Scholar

I will add the books to the list thanks. What do you think about Satanism? I read somewhere that their reputation is counter to what true disciples do, for example they are against all forms of animal abuse and are basically just about self-actualization. It was basically about liberating oneself from all the repression that was going on in Christianity, acceping ones own desires instead of demonizing them. The whole ritual sacrifice thing with humans and so forth they claim is a bad popcultural carricature that has nothing to do with true satansim? Is that true? What do you think about that? There was a website about this from a female author but I don't remember it. I think she was practicing Wicca too. I think it was more of a form of paganism and Satan was some sort of pagan god.

Because I don't know if the it is even possible, especially for someone not gifted enough. I also have other areas that I am more gifted at that I think I will be more effectively raising the consciousness of others. With these kinds of things it's seems like natural talent is especially important, so those who have that talent and actualized it have more weight on their shoulders than those of us who do not, I think.

Do you think someone naturally gifted who does not know about it could harm others by unintentionally cursing them, having negative thoughts and visualizations about them?

If so, how?

How do I ask my Divine Self to help? I think there is a difference between communicating with the ego and communicating with the Divine Intelligence, even if they are both connected. The question is how do I access the Divine if I am not enlightened, is that possible somehow, to atleast get some guidance?

But don't forget that the ego will try to have you remain in your comfort zone. It will use the divine to justify it's own terms. People do not choose to be ignorant, they don't choose to denie the Truth. They need help, and I think those among us who are especially gifted have a greater responsibility. Who else will help them but us? I don't know why you see this as such a threat. To me this is an opportunity. It will grow your character, you might bring light to the world in unimaginable ways. And it's not like what I suggest would make you do less of what you are doing right now, in fact it would have you do more! Look at Sadhguru, what if he never decided to take things into his own hand and change the world? What if he stayed another Yogi who spend his time in a cave and occasionally helped those who seeked him out? Look at how different the world would be. You have connections to a lot of people who have similar gifts, you could organize events to strategically plan this. This is exciting, it is an opportunity to increase love. Why not do it? Sure it will be challenging, but it will also be rewarding.

Of course, but you are gifted and you could radically change the world if you and everyone with these abilities truly put the effort into it. What if my part to play is to change your mind and motivate you to act in a radical way?

I still don't see why that would keep us from using these abilities to deliberately increase consciousness. It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Science is skeptical in nature, we would have never had any progress and breakthroughs if we just gave in to the skeptics. If Darwin just said "Ignorance is always a personal option.", I don't think we would be where we are today. Sometimes it requires fighting the skeptics. Jesus didn't just sit around and wait for people to find him, he was out there and radically challenging the status quo. And think about how easy it is for us today, in the time of Jesus they would have put you on a cross. In medieval times they would have burned you at the stake. What would all those who sacrificed themselves in the face of ignorance think of us, who make excuses as to why they should not take radical action? Is that not our egos trying to stay in comfort? How easy is it for the ego to use what you said as an excuse? It takes effort to change the world, to bring light into darkness The people who changed the world did not do so with the attitude of "Those who seek truth will find it".

I don't know, I don't like this kind of easy dismissal. What if your skeptical friend would be the one who sets up the table, who sets up the environment. Putting up cameras everywhere etc. if the Chi-gung practitioner still can do that he should not be skeptical. And even if he is, not everyone will be. We can't give up just because some, or even a lot of people, are close-minded. What if it can be shoved down their throat? From the stories that were reported, it is exactly what Christ did. He purposefully used magic to prove his Godhood. And why not, it instantly increased peoples consciousness around him. They immediately knew his divinity. What about the skeptical romans who saw Christs dead and then his rebirth? Was that not essentially what triggered all of Christianity, if it truly did happen? What if that's exactly what we need today? Why not try our best instead of just giving up in face of some skeptics? What else will you do with these abilities?

Most people are not really interested in scientific studies. I would think more effective things would be challenging prominent atheists and doing something that cannot be dismissed. There has to be a way to use your skills for the greater purpose, to use them to increase consciousness. What if that's what used to happen in the past? What if Christ used his magic to make everyone without a doubt know of his Godhood? What if that is what created Christianity in the first place? What if you could do the same? Or someone else who has psychic abilities. Would it not be imperative to use these abilities to increase consciousness? I feel like so much more could be done, would Christ have sat around and been referring to studies that can easily be dismissed by rationalists? I think he would have been far more radical in his approach, if he truly had any of the abilities that were reported.

