Jacobsrw
Member-
Content count
884 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Jacobsrw
-
-
1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:Look, bro, that is 0.00001% of people.
Your average poor person is a racist, homophobe, bigot, ignoramus.
When we talk about politics, we have to consider averages and lowest common denominators. Citing a few exceptional counter-examples is not smart here.
True. I was simply providing an anomaly example, which I’m sure there exist many more. The average homeless person is uneducated and health deficient. What do you expect? It still does not negate the value or wisdom they may hold. You are generalising off what we merely hear from statistical testimony.
I do agree however, that generally the poor provide quite possibly little value regarding politics. But should they not be heard for their views? Or are you trying to argues for a Platonistic democracy ran by elites? Only those worthy of intellect to vote?
-
13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:Not as much as you'd think. Most poor people are stage Blue. They are easily fooled and misled by demagogues like Trump. Their fears are easily stoked. Their prejudices, closedmindedness, and ethnocentrism is easily exploited by charlatans and narcissists.
Not all poor people are stage Blue.
What about ascetics, mystics and sages? Many of them live extremely conservative yet have the caliber of stage Turquoise knowledge. I’d far prefer the wisdom of an ascetic than that of a corporate. I can learn how to become meticulously rich. I cannot learn timeless awakening.
Also, consider that many poor resent a person like Trump since he is the very tyrant that undermines them.
10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:The poor need more voting power and more outright assistance. I'm all for helping elevate and educate the poor.
Indeed. Don’t forget many poor have become poor and rich. Giving them the right leverage could ease up our restraints on welfare and policing.
-
32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:Be ware this Marxist idea that the poor are somehow equal to the rich, equally capable as the rich, and equally smart/wise as the rich. This is a dangerous idea. The poor are, for the most part, idiots. This doesn't mean there aren't some rich who are idiots. There certainly are. And it doesn't mean that the smartest rich are deeply spiritually wise. But rich are generally smarter and wiser and more competent than the poor.
This I am mindful of. I by no means subscribe to the ideas of Marxism personally, most of them hold no water in large scale societies. I agree that those in high end corporate/business positions have far more appropriate and effective means to operate a society. However, my point was that intelligence is not directly synonymous with wealth. Many whom are poor hold deep wisdom but do not hold the appropriate foundation or circumstance from which to potentiate it, often through no fault of their own.
32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:As bad as you might think being ruled by the rich is, being ruled by the poor would be way worse. Rule by the poor will lead to stuff like fascism and genocide.
Believe it or not, rich people are actually MORE morally developed and conscious than poor people. Poor people simply have less opportunity and ambition to abuse it.
Poor people are not your friend and they will not save society from evil.
Progressives and socialists are way too enamored with poor people and populism. Populism is not some automatic good. Populism can cause all sorts of devilry.
Hold on now, you are propagating assumptions haha. I never advocated for a society ran by the poor, this would be absurdity to do so. Nonetheless, I do think they require more agency and resource in order to use their skills, thereby, helping society to equalise economic burden.
The point is not to have poor people to run society but to develop them into adequate, competent civilians who can contribute to it.
Well, what do you expect. Progressivist care more about how good an intellectual argument sounds than what it does for the world. It’s just another channel to complain about the government, which ironically is the only system allowing the them freedom to do so.
And yes, socialism is just the inverse of fascism. It’s just concerned with freedoms rather dictatorial power. Neither of them are any good in their totality.
-
On 21/07/2020 at 8:30 AM, K VIL said:Sorry mods for previous thread, didn't realize we couldn't create meet ups (I wasn't selling anything though).
Might as well share on the forum.
It dawned on me that entrepreneurs build up. What does this mean?
Well, a starter's way to look at it is, I hate my job. complain complain. And an entrepreneur perspective is more, I'm building this. So how can I build it better? How can I attract others?
Yes, there are way more elements to this but i think overall, its a creation process. What can you build?
Careful with entrepreneurship it can turn into a seductive and destructive pathway. Entrepreneurship balanced with commitment, hard work, humility and consciousness is far healthier. Don’t chase money. Seek to be a unique creator in you field of expertise.
