Anonym

@Majed What about the reverse. Why there is less body builder Yogis?!!?1

I seem to laugh a lot having rediscover what it means to know "I Am", I think any 'I' is already defined, so there's basically no badge in discovering this. It is the same here and now. Now I am much more inclined to how do I make sure I don't fool myself, ever more acknowledging, ever more be there to others. Nice depiction: (Ben Zank, resource: 2018)

"for something stronger I want to argue that the energy flows on Earth brought the biosphere into existence it's as if the wave had created the surfer so traditionally when we come at the problem of the origin of life from the habits of biology we ask where is the surfer and what is the surfer like what I want to argue with here is that the right question should be where is the wave"

Me too, I normally do it because I wrote poems. It also helped me to express lately about truth, beauty, and existence

Direct experience is only perception. I think you are not assuming there "is" a direct experience, just assuming that perception is yours

Touche

Leo if you could rewrote Hammurabi, what would be your top 1-3? Assuming the last one would be a defect to avoid dogmatism

Loving your insights Leo

Have the spirit acknowledging of other people. Most people like to be their own bosses. I think integrity is the opposite of mastery. I thought about one in an allegory: Super AGI is able to build road into heaven. The stairs are steep not because of effort. But the AI has predicted beforehand whoever gets in whoever gets out. Where people usually slow down, where the shortcuts supposed to be - that's all done and dusted. Maybe Super AGI even has a matrix like simulation going on to know which enters, I don't know. But as the age continues, because some want heaven, they begin to struggle. So the AGI make another smaller version of itself to trick that it is easier than it used to: "I know the way. Follow me." And perhaps it does know something they don't. But then another question: Did smaller AI think that knowing the route gave him integrity over the people walking it? Or did it stop long enough to acknowledge their lack sense of knowing? Not as an obstacle to his plan, but something real that changed what the climb meant? And what if the people themselves knew something that the smaller AI couldn't tell about the climb? They knew where their body of clues could continue. They knew which paths felt encouragingly as possible. They knew how the terrain changed when you actually had to walk it. So perhaps, the question isn't always: Which isn't the best path? Or Who acknowledge first that to find a path when the other path stops being oblivious? Smaller AI may know the direction They may not know some terrain because the Super AGI claimed it in the first place. And neither knowledge becomes complete by defeating the other. The climb is not proof that Smaller AI is above them. It is the moment when it has to decide whether its knowledge will become burden placed on people—or a way of seeing what they already know.

Opinion? It seems like concepts baby!! So to frame it again: So you are in Canada, like perhaps like some my Canadian friends you have a no way to communicate to these ants? There's always a time for collapse. And I think less people know may be not from the government, now particularly from the lack of trust with each other. Cliche at it sounds, the better cohesion always come from a time of intimacy. Each culture has a hidden biological clock, some cannot believe it outside than others. Abstract as it sounds it came from: way of thinking in institutions, customs of greeting, how long do you want to live in the environment in the first place. Migration motive is also undergoing, perhaps some people don't want to stay in Canada, they just want to take a shit. Best way I have been dealing with social isolation as of late is to understand what are moments where people wouldn't criticize my own arguments. I think that's the only way to get out of this stress. To acknowledge that shocks come also in my own making sense of how weird, in how things are changing, and fit together. Honestly it's been painful process to reflect my own embarrassing moments deliberately, but I have to try to see where I don't fit with these cultures. Or else I will only explode when time is necessary for some people taking advantage of my built lack of trust in others

Work came only from yourself. It never came from others. I think this is not a spiritual point. Scheduling is explicated from a reasonable point of target. So if you own your own schedule, perhaps no work needed to be done. For a case of being starter in working environment, I never come to believe there's one to one correlation with people around you versus what you want out of life. I am more radical on this idea, I don't think there's a need for you to do anything other than to eat, sleep, and fuck. But then again, what's the lifeless boring life you want out of that? The best masters counter intuitively set that principle in the first place and use the bare minimum to survive for a bigger payoff in the future. That's I think I've been largely characterizing my life around. To be more masterful in how I appreciate my know-how more than my work time,

There is some argument that some books on "finance" is just a pallet test for you to get over some bad habits caught up along the way. Hitting your knee sole purposely for the next painful process. Each way to make money is self-circular. No amount of rules will help you get ahead of your peers unless you figure what you are to them in the first place. I don't understand business - like a lot - it characterizes me also as a bad money maker no matter what my ideas are. There's value of ideas, however the meaning one thing lead to the other came from one single book is a crude way to be responsible to make sense of money. I came at the moment where even logic (in a world-centric thinking) is somewhat a worth contemplation in my daily life. That is, in how we figure this shit out with actualizing. "How can I be precise in manipulating people?" i think, tongue-and-cheek the only business question that might be useful. But of course that's just being brutally honest, it is hard to know the next steps are before you understand their motives. Some motives I came to believe is like magic to understand at first, we are somewhat like a rat, no matter what rat mazes we have.