My argument is that no they have not, because the moment they got more than they can handle they returned to the source, they returned to being untouchable. This is the very thing I was pointing to. You cannot experience more than you can handle, because more than you can handle means either ego death or physical death, it means either psychological disintegration or physical disintegration. Beyond that you become God, you become untouchable. This would mean it is not possible to make someone suffer more so than their ego can handle. By the very design of nature it cannot be otherwise. It's like God is always there, catching us when we fall. He knows exactly how much we can handle, and we can handle a lot. But as soon as it becomes more than the ego can take, there is an instant return to Godhood. The very metaphysical structure of the mind does not allow it to be otherwise.

When we experience more pain and suffering than we can handle, does it not necessarily lead to the dissolving of the ego? Anything we experience prior to the dissolving of the ego is necessarily something we can handle, is it not?

Could you not somehow use your abilities to proof to the world that there is a spiritual dimension to reality which they currently denie?

The point is that the metaphysical structure of the ego does not allow for us to not endure more than we can handle because if we experience somethint that we cannot take, our ego's literally disintegrate. Everything before that, no matter how much torture, was something that we could take because it did not disintegrate the ego. So you cannot torture someone beyond what the can handle, because doing that leads to their ego just dissolving.

Study Ken Wilbers work, it seems like you have overlooked the dimension of Lines/Streams of Development that is very important to understand: I do not believe there is a person in this world that is solid yellow or even solid green. Even solid orange is extremely rare. To be equally development on all of these lines would be inhuman. Additionally, this entire model is highly biased, it is viewed from a lense that is heavily orange and blue. Think about civilization 1000 years ago. It was almost pure blue and every single human being today that we would argue to be blue would to these people seem orange. In contrast, every single person that they would have back then be deemed orange would to us seem deeply embedded in blue. There is a sort of relativity that does not allow us to see beyond or current culture. We look at things from an orange vantage point, meaning that even human beings who only have a fraction of their psychology resonating with Yellow would to us seem radically different. I would argue that even Leo is mostly orange, when removing the relativity of cultural bias. Think about in 1.000 years, when there is a truly Yellow culture. Do you think they will look back at Leo and be thinking "That Leo guy was solid yellow!". Of course not, they will look at him as an orange meat-bag who showed some signs of yellow, but was so embedded in his culture that he failed to see how his entire psychology was molded by it in a way he could not possibly transcend. Everything beyond orange, in any model an orange culture will produce, will be deeply biased and limited due the failure to predict what cannot be predicted. In other words, the data Spiral Dynamics and similar models are based upon are produced in a world that is inherently orange and blue. It cannot really look into the future, it is limited to data that has already actualized. What it can capture is the few advancements that we are making from our current cultural environment. The entire model will be structured in a way so that any slight deviation from current cultural standards will be viewed as an entirely new stage. But to future cultures who will have fully actualized these new stages, these deviations will seem like the opposite. They will look lower from their vantage point, whilst to us they look higher.

My dog passed away last year and it was a terrible experience, especially bringing her to the vet to put her to sleep. That experience in itself is very painful, but I myself don't really see her as gone. I see her every day inside the bumble bees that try to climb into the flowers on the balcony, or inside the birds that I feed when it is winter. I even see her in the fruit flies that start appearing when I left some fruit lying around too long. Just a few days ago I saved one when it flew into a juice I wanted to drink. I fished it out with a spoon, put it into water to clean it up and then put it on a towel and it actually lived. Cleaning itself off and then flying away. Quite remarkable, especially because it must have been in the juice for quite some time. There is no need to feel bad for Max, there are so many more lifes to live. To accept that he has changed might become easier if you share the love you shared with him with the other Maxes around you. They want to be loved just like he did, that's all they seek. Max will appreciate every bit of love that you share with him, no matter what form he took. He might not remember you, but that is somethint that just needs to be accepted. One day you won't remember him, and it will be you who is climbing into flowers to get the nectar. Recognize Max in the bumble bees. Once you will, it's going to feel like he was never gone.

Do you not think UBI is inevitable? I don't really see it as a band-aid, to me it seems more like a foundation upon one would build in the future. To me the part about it rewarding work that happens outside of the work-place is actually very compelling, like the raising of children by unemployed parents. Yang is known for his UBI plan but he has a lot of policy proposals. I haven't gone through them as I am not an US citizen, but from what little I heard from him it seemed like he had some systemic approaches that seem to lack in many of the other candidates. He is talking a lot about reincentivizing economic forces instead of pure redirection of ressources. He shows an understanding of why things are the way they are instead of demonizing natural economic forces. https://www.yang2020.com/policies/

What do you think about Andrew Yang, aside from it being unlikely that we will become the candidate?