Figure out your craft what you skilled in and buckle down in that area. Find ways to branch out provide a specialised service or product that speaks to a target market and helps the world. Use you unique abilities to craft something both useful and that advances humanity.
-
2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:Rich hold most of the power because they are smarter.
This is a naive way to conceive of wealth and poverty. Many of the rich are simply impudently fortunate and hold no more sense than a rock. In fact, a large majority of them earn their wealth from manipulating systems, inheritances and situational networks of which many of the poor do not the luxury to interact with. You may consider manipulating systems to be intellectually intelligent, however, it is far more intelligent to uplift those whom are beneath you since they become the very economic burden you are taxed.
The poor are inferior not simply because of intelligence but often marginalised circumstances and disparity. It’s very complicated not just a binary cause.
-
13 hours ago, LfcCharlie4 said:I saw this story on Twitter about Jeff Bezos increase in wealth yesterday:
Of course, as Twitter is basically an extreme lefty / communist bubble, most of the replies were coming from a Communist perspective, which of course make some great points regarding no 1 human being should be able to hoard this much health, but are mostly coming from a bleeding heart stage green perspective, which as we know often lacks the nuance and ability to come up with systemic solutions except the likes of 'he could solve world hunger with his money!' as if solving systematic issues on a global scale was that easy. Basically all the rebuttals were from a tier 1 perspective, either stage Green, or a Blue/ Orange 'there's nothing wrong with this' response, many had elements of truth & falsehood, but I wanted to come here to try and get some tier 2 responses to this situation.
Personally, I am the furthest thing from a communist, and believe we should more seek the goal of Equality of Opportunity, not Equality of Outcome, and see extreme communism as 2 sides of the same coin along with extreme fascism, and imagine it would actually work in the elites favor in terms of control.
In terms of Billionaires, the only real solution I could see is some sort of cap & raising of their consciousness so they wouldn't want to heard mass amounts of wealth, and instead would want to use it to help push humanity forward in numerous ways, for example investing in grass roots projects, increasing wages of their staff, better working conditions etc etc. I don't believe a cap on companies would work as well, but certainly a prevention of having too much control like Amazon does now, and the ability to evade taxes and what not.
I also definitely do not share the opinion of Commies that all profit is 'theft' lmao, and that business owners don't deserve more money, to me that just shows a lack of understanding of basic economics, and the actual work that goes into owning and running any kind of business. I'm not saying the level of difference we see right now is fair at all, hence why I'm making this thread, but I feel there are better solutions to be found in Yellow/ Turquoise thinkers, than just the typical Green equality of outcome response, but of course they raise great points on the problems, they just seem unable to articulate nuanced solutions most of the time in my experience and become very ideological when you disagree with them, and also have a 'herd' mentality, making having any sort of reasoned discussion very difficult.
So, what are your guys thoughts on this issue and Billionaires in general and how we could make the inequality smaller ideally from a tier 2 perspective.
This is a serious problem I have often contemplated. Some form of capping is definitely required, however, then libertarian like-minded individuals would complain of individual freedoms being impinged upon.
People seem to not foresee the issue in this matter. What’s stopping billionaires from hoarding mass amounts of nuclear weaponry or pervasive unprivatised technology? What’s stopping giants such as Apple, Microsoft or Amazon from meticulously deconstructing the government and having it submit. At this rate, very little. We cannot simply rely on the integrity of the wealthy since it is their wealth which is known to corrupt them. Consciousness is not raised by utility but receptivity.
Excessive amounts of salary should be distributed towards the development of worldly causes. A repository of funding for much needed developmental advancements. A wealthy individual could select which cause this money is distributed towards but be barred from accessing it at their own right. This way, money is systematically governed but also organised in a democratic manner.
-
On 22/07/2020 at 5:37 AM, Artsu said:At a certain point of love expansion, there will be so much love that there is no room for the absence of love. The individual becomes perfect, morally speaking. This process continues into life in the spirit world(s).
