Basman

That doesn't change the fact that sex is still relatively base assuming my earlier assertions are true. Also, in my opinion quality should refer to how well something is made on a technical level instead of how high or low conscious it appears to be.

Dude, what is this formatting? You don't strictly need a deeper state of awareness to enjoy breathing or sex but a deeper state of awareness can make those experiences richer whereas certain experiences cannot be experienced without a deeper state of consciousness, like a spiritual awakening. That is the distinction. Its not about difficulty but relative complexity and depth. Parents love their children and are deeply attached on a primal level but they don't necessarily love other people's children. To appreciate children on a deep level takes deliberate conscious thought, which makes it high-conscious. Don't forget your a glorified rat at the end of the day. Humans are just animals. Be careful of projecting the absolute unto the relative.

It might be hard to appreciate when you have been inundated with Leo's concepts for years but his ideas are actually quiet radical and challenging a lot of the time. Going straight to a philosophical conclusion like "everyone acts from good intentions" without building your case will necessarily lead to arguments because they are often upsetting. Like the idea that everyone acts from good intentions can come of as dismissive of legitimate bad experiences. You know that is not true, but you also listened to hours of content explaining why that is. When you challenge a paradigm, it is better to frame it as a question instead of a definite statement. For example: "don't you think that Hitler had good intentions relative to his people or even just himself? Like, how is it possible for someone start a world war without good intentions?" Sometimes people will just feel upset at an idea as a knee jerk reaction no matter how well you explain yourself. They might soften their stance later once they get over it.

That's my point, yes. being enlightened or highly conscious doesn't change anything fundamentally. Anyone can enjoy sex but not anyone can appreciate self-actualization, high art or deep states of awareness. That is a level of complexity beyond base needs that most people don't experience normally. Porn and blood sports are low-conscious because they are inherently less complex forms of pleasure. Even with the breathing example, you have to breath consciously as part of a practice to reach a deep state of consciousness as opposed to just breathing normally with no awareness. That is a distinction between higher and lower you have to make yourself in order to make that example.

There is nothing special about being enlightened.

Saying that consciousness is a state of mind doesn't mean certain actions can't be qualitative in terms of consciousness, if only because more base needs are less complex and less morally aspirational than for example self-actualization. Something being low-conscious isn't a moral judgement by the way. I'm very suspicious of any spiritual concept that tries to separate the body from the mind. It reeks of escapism.

My understanding of low VS high conscious activities is that it is somewhat analogous to Maslow's hierarchy of needs and we can therefor measure how conscious something is depending on where on the hierarchy of needs an activity will tend to fall. Porn consumption and sex is by definition part of the lowest rung of needs, physical needs, and therefor cannot be high conscious in of itself no matter how you slice it. Making porn can be an artistic pursuit and high quality hentai or erotica can be rich entertainment wise but porn is in of itself low consciousness. The problem isn't that porn is low conscious but the need to "veganify" everything to appear more spiritual.

Anything beyond just reaching tier 2 is desert in my opinion. Too much jerking off to obscure eastern religious figures.

Its not too late to change your life. You'll just have less energy and more responsibilities as you get older.

One thing you have to consider when it comes to meaning is that meaning is fundamentally a projection of the human mind. The way our minds conceptualize and perceive meaning is inherently human centric and driven by our needs and desires, which betrays meaning as arbitrary in the absolute sense. The distinction between objects and tools for example. Such distinction don't exist in nature outside of a human perspective. There is no difference between a hammer and a rock from a non-human perspective. This logic extends to the meaning we assign to our work and ourselves, We value certain kinds of work because they help our community in a certain kind of way and fulfill us personally. It is a highly human way to see reality, in terms of meaning. Meaning is essentially an arbitrary distinction regardless of how meaningful something is to us. Assuming its true that we as humans create meaning and project it unto the world, consider that it doesn't really matter if things are meaningless in the grand scheme of things because we are the only ones that care about such. The "grand" doesn't have an agenda like that. If everything is meaningless in the grand scheme of things you will still feel certain things are meaningful to you personally. Something you'd pay to do for its own sake. Like petting kittens, raising children, helping others, be a teacher, make art, being a good lover, ending the day feeling like you've been an asset, etc. Absolute meaninglessness is a good thing because it enables the freedom to live according to your values. It would suck if the classical biblical god existed and demanded that we live according to his values and his alone. You have the freedom to pursue your values, which is what you want. You are probably just not sure what they are exactly.

Its obviously harder to assess something you are part of. But learning about less developed places and pointing out their backwardness makes you appreciate living in a developed country more. I'm so glad I live where I do.

Most of these issues are things that simply need time to be resolved as opposed to direct political action since women as a political and labor class is fairly young. You are not going to see change over night but the change that has happened till now is fairly rapid. Many of these questions are moot problems with that perspective (They should be taken serious though, of course). There are differences between the sexes which aren't going to change in my opinion. Most women don't desire leadership roles for one, I think. The gold standard shouldn't be equity but freedom of opportunity. Men and women have different talents and proclivities which will express itself in society differently. The medical example is funny because the opposite is true of therapy. Sexual discrimination and harassment is apparently quiet prevalent recently at Blizzard, Ubisoft and the likes. A girl killed herself over rampant sexual harassment at Blizzard. A pregnant employee had her bottled breast-milk routinely stolen at the office. Its no accident that after all the lawsuits and exposing of these companies that they work really hard to project a "progressive" image. The economical problem with working women is that being pregnant and working are fundamentally incompatible because you can't do both at the same time without either suffering. Its why historically women weren't the main breadwinners. Regulation of the labor market, workers leave, etc. will help compensate but it won't fundamentally solve the problem. It might be unsolvable I think.

I assumed you where Muslim because your defensive of it. My bad. Criticizing a religion is not bigotry. OP is not being discriminatory or irrational by asking questions. Of course religion can evolve but that is not the case of the majority of it in human history. Its really just begging the question. Religion on a societal scale is almost always Stage Blue in action, which is the problem in terms of women's rights.

Those women are not solid SD Stage Blue. It is still correct to say SD Stage Blue religion is oppressive of women. Your not giving the OP the benefit of the doubt because your are defensive of your religion and getting hung up on the Islam angle. Also, share pictures or your lying.

Different religious groups have varying degrees of feminine repression, but it is correct to say that generally women in SD Stage Blue communities have to "cover up". You'll never see a devote Muslim woman in a sling bikini. That is not a gross oversimplification.