Emerald

That makes sense. There could be an underlying belief that "intimate relationships always lead to conflict." And that could certainly be a reason for avoidance.

Do you have any experiences in childhood with controlling parents? This is a common reason for relationship avoidance. Another common reason is if we had family members going over our boundaries frequently when we were growing up. This creates the sense that "connection means allowing people to go over my boundaries." In both of these patterns, the main over-riding theme is the sense of connection and authenticity/boundaries/freedom being mutually exclusive, where you can have one but not the other. Does any of this resonate with you?

It only works that way for those who fail to grasp the value of beauty-in-itself, and only value utility. Not as to say that it isn't an incredibly human thing to devalue real beauty and engage in seeing everything as merely a ticket to another end. It is common. But it is a failure to see the true value and beauty in a potential partner to only view them through this 'supply and demand' lens.

If you mean by your bidding analogy that another person would only be interesting if others were also actively interested in them, I feel like this is a pretty immature way to look at relationship prospects that wouldn't lead to good relationship outcomes. If you need social proof and "other bidders" to be interested in someone, then you're not really interested in that person. You'd just be interested in chasing the social status of being with that person.

You can't actually be socially conservative and pro-human rights in a way that's meaningful in 2024. To revert back to social conservatism would be to cut back significantly on hard-won human rights over the past century. To be socially conservative is a paradigm that aligns with living in a small, mono-cultural, mono-religious, agrarian, patriarchal community where there are rigid gender roles to ensure that land is passed from father to son. And sexuality must be tightly controlled. And everyone has a role to play in a very rigid hierarchy... where men are at the top, the women are governed by the men, then the children are owned by the men but cared for by the women. And all social deviants (like gay people, trans people, people of other cultures/races, women who intermarry with other races, people who don't subscribe to the "one true religion", or other "degenerates") are kicked out from the rigid hierarchy of society. This is the paradigm social conservatives are operating off of. And to adopt that way of thinking would be to regress and undercut the rights of women, gay people, trans people, everyone in the out-group religions, and everyone in the out-group cultures/ethnicities/races. Also, you can't have a democratic theocracy. Those two things also don't go together.

They weren't talking about 'not sitting around for men' as a collective group. After all, not every man will ignore a woman he's interested in. In fact, most men don't do that. They were talking about not sitting around for a particular man that ignores them... and instead moving on to a man who doesn't ignore them. I feel like it's pretty obvious what they're saying. Move on from a man who ignores you, and instead invest your effort in one that doesn't. It's pretty straight forward. What's the value in pretending to be confused and making it out like they're being inconsistent?

Whoa! Young McConnell ad.

Integrating suffering is in the acceptance of suffering as an integral part of reality itself, and that mercy and suffering are two sides to one coin. It's like Yin and Yang. And in this integration, it means to recognize that a world without suffering would be like playing a video game with no obstacles. But if you apply the perspective of the "game designer" to your gameplay as the "avatar", you will play the game foolishly because you will see negative and positive as relative equals within the gameplay. And that is the mistake that you are making. You are applying the logic of the game designer to over-write the human-hearted common sense logic of the avatar. From the perspective of the game designer, you need to program the game with a workable balance of both positives and negatives in order to make a good video game. And the game won't be interesting if it's too easy or too difficult. For example, if you're the creator of the Mario games... both Mario and Bowser are an integral part of the game play. And you need a Bowser to give Mario a proper obstacle to work against. So, this is the higher perspective you would need to look at the world from to integrate suffering. This is what I referred to as God-mindedness because it looks at reality through the eyes of the creator who codes both negative and positive into reality. And it weaves suffering into the gameplay, because it teaches wisdom through contrast. But if you, as the avatar, engage in the gameplay from the perspective of the video game designer, you will just let Bowser kill you... because it's all an integral part of the gameplay. And you will see no difference between Mario and Bowser and lose the game. So, don't be foolish and reach for top-shelf God Consciousness truths to over-write more common sense down-to-Earth human-hearted wisdom. It is foolish to always be promoting top-shelf spiritual truths over down-to-Earth practical truths. Remember... Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. Instead of Spiritual Bypassing, embrace your humanity and be human-hearted. And to do that skillfully is where you do your best to reduce suffering as much as you can and to spread loving kindness as far and wide as possible. To operate otherwise is just folly.

Though suffering is an integral part of reality, it is wise to aim to reduce suffering as much as is feasible for an individual human being. It is the integration of human-heartedness and God-mindedness that allows for wisdom to flourish. To pay no mind to 'down to Earth' wisdom of the human-hearted bias towards reducing suffering is the folly of those hyper-intellectuals who are rich of mind but poor of heart.