Indeed. It’s as if the duality of good/bad dissipate and all that remains is the flow of oneness. Non-duality means there is no need to harm, since harm is predicated on one separating what deserves it and what does not. Oneness is a powerful principle
-
We all by now realise the deep ingenuity of the ego-mind. However, to know it conceptually and to be in observation of it is an entirely different matter. So sometime back I had quite a fruitful week where I observed moments the ego-mind co-opted consciousness. Here are some of my reflections and experiential insights.
These are but few of the infinite deceptions I observed the ego-mind utilising. These occur quite subtly and sometimes often throughout the day. Thankfully, I was able to seperate from my involvement within these moments and just be the observer.
Disclaimer: for those inclined to conduct spiritual policing, this is not a post to bash the ego but rather raise awareness. The point is to make the infinite deceptions of ego and mind more clearly conscious. Many of these deceptions are un-cognised let alone consciously observable and that’s implying one has the humility to admit them. Know that the ego-mind is endlessly creating deceptions and illusions. There is no end to them. It is like a self proliferating root that hijacks whatever is present. The ego-mind creates whatever illusions it desires, keep this in “mind”.
Enjoy.
Irrational Self-referential Logic
Boy oh boy does the ego-mind love this one. I had a moment where I was doing some research for a particular project and could see the ego-mind carefully making each selection for the research process. Each letter that was typed, the order of phrasing, the type or source, the source selected, the rationalisation of which source to select, the style an article was written in and whether it’s logic matched my understanding. All of this is biased and self-referential.
I began to see that all these dimensions of research were not a reflection of WHAT I was researching but rather WHO was researching. The entire research was a means to an end for the purpose of fulfilling the ego-mind.
A complete utter bias to validate something that is un-validatable. The ego-mind can never know through logic since the limits of logic requires a self in order to conduct it and is by design limited to it. Thus, it is inherently self-aggrandising and myopic.
Even the most impartial approach to research inevitably relies upon a skewed view of the ego-mind. For one to make a selection one requires denouncing another. This is utter delusion.
Notice even to raise debate is self-referential. When one has disagreeableness to announce, it is done so via the already carefully selected information encoded by a ego-mind, otherwise, one would have no reason to debate. A debate is simply a conflict between two incongruent ego-minds self-referential viewpoints. Fascinating to observe.
Proximal Relevance
This is possibly one of the most absurd dimensions of the ego-mind. Essentially it is this: whatever is identified as closest to the ego-mind is most important. Whether, family, social group, community, nation, belief, appearance, the relevance of belief or paradigm and so forth.
I was observing the movement of people and traffic as I strolled the street, and just noticed the utter carelessness each person appeared to have for the experience surrounding them. If a matter was no more than a few surrounding feet, the individual would go about their day. People were so engrossed in the what was closest to them. Whether that be speaking to a friend or listening to a tune, point at a storefront, all of it was done proximally. There was no meta-perspective taking.
No one noticed helpless people in the street, litter around them, the profundity of architecture or microscopic ecosystems nearby. We literally walk around all day mindlessly enclosed in reclused bubbles. Not one thing merely gains our attention unless it is proximally related to our interests.
Even just the intent to go view this forum is a heavily proximal endeavour based on how relevant the topics are to the one who is reading them. I notice my glazing over particular threads and selection of others and how each choice is determined by the relevance which applies to this ego-mind at hand. No choice is conducted from an absolute perspective because choice implies direction. Consciousness has no where to go it is already everywhere. Therefore, choice is only relevant to a limited ego-mind in which can only be in one place at a time in any given moment.
Self-preservation and Survival
Need I say more here. This became apparent when concerned about whether a situation would smooth over. I had been having a few business issues and in such a moment watched before my very eyes the ego-mind start worrying about how it will attain its money, how much loss it will be at, who will help, what assistance to seek in the future, the correct remedy for the situation and so on.
Each “problem” was related to whether there was something to survive. That being my project and relationship to it. Self survival was even which way to look at the situation.
