Basman

What is your proof? Don't just make up stuff about people because it suits you.

I've heard blood feuds where way more prevalent before the advent of Islam in the Middle-East. I could be wrong but according to spiral dynamics, stage blue is above stage red in terms of moral development. For instance, slavery was ended in part due to Christianity. Charity originated from Christianity. Of course religion is going to be less moral compared to higher stages, like SD stage Green but now we are privileging our own perspectives instead of working with what we have. Religion has its place in society, like it or not. We can of course discuss how exactly but like I pointed out earlier, religions do change and develop. Religious fundamentalists are not the majority. This is a bad faith caricature.

I disagree. Society is too diverse for that, especially as we are increasingly globalizing. There will always be people who are content being religious. Religion can be an important service for society in that its an avenue for community and development for stage red people. So don't dismiss it so readily. I don't have any relevant data to prove my point but I believe that we would have more mafia and ghetto-isms without religion.

America has much stronger stage blue tendencies nationally than Europe in my opinion.

Its not possible for a spiral stage to go backwards fully and I don't see any evidence of there being a Christian resurgence on a macro scale outside of an influx of stage blue immigrants, like Muslims for example. Religions do develop and change despite dogmatism and ideological attachment being a common feature of religious people. The Christian church of today is not the same as the church of the medieval ages. Many churches in North-Europe for example care about typical stage green topics like welfare and ecology.

Religion is a social affair primarily and breaking from religion is primarily a matter breaking from social and cultural convention. Religion is a cultural institution in my opinion. Being moral and being religious are two different things because morality is the practice of ethics in real time whereas religion is ideological faith. Therefor leaving your religion does not make you immoral. There are usually social costs to leaving your religion however, especially if you live in a religious country, in which case I can imagine it making your life harder. You can learn from or be inspired by religion without being part of a religious community. Its not like you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater necessarily by leaving religion. Especially considering that many religious people are just blindly conforming, often holding believes that contradict or aren't part of actual scripture.

Why is that?

Social anxiety primarily.

I don't know, man.

I guess.

A lot of good resources. Thanks guys. I can definitely see that argument, but therapy is essentially a lot of "how did that make you feel?" If you have the know-how, surely you can achieve a lot with just journaling in theory. Besides, I don't believe therapy is for everyone, like the initial research was based heavily off working with women for example.

Yeah, exactly. Like, P. Diddy was just being authentic, living his best life. Being authentic is not about indulging in laziness or excusing selfishness. When you refuse to help your friends because "you lazy" you are saying that you value being lazy more than your relationships. Don't be surprised if people get upset and feel betrayed. And I doubt that you truly value being lazy anyway. And if you do, are you OK with the costs? Clearly not judging by what you wrote.

I'm way too horny for nofap myself. Good thing its bullshit. Got stuck in a desert once with a group consisting of mostly girls. It got really obnoxious, constantly looking for opportunities to relieve the pressure like some kind of cum filled rat.

Spit some game with your aunt.

I don't think its inherently a bad idea but I feel like its going to be a lot more feasible to pull off and maintain if you can provide for everyone involved.

To add on my previous comment, sensory awareness can't tell you why something happened, only that it happened in your direct consciousness. You can't understand the world by relying purely on senses, which is why reasoning among other things are so valuable to humanity. Senses are limited. We can't see all colors that possibly exist for example. To us, those colors might as well not be real but that doesn't mean that they aren't there. Its just that our ability to observe reality is limited relative to its totality.

Phenomena isn't limited to your senses or direct awareness in my opinion.

I've read that about 40% of men have reproduced throughout human history compared to 90% of women. The numbers might not be accurate but I think it is likely that more women have added to the human gene pool overall than men. That is just the asymmetry between men and women. Men have to work a lot harder for sex in most cases. That said, we probably live in one of the most abundant times of our life. If you want heaps of sex, I can't think of better period in human history. You just got to prioritize it, which most guys probably don't really do.

This is a great article about nofap and how it actually hurts people to believe in nofap and porn and masturbation as being bad. Worth reading. It also provides an alternative to how to deal with porn and masturbation instead of strict abstinence. https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/07/nofap-masturbation-reddit-forum-suicide.html

The distress you feel over your "lust" seems to be due to how you perceive it rather than it actually negatively effecting your life. You probably running on an ideology that is antithetical to human nature. See, your an animal. You are literally bred to be horny and want sex. Its how humans have survived for thousands of years. "Lust" is part of who you are. In my experience with nofap, it just adds more stress to your life as you fret over something that doesn't really matter.

Ok. Thanks.

What underlying attitude do you need exactly?

I think you misunderstood me here. I was implying that it was normal to not always be in a positive mood and that its unhealthy to expect otherwise. I agree this whole topic has to do with expectations.

I believe that there is a degree of utilitarianism in our culture, especially in the self-help sphere, I.E. maximizing pleasure, minimizing pain. We have this pervasive attitude of focusing on the things we want for ourselves (success, bliss, etc.), which is necessarily the case for a niche that is about improving/changing ones circumstances. It is human nature to want good things and avoid pain. Expecting yourself to constantly feel good is unrealistic and your going to feel bad at times. That is normal and there is nothing inherently wrong with negative emotions. In my experience, mindfully experiencing the emotions depersonalizes them to a certain degree and makes it such that you take an experience less personally, if that makes sense. In my opinion, however, the general mood of your life should be positive or at least neutral as opposed to in pain.

My understanding is there is a general agreement that the future job market will be increasingly smaller and more fluid with time due to automation. There will be an increasing demand on people to adapt and be creative to meet demand. Our current economic system is dependent on people buying stuff with the money earned from work but if no one has work then no one has the money to buy stuff. Eventually this system will no longer be sufficient as is without adapting. The aftermath of that might be very positive, a kind of post-scarcity society for example but it is hard to predict the what exactly. The process to get there however, within our life times, will probably be awkward and wrought with difficulty. It probably has to get worse before it gets better in my opinion. When it is no longer possible to ignore the problem of a stagnating economy is when we'll we'll try something else. Humans are bad at proactively finding solutions to systemic problem in my opinion and only change when they can no longer ignore the pain so to speak. It has to become a little bit too late before you'll see change, which is the idea behind accelerationism more or less (plus increasing the intensity of the problem to make it happen faster). The silver lining though is that when job security is zilch in our future job market with automation then there is no longer an incentive to pick job security over passion, especially if the only way to have "job security" is by being world class at a niche (which is when passion becomes essential). I've heard talk of perhaps temporarily halting AI development to give society time to adjust to the changes at one point but I don't know how wise that would be. It would also probably be difficult to pull of with competing interests.