Morality means making an a priori assumption of "This is an absolute good" and "This is an absolute bad"... and is treated itself like a premise. And it can get very arbitrary where the moralistic values have nothing to do with harm reduction. So, if we use the logic axiom of "If this, then that"... moralistic thinking is like "If wearing green hats is bad, then no one should be allowed to wear green hats." So, morality is totally arbitrary and based on the assumptions of a particular culture... or a particular individual. Because of this, I think it's wise to forgo all forms of moralization. Instead, I prefer to operate off of an ethical framework, where the premise I operate under is to cause as little suffering as possible as an individual. So, if we go back to the logic axiom of "If this, then that"... ethical thinking is like "If my intention is to cause as little suffering as possible, then I am wise to avoid engaging in actions that cause unnecessary suffering to others." And that's really my only one and only ethical compass. Moralism leads to arbitrary judgments and demonization... and losing sight of the reason why setting boundaries on our behavior is helpful. Ethical thinking leads to wise discernment based on the value of loving kindness toward all. This is useful. But do not fall into the trap of being moralistic about morality and ethics.

That's an interesting example. It really embodies Christ's statement of "Forgive them for they know not what they do." But one of the things that brought me to this conclusion is what happened in one of my Ayahuasca journeys. In this journey the medicine shared with me is my purpose, which is mercy and showed me how it had always been that... and why that was the case. And it was explaining to me that this entailed being this mediator figure between society and the mystery to help people work through spiritual, psychological, and practical issues that keep them stuck in suffering by giving them smaller insights that they can handle as an individual. And in this explanation, it was clear to me that this tendency was only given to those who really want at the deepest level of their being to play that role for their community. And it was given as a both a gift and a burden. So, most people genuinely don't want the burden of the exposure to deeper levels of gnosis, and thus are not given that gift. And it showed me how much of a mercy it is to allocate that job to a few people so that the many don't have to shoulder that burden. And the many can come to the few to reap the benefits of the work done by the few. Similarly to how, in a village with a great baker, the village people can simply rely on the baker for their baked goods. And they don't need to shoulder the burden of baking their own bread every day... and get freed up to do other things. And my estimate is that this that was shown to me in my journey, describes 1 in every 100 or 200 people... who may become medicine people, priests, priestesses, psychologists, and other helping professionals that help people explore the labyrinths of the psyche and the Self. But that is just one specialization out of many. And it is not superior to being a great baker or candlestick maker.

Thank you

That's because higher spiritual and psychological capacity isn't what nature is attempting to develop. Like, if fur evolves into feathers over time... it isn't because feathers are better than fur in the eyes of nature. It is just an adaptation. The same is true with higher vs lower spiritual and psychological capacity. Evolution doesn't inherently mean becoming better at those things... as spiritual and psychological capacity is values-neutral in the eyes of nature. It is just a neutral adaptation like any other adaptation. So, asking this question is a bit like asking why humans haven't evolved echolocation. Well, we haven't needed echolocation to survive and reproduce. The same is true of humanity thus far. We haven't needed the populace to have a higher spiritual and psychological capacity to survive. In fact, at earlier phases in human development, these qualities might be a hinderance to our survival if most average people possessed them. Instead, there have always been 1 out of every 100 people to act as medicine people, priests, priestesses, etc. that have bore the brunt of that job for their entire group. That way, the average person isn't burdened by such things... and they can focus on hunting or baking bread. So, we have evolved for the purpose of specialization because that benefits our survival and reproduction.... and higher spiritual and psychological capacity is one of many ways people are build towards specialization. But there is no need for the general populace to possess higher spiritual capacities... in the same way that not everyone in the populace needs to have stellar athletic ability.

It's a great game! I replayed it 13+ years ago when I was pregnant with my daughter to kill time until her due date... and she was two weeks later than her due date! I found it on the internet and replayed the Silver version, and it brought back all those nice nostalgic feelings associated with the music of the game.

If you've ever played any of the old Pokemon Gameboy Games like Red, Blue, Yellow, Silver, etc., you will understand this metaphor. In these games, you'll sometimes run across a character that doesn't present themselves immediately as a member of Team Rocket. But they'll be wearing similar clothes to Team Rocket, have the same personality vibe as Team Rocket, and they'll send out similar Pokemon to the ones that Team Rocket uses. And you pretty much know right away that they're actually a part of Team Rocket, even though they don't say it outright. I feel like all these people "suddenly" supporting Trump: like Joe Rogan, Audrey Marcus, Aaron Abke, and others that we've talked about on here of a similar vibe... to me they've always come across like secret (not-so-secret) members of Team Rocket. It's always been obvious. And yet, some people get surprised. Did you NOT see them using Koffing and Ekans in their Pokemon battles the WHOLE time?

Definitely a Team Rocket thing to do... to disguise themselves in obvious disguises.

I remember it being a clear part of the game play where you were in a random Pokemon battle. And once you won, they revealed themselves as a Team Rocket member.

I think so too. I think they were selling Slowpoke tails or something like that.