I could see that whether I saw it as a positive or negative was still a premise of survival. Both would fulfil the needs of an assumed need.
Human Species Bias
This one is a joy to observe. It is probably the must comical. This phenomenon is extremely noticeable when in debate. I noticed when I would assert the viewpoints of a convincing argument how de-monstrously naive it is to think only those that can be understood should be valued. I mean all viewpoints operate under a hidden assumption that they must be understandable and maintain a particular conveyance through human language. Just this in itself is a limiting flawed bias. I could see how caught we humans get in “human affairs”. How our viewpoints are completely predicated on the present situation we are in.
Our moods are just products of human species bias. We have an implicit belief that humans are superior and this willingly justify any action that maintains this.
I saw this in myself when I would consume food and assume that in order for my food to be consumed it must be properly organised through human manufacturing. I mean who objectively dictates that the production of food or any consumable for that matter is done correctly? if all it does is ensure that humans remain at the top of the food chain how, is this an objective consideration? Our entire consumerism is arbitrary and relative. There’s is no fair jury from which all living or inanimate things can contribute towards because we assume they do not have any wits to communicate it! Haha go figure, what is this but human species bias?
These are only a few of the many I could remember. I’ll continue to add more if I can think of them.
Would love to hear others add additional deceptions that are noticeably experienced throughout the day ?
-
16 hours ago, Gesundheit said:For example when someone says: this is stupid. What he or she actually means is that this seems stupid from their pov.
This is something I've struggled with for a long time. I tend to always express myself authentically and tend to use language in an assertive manner. Somehow this used to trigger some people and they criticized me for it even though I have good understanding of what relativity means I just leave it implicit. Looking back now in retrospect I realize that these people were probably neurotic or that they'd learned about relativity recently. So for them it seemed like I was talking in an absolute sense when in fact I was simply expressing myself and my relative point of view. They wanted me to explicitly expres my relative pov. Somehow they imprinted me with the idea that I should never talk in an assertive manner and it's exhaustive uou know. I had to go out of my way to fake language I don't even want to use so that they would not critisize me. I want my freedom back. With this insight today I don't have to limit myself any more. I am free to express myself however I see fit.
And now that I think about it, if we choose to imply relativity in every sentence it's actually a lot more powerful. If we make relativity the initial assumption for everything we receive from the outside world, think of how powerful that can be. You will never need to worry whether or not something you've heard is true because you know that it's relative to the speaker. I am free.
Nice insight. It’s a great realisation to have. Unfortunately, many do not see how imperative it is to realise their own bias.
Really, to have a perspective is to be limited, since perspective necessarily entails that one localises their consciousness to a specific lens in order for the perspective to be known.
To be unlimited is to be pure consciousness itself unrestrained by the incessant distinctions of the mind. This means to have no perspective at all. Since that’s what consciousness fundamentally is, perspectiveless. A state of unconstructed potentiation, it’s quite beautiful.
It’s useful to see that when you become consumed by a perspective or opinion that your are limiting yourself. To enter higher states of consciousness, begin to allow and embody the perspectives of others, as this means you will naturally expand. See that your perspective is no more superior than another’s since all perspective are limited by the same mechanism, the mind.
As Leo said, it’s just whether a perspective is helpful for survival or not. That is it’s only metric. Other than that just BE.
-
On 20/07/2020 at 10:22 AM, Artsu said:Well yes at a certain point, a person/spirit loses the desire to sin, so they are always behaving morally.
It’s not even the desire to sin that is lost. It’s more so the inclusiveness of consciousness is realised. One becomes more expansively identified. Thus, realising that whatever is harmed outside of them is also equally harmed within them.
-
5 hours ago, jake473 said:I think I'm a total rookie at this. I've been trying to meditate for 2 years. Here's what happens when I start a meditation practice: I feel peaceful once I've settled into the session and for a while afterwards, but on a weekly basis it always makes me more neurotic. I start to feel an undercurrent of resistance that gets stronger until it feels untenable just for me to be. It gets so uncomfortable that I search for a new distraction and the practice ends, and that's the cycle.