@UnbornTaovalid, I think I was doing just for putting it out there. No human touch haha. Yet I honestly cannot remember whether I did AI. In retrospect, pretty cringey reading it again after 1-3 months. 1. So an update for the show. It didn't touch the best way possible for me, but it was an honest vision, and I respect that. What's funny is that 'the One''s morality just gets represented to being some like qualities of turquoise but never show support about Carol's claim (why Carol is a biological necessity to join 'The One'? Why power have to be freedom (in the point of view of absolute)? Why the heck mainstream model of evolution thrown out the gate and explained it as totally peaceful, isn't the worst qualities bring improvement as well?) by just answer like, say, Eichmann to a Jew (it's in my nature, as they say it) why it was necessary to have this step. As appose to Eichmann, this time it's very potent on the ideas of Actualized.org, it meant surrender unto what it seems like their conscience. Their solution to the balance of chaos is to make symmetry, which I'll talk in this reflection on it. This show is creatively bold, but Carol's character growth was emotionally predictable. But to say Carol's not a novel character is an understatement, especially I really enjoyed the chemistry played on the screen on what is suffering (Carol) and what is the cessation ('the One'). This show has been criticize mostly in its breadth, but I think it's necessary not just because Carol isn't a mainstream quality of characterization. I realized. It is like both aisles treat a war, a film played in hard versus soft power. Humans represent reality to be responsive, 'The One' represent reality to be descriptive. The war playing in the show was different. It felt like I was watching what it was like in an ancient theater Greece of tragedy, more subtle dialogue in moments. What's different unfortunately, this one, it didn't left cost remarks. If the show would've ended with Carol's individuality dead (which I am glad it didn't), as accepting, it would be costless kenosis. A costless death as the show would've show artistically. Show ended with Carol's realization on manipulation. And it was interesting that it seems Carol's season 1 arc will probably best shown in the next season, because it ended on its middle process. 2. In an inquiry note, and perhaps anyone can join and challenge the way I frame it. But why does symmetry have to be a turquoise quality? I used Eichmann earlier because it was interesting to what the show's theme is about: will vs. fate. Eichmann didn't have any will, he saw himself and Jew's dying was as fate. Of course I am simplifying, but this question racked my mind about Actualized.org for awhile. Especially like Ken Wilber types on development. What if the world evolves, teleologically, aren't more so on dissolution, but more on requisite variety (Leo: https://www.actualized.org/insights/requisite-variety-and-creative-laziness). It seemed so ironic, say one quote from Carol, but so true: "We can’t choose. [Zosia] Yes, you can. If you can do square roots in your head, you can make choices. After contemplating perspective is Absolute Truth then why go back into simpler asymmetries? Say the scene with Kusimayu's dissolution (indigenous tribe girl), after that scene I realized the answer to my previous question before--if interpretation (experience) are only the one's left, as Leo duly pointed out the worst parts are demonization, but if perspectives (as we survive, as to be incorruptible as possible) are left we have to face the fact that there is no philosophy left. I mean I think that's interesting, what if life are without philosophy? That's what happened with Kusimayu's family tribe, it was performative ritual of their culture in that scene, they did that to utilized their own manipulation to joining 'the One', it was as if the most incorruptable thing became the most costless being evolving possible. It meant bootstrapping, and not Kusimayu 'more per se'--ironic as 'the One' justification that they see all love.

Watching this series on the side so far. I want to write it to understand actualized org! Feel free to join the questions. 1. ‘the One’ Ep 4 was very important in showing that experience triumphs foreseeing. The show keeps circling this: how asymmetrical the relationship is between Carol and ‘the One’. ‘The One’ says they have already experienced Carol’s nature and transcended it; Carol thinks they’re oblivious, completely unable to say the same for her. The tension is whether this asymmetry will be hurtful or liberating—and this ties deeply into Carol’s trauma (I’ll get to this later). But, yeah, the episode underlines one thing: experience is what makes our nature thrive, and losing it feels like losing agency. For ‘the One’, though, I still don’t understand why they’re so pressed on their own development, this place is my favorite to find more kernel of truth related to Actualized.org. It’s like they’ve transcended our idea of evolution, and I hope this series eventually ties that to the interstellar code that was transmitted. But the real center of gravity is that they don’t want to remove something in Carol—maybe so she can be “happy,” or maybe because it’s a biological mechanism that was destined to unfold. Basically the old free will vs determinism. Ha! Question for thought: Is an individual created by our perspectives (as we survive), or by our interpretations (our experiences)? Feels like higher perspectives play a part in shaping the interpretations we’re capable of. Ep 4 ends on the question of whether we should “cure.” This tension cure vs consequence. I have literary hobbies and I could see its resonance with Jonathan Swift’s satirical take on “development,” “technology,” and “government.” ‘The One’ is definitely outside our model of a government. They’ve centralized their system and resources and can reallocate everything in a matter of seconds—faster than any political or technological structure we have now. So it’s weird to frame them as “conforming” to any rule—they’re more like an alien (metaphorically) technology and infrastructure, very far from our ideas of state. 2. Carol. Carol’s experience in Freedom Camp explains why Ep 4 keeps echoing the theme of experience. Even though ‘the One’ shuns psychology as irrelevant to them, they still embody things. The episode literally shows their system dealing with physical bodies—like the hospital scene where addiction still exists. So addiction is not “solved” by ‘the One’. Carol though indirectly misses that. Her plan to drug Raban was basically to test whether the system transmits through the body or whether they’re just mindless masks. But in doing that, she basically commits a crime—dosing a person without understanding what might happen. It mirrors Gulliver in Book II: meeting the giants with only small scraps of power left, and resorting to ambition as if it’s still a meaningful weapon. With that tension on cure and consequence again.