They weren't subtle to me. You can usually taste the flavor of it on someone just by watching them for a few minutes. It just tends to be mixed in with positive and neutral Masculine qualities. And so, those who are prone to admire positive Masculine qualities and be in more Masculine environments might be quite acclimated to that flavor and miss the aftertaste of poison in the elixir.

@AION @Leo Gura Maybe my mind is making up memories. But I feel like there's some situation where you have to battle someone who doesn't initially come off as a Team Rocket grunt. Like usually they'll have Rocket in the name somewhere. But this one doesn't an later reveals themselves to be on Team Rocket. I'm going to have to look it up to see if my brain is tricking me with some Mandela effect about this memory from the game.

Easy... human nature is not evil. That's a common misconception that leads people to come to the conclusion that we need some top-down authoritarian force to control us and brainwash us out of our evil nature. This misconception is where a lot of authoritarian thinking comes from that reviles human freedom and sovereignty... and clamors for dictatorship to come in and limit and control our "fundamental human evil". I was shown this several times in my medicine journeys where things like hatred and evil come from... and I was also shown the pure love sitting underneath even the most mangled and twisted of wills. So, there is nothing there to reconcile. Just help people work through the things that keep them misaligned from their truest deepest will... which is pure unconditional love and oneness at its core. It is only a matter of our pure will becoming mangled by ignorance, trauma, unmet needs, and disconnection with personal sovereignty... which are shaped by nature and nurture factors outside of our will that leads to misalignment. So, it's a matter of un-brainwashing people and removing the obstacles that obscure us from our light... and helping people get more in touch with personal sovereignty and the capacity for self-governance that will help us collectively transcend many of the problems of human evil.

I'm sure it exists. You can find examples of all kinds of crazy people on the internet. But it's mostly randos with no power that get used for brand jamming. The same thing happens occasionally with lefty influencers who look up the worst people imaginable and show them as an example of conservatives. Like, in one video a couple lefty influencers got this video of a guy who lived out in the woods and was super conservative and was using his hyper-conservative beliefs to justify his attraction to pubescent girls. And he was claiming it was most natural for grown men to be the most attracted to 11 and 12 year olds because of a variety of different ideologically conservative reasons... and that all men are most attracted to 12 year olds. And he would post all these videos that were all about this topic. But the guy had like 10 followers. It wasn't like he was Ben Shapiro of something. (Though to be fair, Matt Walsh has shared some creepy pedo-ish perspectives on teenage marriage in the past before he became a conservative influencer.) But in this instance with Vaush and the other person, are you saying that Vaush is the unhinged woke lefty for continuing to ask for the pronouns? Or that the other person who was refusing to give their pronouns for some kind of woke ideological reasoning? I ask because Vaush doesn't really fit the stereotype of the crazy blue haired woke SJW image that the right tries to evoke to brand jam lefties. He's too intellectual, stoic, and Masculine to be an effective target for that. His vibe doesn't match the vibe that conservatives use to repel people from the left.

If I were specifically going to try to find a conscious compatible partner or even conscious compatible friends, I'd try to make myself a magnet to them through building a social circle that people who crave depth might seek out. So, I'd probably create some kind of weekly meet-up group in my area... like a Jungian dream group or a Shadow Work group (because those are my interests). (This is actually something I'm considering doing because I have few compatible friends in my town.) And then, there's a strong chance that I will be able to meet quite a few friends and maybe a few potential partners. And then, I'd just show up fully as myself and let things unfold however they unfold. And I'd try to show my peacock feathers from time to time (which are whatever natural advantages that I have in that environment) to raise my status within that group. And the better you can become at cultivating a compatible community around you, the more this opens you up to the possibility of meeting compatible women... not just in the group, but through the friends of friends. Or you can just find this type of group, and do the same thing. Otherwise, you have to do the pick-up thing. And I can't imagine that's going to be very good for finding someone compatible because it's random. And I suspect that women who are more conscious, might be less inclined than the average woman to be receptive to pick up and might tend to be more likely to choose a guy from her wider social circle.

The conversation from a few months ago was about Trump and Elon having low integrity and low consciousness. And then, Leo came in and told us all off because we were mentioning Elon in the same breath as Trump when we were talking about low conscious, low integrity behavior. And I recall that that wasn't really the focus on the conversation (I think we were just using them as examples or something), but it was a foot-note in the conversation that Leo homed in on. He chalked it up to us being biased Lefties because we were equating Elon and Trump... and that we see him as lacking in integrity just because of his views... and seeing him only through the biased lefty lens. Then, I retorted by listing off a lot of things Elon's done that shows his lack of integrity. And Leo told me that I don't understand him and that I had to watch 10 hours of Elon videos to get a less biased take on him. But he wouldn't support his point beyond that as to how these interviews would show me that my conjecture that he's low integrity would be overturned or changed by watching them. I feel like, no matter how many interviews I watch, this isn't going to convince me that Elon is a person of integrity. And I'm not the one that's sitting here surprised that he gave millions to Donald Trump's re-election campaign.