Is this not supposed to happen? Is it normal? It's so counter-intuitive, I don't understand.
This is not abnormal, especially for those new to it. Mediation brings forth any suppressed baggage that has been previously resisted and cemented beneath the surface.
It forces you to deal with the silence of your own inner turmoil. If your inner turmoil is constantly obscured and blocked out when busy in daily life, then expect mediation to violently bring it all to your attention. After all, it’s only when in silence can you hear all the noise that’s been hidden.
If you are experienced, it’s likely you are still resisting something. Practice letting go and allowing pain and discomfort to be felt throughout your entire being.
-
10 hours ago, Iksander said:Why does a human need rules, should' s and taboo's to guide the way they live?
Because ego is rampant, insatiable and inherently selfish.
If and when consciousness is purified in each being morality will become redundant, as parameters will not be required.
In saying that, one can live beyond morality by focusing on contextual appropriateness.
-
9 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:Survival is not relative, without air you will die in minutes
It's not arbitrary. You can't suddenly decide to stop breathing and live to the next day.
Instinct is not relative. It's particular behavior that people are biologically born with.Saying "it's relative" does not resolve any philosophical point made, is not a catch all argument
Of course it is, it’s relative to your identity, your make and genetic predispositions. Not all humans survive by the same means.
Just because you would die does not mean it is not relative. To you living is important thus, the idea of dying is problematic. It’s relative simply by the fact that you have believed you are are a human that requires surviving. Survival is not an absolute, it’s one part of the dream.
Survival is important for a finite self but is also relative in the great scheme of reality.
-
5 hours ago, Nak Khid said:To say survival exists is not a precise statement. It would be more accurate to say animals exist and have a survival instinct .
Since survival is not a thing although the word is a noun.
That things exist, survival instincts etc, would exclude those people who claim nothing exists all is illusion. or imaginary. Right and wrong are not arbitrary they are related to survival.If one gets pain in the stomach it is not a matter of preference. Chemical signals are delivered to the brain and the discomfort produced suffering which is a physical survival mechanism. The signal indicates to the person something is physically wrong internally and needs to be addressed. If you don't this uncomfortable suffering continues like an alarm bell.
Prohibition on murder is not an arbitrary notion. "Wrongs" are considered to be something that puts a person's life or well being at stake.
So if murder was made legal people would not feel safe and they would have good reason not to. So it's not an arbitrary notion.Right and wrong are arbitrary by the very fact that survival is relative. If you change the desire in which way you wish to live then so too do you change notion of right wrong. Thus, it is arbitrary and not absolute. You are privileging conventional evolution as a means to justify morality. This is a groundless thing to do.
Each being is equipped with survival presets that are conditioned. Had you not been equipped with them and the ideals that they are important, you would not yearn to up hold them. One can at any time change their survival desire by changing their identity. Eg. Monks can train them self to survive with little food and eat irregularly compared to the the ordinary preset. Some can desire death over living and this overrides their instinct to live, ie. suicide bombers. People with DID or personality complexities can detach the conditioned impulse to survive as a conventional human. Just because many of us do not do this, does not mean survival is an absolute. It means we have assumed a best way to live according to our identity.
Survival is relative to what you have identified with and does not measure right wrong. You mind is what creates this distinction and that too is arbitrary.
5 hours ago, Nak Khid said:If one gets pain in the stomach it is not a matter of preference. Chemical signals are delivered to the brain and the discomfort produced suffering which is a physical survival mechanism. The signal indicates to the person something is physically wrong internally and needs to be addressed. If you don't this uncomfortable suffering continues like an alarm bell.
Prohibition on murder is not an arbitrary notion. "Wrongs" are considered to be something that puts a person's life or well being at stake.
So if murder was made legal people would not feel safe and they would have good reason not to. So it's not an arbitrary notion.The idea of ‘instinct’ is it’s self relative. The meanings you apply to them, “chemical signals” , is also arbitrary created by the mind. They do not exist in reality as an absolute but in the mind which self created them. No mind, no distinctions.