Now the question is how do you guys get rid of Biden? He is better than Trump for sure but I would prefer someone like Bernie who I think will attempt to make more meaningful changes than him.

Yeah maybe I spend too much time on Youtube and overestimate his popularity/influence. @This is the end That's what you can get away with when you have power. If a poor person did that he'd be beaten into a hospital.

I wouldn't mind it if he didn't disguise himself as a leftist, like he was the only voice of reason among complete insanity.

https://www.youtube.com/user/Timcasts/videos Just reading the thumbnails of the videos will probably tell you enough.

What do you think of Tim Pool and his opinion about this? Do you think opportunistic journalists like him are doing real harm to public opinion?

You are still not viewing this from the perspective of the animals, which is the entire point of veganism. I would frame the question in the following way: Do you believe it is justified to farm, exploit and kill animals to create food that is nutritionally more adequate? Do you believe it is justified to farm, exploit and kill animals to contribute to a solution to climate change? I don't think it is, especially not in the real world, where ruminant animal agriculture is most likely not a key solution to climate change and where veganism is not a diet but an ethical stance. Again, the key here is to create a change in consciousness so as to value the existence and consciousness of animals in a way that is removed from human bias. The insect/shellfish angle is only a temporary approach until we find solutions like synthetic meat and only if it is truly the case that we cannot thrive on a plant exclusive diet. Obviously the transition between our current exploitative culture and a future culture which does value all life will be full of moral grey areas and dilemmas. That is insignificant to you. What you have to ask yourself is why you think the cow is so much less worth of a free life than you are? Why does your consciousness devalue the existence of these beings? Would you want to be the countless of cows that are put into a slaughterhouse so that some humans could feel a little bit more energetic and healthy? You need to start looking at this from the perspective of those you are exploiting, instead of finding justifications to continue this exploitation. Only that will increase your consciousness and thus your "love". Once your consciousness will increase, the solutions you will seek will be very different from the solutions you are currently seeking. You will be far less comfortable making the statements you are making right now. You might start looking at it this way: "We as human beings have destroyed nature, we as human beings have enslaved other groups of people. We are contributing to climate change. Why in the world would we think that we can now use cows, who have absolutely nothing to do with this at all, to exploit and kill so that we can solve the problems that we have caused? Why would we think it is justified to use a species that is completely innocent in this so as to solve a problem that we have created? That is completely insane, if anyone should suffer for what we did, it should be us, not random cows who don't even realize what climate change is. What would be just is to have the cows roam our farmlands and restore it without exploiting and killing them. To have them restore the farmlands completely naturally, without killing or controlling them. By instead taking care of them, by rewarding them for their restorative work instead of taking their lifes. And we, the humans, should carry the costs of that. Tax the shit out of animal agriculture, put a tax on all products which exploit animals. Use said taxes to fund restoration of farmland." You would go from "How can I justify killing cows for food?" to "How can I possibly come up with ways so that cows don't need to be killed, but I still fight climate change and thrive nutritionally?". You can put effort into each of these inquiries and you will find answers. Your level of consciousness determines which question you will ask.

I can only recommend to stop viewing Good and Bad as attributes of other things, and instead view them as their own dimensions of consciousness. In my view ethics is greatly delusional in that it simply deludes reality into something it is not. The ego deliberately confused different states of being so as to create it's own narrative. Goodness and Badness must be viewed for what they are, not be confused to be part of something that they are not. Again, I can only repeat. The only thing that is Good is Goodness itself. There can be no other thing that is Good. Now you must only closely observe Goodness. Once you see it for what it is, you will not be able to call anything good or bad. It will be absurd, it will be clearly delusional to you. It will be as delusional as saying 1=2. Notice that when you die, there will be neither Good nor Bad. Both of them will cease to exist. They are both impermanent. One day all life in this universe will cease, the structure that holds together time and space will fade away. All of it will fade into nothingness, including Good and Evil. Even if there was Good and Evil, it would be completely irrevelant, as the end state is always the same, a dissolving into Nothingness. When there will be noone left to judge what was Good and Bad, what will it have mattered how much Good or Bad have happened before they ceased to exist? Again, Death is the great equalizer. In the eyes of Nothingness, all is the same, all is equally fragile.