contributing to this by letting him off his tax bill isn't at all fair and you have to expect people to voice that. People owe what they owe, and hey on capital, I was using his own quote to make a point. :D. Money is taken and allocated toward something, whether its 5 people, 50, 500, 5000 or 5 million. If you want to call money capital as Elon and I did, or a resource what is the difference. Money is a resource, I suspect for him more than most people. Also we should grant he pays more tax than a lot of the more parasitic tax dodgers out there. Money is spent badly in your opinion, because your opinion counts for a minor fraction of the total opinions in your country. Alongside a million other issues which would require an entire thread dedicated to it and I suspect would have economists and infrastructure experts put us to shame with what really goes on in that statement. None of that is relevant to whether one person should be excluded from what i have to do myself, because he's doing something you agree with.

Apologies for two posts but I should comment on free will. You have free will all the time. You can respond here or not. You can choose to stop thinking a thought at any time, follow it through, or redefine it. You can choose what that thought means, if it means anything at all, and what connections it'll bring. The mind works like a ball of string, connecting one thing to the next, depending on how you define it. A bit like this conversation.

If you were outside of your mind yes, but you are in your mind, while there something exerting mass on your hand isn't subjective. How you then go to describe it or interact with it is. I've gone out of the body before and in that state yes, but for 99.999999% of my life the apple will have mass when in my hand, I will be aware of it and though I could call that word mass - anything, it will still be present. I could lie to myself and say I don't feel the apple in my hand but that wouldn't be truthful. By the way thank you for the back and forth discussion.

If its time to admit you have a Left Party, a Center Party and Right Party yes. Otherwise you'll just keep shifting toward Right/Center and eventually split the party. Looking in, its already there tbh. *BTW if you had a centrist party in america, it'd probably be the most popular at the moment.

Who decides what gets suppressed? We've seen in this thread a few disagreements on what can/could/should be discussed openly. As i suffered some abuse, not sexual, but abuse nontheless, my views on what you just spoke about above would at one time be very harsh. Should I get to dictate for others whether abusers get to speak? I've mellowed now but 20 year old me would have them in prison doing hard labor with no chance of a word. How do you handle suppression? Apples are banned, so i'll talk about how bad it is we can't speak about fruit, or i'll make my point via fruit. I'll still be speaking about apples you just can't silence/arrest/fine me for it etc. Unless you then suppress speaking indirectly about apples via fruit. So okay i'll just use a moniker and do it that way, or worse i'll just passive aggressively talk around the subject because I can't talk about the subject. Do you see how all this does is create potential manipulators, repressed emotion looking to burst out, or at least people who are good with their wording? Asking resistant people to be non resistant, creates resistance. My first thought here was to resist. I value free speech highly, not at an identity level. The core of my being likes to speak truth. Not lies. Sure my ego and identity amplify this, choose the wording, flavors it. I simply can't live in an authoritarian system, i'd be in jail in a week. Laws do need to catch up with social media and consequences are a fair way to do it. If individual responsibility still carries the weight of any such law. Nothing about how this could be implemented sits well with me, because there is no way for me to know fully how you will act on my words, that's completely out of my control. Limiting language is such a heavy handed way of doing it also. There are so many uses for each individual word, and context it could be used in. I know there are racial slurs or swear words to be banned but beyond that? Also a few bad commentators shouldn't dictate law for an entire country or planet, that's also a terrible way of collectively arriving at an agreement. Further as i've discussed, language itself is very prone to being misinterpreted, its hard to ever get the full meaning behind my words.

@bejapuskas Its a difficult issue to talk about because its hate and has all kinds of horrid experiences people have gone through attached to it. I didn't post this at first because i'm not black, brown and i'm not a minority in England. My only experience comes from being hated for other things, and I have been, pre judged or dismissed, avoided in a small community where everyone knows each others business. Never my skin color unless I happen to be on a hostile forum, or chat room, channel etc. So I can only imagine what people go through is worse than what I have. Maybe it is people who have been through something as a collective who should have the final word on this. I agree violence or incitement is a crime and should be. Banning things from this forum isn't the same as banning things entirely everywhere for everyone. Here its your decision, its your house and community you are looking out for. Part of knowing someone is a racist is part of being able to interact with them, avoid them! or better know why they are saying what they are saying. In the wider sense, if someone is a racist its better known than unknown. If you don't know they are a racist then they don't stop being one. They get to manipulate conversations, because the truth isn't in the conversation its a hidden motive, and at the furthest level where its denied even to themselves, they do things unconsciously that neither you or they are aware of. Although i've met a handful of very clever racists over my life that tried to flood me with stats to support a fragile identity they had chosen. Most of them are not clever, they are route one hitting their head against a wall types. Without knowing that we can mistake who we are talking to or why they are saying something. We even miss the opportunity to perhaps, I know its a long shot, show them a better way of living their life without hate being their primary focus. There is a further problem with your line of thought. If people get to pick one thing to silence, they can silence anything and its a slippery slope. I've seen that first hand, nothing to do with racism just censorship on a foreign political issue. I also remember when I watched a youtuber recently talk about the fact the subject of his video was removed, but so was his analysis of it, which had been well balanced. So we can't even address what exists through a third party to raise awareness or take apart hateful reasoning. I don't know, I think for this decision to be made properly, I would like a panel of people that experienced racism and still value free speech to get together and make that decision. I suspect it will go as you advocate for, but its important to know what we lose too and that it just goes underground.

I agree on the assumptions and projections, they come from the language. Text is less restrictive in what you can communicate, but not in definition to the person you are communicating with. Its inherently good for you to make a point, but not them to understand it fully, or your shared conversation as as result. Because we define so much language is considerably more restrictive in meaning, tone, format, syntax, and these small but important details in our heads are often lost from one person to the next especially over this format we are conversing now. A mountain is a large enough image that several perspectives can work with that image without disgareeing on the minor details of it. Here are some examples. The words AND or THE are so flexible that their relative meaning is usually lost in transalation. I could be using THE for emphasis, title, form, context etc. Whereas it doesn't matter if the image of a mountain is never fully defined in translation, its always going to be a mountain, and we wouldn't have either of us here picking over the details about it for example. I am not saying pictures are everything, the details if they can be communicated save time, but the flexibility in my words here almost guarantees you'll only receive part of what I was trying to say, even with the best of intentions.