People would only feel unsafe because they have been programmed to fear being hurt. The idea of pain is attached to the idea of ones physical safety being impinged on, “the body will be hurt”, again you identified with the body. Safety is relative to the position the mind has made in what is safe and what is not. Again arbitrary. Ask someone from a third world country if walking barefoot or hearing shooting nearby is safe; they are so normalised by it that safety has a a completely different meaning to them. Survival = relative = morality = arbitrary.
-
On 13/07/2020 at 5:19 PM, Vagos said:I was having a discussion on Saturday with a smart, caring, otherwise philanthropist friend that is also on the path to enlightenment and self actualization that believed murder is not inherently wrong provided that the individual being killed does not have any relatives/friends and is killed instantly.
The dialog went somewhat like this:
Her: Since death seen from a non-dual perspective can not be regarded as something wrong or bad and that since for something to be wrong or bad it has to produce and be connected with suffering and pain, usual death is only bad for the people left behind that lose their loved one and not for the victim itself. Therefore in the hypothetical scenario that the individual does not have any friends/family left behind there is nothing wrong with killing them.
Me: This action is coming from a problematic consciousness of Egoic perspective, not from an enlightened human being. An enlightened human being does not have any interest in specific future outcomes and constantly surrenders to every present moment whatever that might be. So they do not have any reason to kill someone, there is no interest for them in that.
Her: Nevertheless them/their body performs actions like eating, walking and so on, doesn't that have a purpose?
Me: Yes, although from their perspective every purpose is game-like and not a serious rigid purpose like other people have. They/their body will still choose a narrative to live in, through making decisions like walking etc (brought up Jung's jokester archetype also) but they would gladly take every future event as happily as the next one.
Her: So why wouldn't that apply in the future event of them painlessly killing a homeless person with no human connections? Basically isn't that as well an act of Love from their perspective? Why would that be a scenario to be avoided? Isn't destroying the whole Earth really an act of unconditional Love as much as it is to save it?
At this point I had to admit that she was right since I did not see a mistake in her thought process but for some reason I'm still not convinced that this is the case.
Would love to hear @Leo Gura 's opinion on this. Thanks!
Your friends argument is flawed. It assumes wrong and right is predicated on the suffering of others. Suffering does not amount to a law of morality. Suffering is a self created superimposition of the mind. If the mind maintains no position from which to refer itself suffering cannot exists. Since suffering is the preference of one position over another it is just an arbitrary line drawn which self aggrandises ego. Therefore, the morality of right and wrong does not exist. It is created by the mind, for the purposes of mind and is justified using logic of the mind.
Right and wrong are illusions. All that exists is survival. Whether something impinges on your survival or not is completely irrelevant to wether it is right or wrong. Right and wrong are arbitrary notions.
-
On 17/07/2020 at 11:40 PM, Eren Eeager said:What do you think guys? it seems the more conscious a human being the less he is likely to have children.
would we stop having children, maybe in a thousand or ten thousand years?
It’s more the question of what will norm in their place. Probably AI machinery or cyborg humans. Nonetheless, humans will be genetically engineered to some degree to go on existing without the need to humanly produced. We are far too greedy for any such thing to not exist.
-
8 hours ago, Jennjenn said:I would like to understand why are so many people feeding culture wars in a spiritual forum? I doesn’t make sense to me...
We are supposed to be understanding that we are all one, yet this forum is full of ethnocentric people with superiority complex and a victim blaming mentality. In an spiritual forum? Really? I don’t understand.
I came here to fight exactly that part of my ego. To become aware of my own internalized biases, like racism and misogyny, and you guys are not helping lol.
But this trend is everywhere. I see it everywhere. People all of a sudden are believing conspiracy theories and becoming Trump supporters. Why tho? Is it that life is too scary right now and he’s the only one telling you that it is all a hoax and just keep living your life like nothing is going on?
Someone please explain this to me.
