Vali2003

https://calnewport.com/is-claude-mythos-terrifying-or-just-hype/ Read this article for an objective view of what Claude Mythos is and isn‘t.

Re-reading them, I guess. You could also follow the strategy in the video below, but it's quite a pain in the ass. I find that applying the ideas from a book, discussing the contents with friends or mulling them over through the day also helps. It kind of depends what sort of book it is. If it's the practical kind, applying it to whatever topic it's about is probably the best method. For politics, discussing it helps. This video is if you really want to remember shit and study it. But, like I said above, it requires a lot of effort. But you can't get around that anyways. And, if the book is great, it may be worth it.

@Leo Gura Will you be working with a professional editor for your book? I have a feeling it really makes the end-product a lot better. However, may be hard to find someone that gets your content deeply enough and has editorial skills. Also, must be annoying to always have people tell you what they think you should do.

@Leo Gura They could never give me as good existential crises as real Leo.

Always forget them too. Mostly what changes my life about books or writing is the changes in state of consciousness — through insights — that I get by reading them. I wouldn’t be able to pin it down on a specific quote.

Muay Thai warmups

Good luck in rewiring the mess and thanks for the reminder.

Building some sort of technology or technique — I don’t know how this would work yet — that enables artists to experience their work as though seeing it for the first time ever. This sounds simple, but would actually be incredibly powerful. This technology would make creating amazing art much more doable for anyone willing to put in the work. Not being able to view your work objectively is one of the biggest hindrances for any artist, in my point of view. For other services, feedback works just fine — and as of now this is all we have for art (editors for example in writing, offering an outside perspective). However, I feel for the artist themselves to see their work completely objectively would be much more powerful than external feedback. It would cut out the middleman, decrease the inaccuracies. The upgrade is equivalent to, instead of language, being able to use telepathy to communicate. I had the idea when I watched the movie ‘Spirited Away’ two times in a period of ~2 weeks. The second time I watched it, I thought holy fuck this movie is completely different than the first time around. I literally couldn’t experience it in the same way — at all. I wondered how the fuck it must be for the director — or whoever is in charge of the movie. How do they feel after having gone through it potentially hundreds of times? They must be so far disconnected from the objective reality of this movie at that point. Reality proves that this is already a problem people have. However, they purely rely on external feedback or on giving them some time between and then having gained space after which they have more objectivity. If you could build a technology that makes this much more effective, it would be so powerful. If there’s someone here who has good technical skills and would be interested in developing this technology, I’d actually be down to try! No idea how it’d work yet, but I’m certain that it’s possible. What do y’all think of this? Leo, I’d also appreciate your feedback on this idea.

Yes you should start jogging on soft surfaces like sand, and then transition to harder ones. Concrete is the final boss.

Not everyone’s bodies are the same. I can run on pavement without cushioned shoes without problems. It depends how your body distributes the force — which depends on how tense your fascia tensegrity network is.

Ok, so the problem you have with the thread is you don’t see the use in finding examples of conformity in general, not that the examples were not relevant? I think that’s fair. For me, I find the thread cool because I start being aware of more areas where I conform as I see everything through the conformity lens.

I think you’re strawmanning a little. What you’re saying is theoretically true, but most examples I’ve read here have been relevant and useful — at least for me.

Very specific training just means gradually introducing more barefoot activity, no?

It depends on how strong (connected to your glutes) your feet are. The problem is, most people have very weak feet so they definitely shouldn’t run barefoot on concrete. They will just get injured. If the connection is strong, however, you will have a natural forefoot strike and your feet will be very tense so you wouldn’t have to worry even if you run on something like concrete. There are still issues like glass on the floor, cold temperatures, the skin on your foot getting hurt and things like that, of course. So I’m not saying you should run barefoot. Actually, running — or moving in general — on hard floors as a kid will improve the strength and health of your feet. Look at Brazilian kids playing football barefooted on concrete for example.

Yes… they would and they are. ^^

Fair point. Still, the cushioning will make your feet weaker over time.

@UnbornTao It depends on the state your feet are in. The problem is, if your feet are weak then it would be a bad idea to just start running with barefoot shoes. Some people have such strong feet — and the tensegrity network that results from that — that they can run marathons without shoes altogether. This guy, for example, won the Olympics 1960 barefooted. It’s quite a complicated issue, honestly, because the feet are not isolated. Through fascia, they connect to your glutes. However, if this fascial connection is weak, your feet will be weak and you’ll need cushioned shoes which try to ‘replace’ this connection. This only makes the glutes connection weaker over time, though and so all sorts of problems will appear. Anyways, sorry for the rant. I’d recommend slowly transitioning to barefoot shoes — there are a couple ones that look decent. If you don’t like them, I’d pick shoes that have a flat sole and low heel.

This is the only non-conformist shoe that exists :

How to deal with conformity: Ask yourself which value of yours something serves. If it doesn’t serve any value, discard it. If it does serve a value, ask yourself if it’s the best way to live this value and think of potential alternatives. Choose the way that best serves your value —independently of what is the conform choice.

The problem is that people already rely on strongly cushioned shoes way too much, which makes their feet relax and their tensegrity structure less ‘bouncy.’ To counteract that loss of bounce and elasticity, they then need shoes which give it to them. They create the problem first, and then sell the solution. Not saying they’re doing it consciously but all shoe companies do this by selling more and more cushioned shoes in general, which only makes the feet degenerate — to a degree that most of you can’t even imagine, actually. Cushioned shoes are conformity. They serve no real purpose and do a BUNCH of damage.

You’re missing my point. I agree that drinking wine can be conformity. I used it as an example to show that this type of conformity is different from, say, speaking english if you’re from an english-speaking-country.

@Alexop Could be. I think the high heel increases the risk of ankle injuries so I wouldn’t wear them but I don’t doubt they’re comfortable.

I like Robert Greene’s writing style.

@MuadDib Of course you could argue that it’s some sort of conformity. What I tried to say with my previous post is that conforming to speaking a language vs. something like acting as though you like redwine even though, in truth, you have to represss your urge to puke every time you take a sip — and yes there are thousands of people who say they love redwine — are two very different things. So maybe it doesn’t make so much sense to call both ‘conformity.’

@mmKay Actually, running shoes like above is the worst kind of conformity. Everybody wears them now.