Avoid demonising and denigrating them and instead embrace them. A forum full of spiritual thinkers is no less deluded than one with right wing preachers. It’s matter of development. Some need to pass through delusional beliefs in order to surpass them. Allow these people to do so at their own pace.
There is endless amounts of delusions and ego in right wing ideologies, however, they are equally needed in order to progress a conducive and inclusive discourse. You cannot have one sided coin. As much it concerns me too I believe it is far more important to see how people can be developed rather than scrutinised.
I recommend looking at where delusion lies in less obvious places. That being spirituality itself. Work to see it in places, then assist those in need of moving beyond it.
-
22 hours ago, deso said:If anything, then I have learned that all the indicators are also only concepts that I create to get closer to the source of it all. Love yourself to death and there will be no need for anything anymore. Both ways work, but the latter on is inevitable. If this knowledge was worth the payoff idk.
That’s right. Even illusions have a place in reality. Even though the minds concepts are limited and futile they still create a stepping stone for you to know which way to go. It’s in our greatest suffering we find our greatest enlightenment.
-
1 hour ago, Jay Ray said:I originally wrote this as a response to someone who was having trouble understanding that every object is made of awareness.
think about it like this,
Imagine you live in a Lego world. You are a Lego man and everything you have ever seen is made of Lego's. You are made of Legos, your car and house is made of Lego's and so are all of your friends as well as every possession that you own.
now lets say that one of your Lego friends says "wait, that over there is a house, not Lego's, you see it has such and such dualistic qualities, therefore a house exists....it is a house. end of story"
no, that over there is not a house, it is Lego's that you call a house. Another person may disagree that it is a house. However disagreement that it is a house doesn't take away from the fact that it is made of Lego's.
but really all that there is is Lego's in this example.
the same is true of consciousness. There isn't "a notebook" for example, there is awareness that has been named "notebook", someone may see it differently or call it something else. However the awareness of it still is there and does not need a name.
Without these names for things, it would seriously impede human survival, If you didn't know the difference between "food" and "poison" this would be fatal, but both are made of the same thing, consciousness.
Lego food and Lego poison are both make of the same thing.
I hope this metaphor helps.
Nice little metaphor. The problem people have is a fundamental belief in concepts. They believe in what they see according to it’s relationship to a specific concept. A tree is green with a brown stall. A house is large with windows roof and a door. All these inferences requires concepts and for these concepts to be applied to the experience being observed.
Without the association to concepts each being would harness the ability to see awareness as it is. As the fundamental layer of experience.
Concepts must dissipate just as equally as the ego-mind creating them. Only then can experience be known for what it really is.
-
2 hours ago, deso said:It’s almost game over for me. Over the course of the last two years I have severely damaged my life. I have decided against what my heart was telling me. Out of self hate I made decisions which led to my own demise. I wasted two really important years of my life by doing stuff that I hated, things that were self destructive, knowingly what I actually wanted to do. Just out of fear, the feeling of unworthiness, and general self hate. I threw away the time to plan out my life, personal development and a lot of life changing opportunities. Additionally I had a circumcision a year ago which fucked up my sex life because the surgeon botched it.
I’m 22 now and I was suffering immensely for the vast amount of the past decade, I had to deal with severe bullying and a lot of other crap. I live in self regret because my youth practically was non existent and I missed out on all the ‘good stuff’. I have dealt with OCD, an anxiety disorder, and depression for a long time. I have isolated and exiled myself because social life became unbearable.
The worst of all of this is that I’m a really social kind of person. I’m an extrovert, I always have to do something and I’m really squirrely. I’m good looking, charismatic and loved wherever I go, but I restricted myself from going out because couldn’t handle the intensity of pain I was in anymore.
Somewhat like two years ago I heavily pursued enlightenment, but it was just a cheap runaway from what was actually missing. I was so unfree that I searched for absolute liberation, but what I actually needed was to break out of the old scheme. Basic self help, building a life purpose and leading a social life was what was needed. Not to say that enlightenment work is not combinable with all this stuff, but it didn’t make things easier necessarily and other stuff was more important at this point of time.
Nevertheless I had many awakenings ever since then, which shifted my perspectives on life radically. I have a vast intellectual understanding of all this stuff. But I’m not happy. I didn’t live and I would have rather made contact with spirituality at a later point in life.
My parents are going through a really bad divorce right now, I lost loved ones the last two years, my best friend is heavily suicidal, my sex life is fucked up, and I lost out big time on what life actually presented me, had I just not hated myself so much.
To picture my life: I actually had it all, but my self hate told me to fuck off “ya not worthy of living a good life”. This destructive behaviour led to a bunch of grueling stuff that I now have to deal with. I knew better all the time, but I didn’t change it. Now my life is damaged beyond repair.
I can’t deal with the amount of pain and suffering anymore. It became too much. I’m thinking about ending life every day. Why should I carry on?
I’m sorry to here all this. What you’ve been through sounds difficult. However, from experience, difficult times in life are real opportunities for growth. Every time severe challenge has arisen almost simultaneously does growth occur. It’s a matter of perspective and looking at things more with more nuance than they first appear.
What if all this challenge is an indication that you require more self love rather than hate? What if all this suffering is showing how much more there is to life for beyond it?
I mean, if suffering is so undesirable does this not mean that deep down you want something more? What is that? Your suffering is a sign that you want to be happy. Fulfil that need rather than avoiding it.
-
17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:So I've been listening a lot to Vaush over the last week and although he is overly edgy and overly stuck in Green, he's got some pretty astute and brilliant insight into certain aspects of politics.
I found the following video particularly insightful:
Vaush is making me think more deeply about what fascism really entails and how sneaky it is. And while I still think he over-uses that term, I'm also starting to see an undeniable slippery slope between right-wing populism and fascism.
Is there really such as thing as right-wing populism which will not devolve into xenophobia, racism, and authoritarianism? I'd like to think so, but I'm not as certain of that as I used to be. These new right-wing populists can be very sneaky with their messaging. After all, if someone was a true populist why wouldn't he support someone like Bernie or AOC? Right-wing populists are nationalists first and populists second. Otherwise they'd be left-wing populists.
Anyways... just some food for thought.
If you overlook Vaush's excessive edginess and hyperbole, he has some of the most sophisticated political analysis I've seen on YT.
I see right wing populism as a culminating fear of stage green. In so far as that being the case, I’d say this is why such people are enticed by Trump since he proposes such a radical and irregular political approach. If people are so volatile to select trump while masquerading a populist ideal than there’s no reason a fascist leader would be the tipping point for a new fascist ideology.
Luckily majority of society is not deluded enough to Ashe such a movement, even though main stream stage orange may be the go to. It’s still far better than stage red authoritarianism.
-
On 09/07/2020 at 1:43 AM, JayG84 said:Can't wait to read this book.
I like Jim Carey.
He definitely has some value to share. Since he has inundated experience in embodying the role of fictitious characters he probably has a profound understanding of the ego far more than the average conventional being. Nonetheless, don’t assume him to be a spiritual master, there’s much to be discovered beyond what he speaks. He likely still has far to go but is doing well for an actor. Transcending ego while equally playing the game in Hollywood would be a chore like no other.
-
1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:Now you're suddenly using liberalism and libertarianism interchangeably. Anyways, tell me how post-modernism supposedly gave rise to the libertarianism we see today. I have no idea how those two are linked.
From my understanding, liberalism and libertarianism are quite similar. Liberalism is classical and libertarianism is contemporary. They both undermine the state and prioritise the individual.
Well I’d say they are linked because the libertarianism we see today is systematically spread throughout fragmented ideological positions. Contemporary libertarianism lends its absurd belief in individualism from the skepticism which cane of post-modernism.
Post-modernism maintains no absolute system from which to be grounded, it upholds subjectivity. This allows for ideological positions to be arbitrarily grounded in self-fulfilling logic. Since post-modernism questions everything many subjective ideological positions used this to denounce the state, libertarianism being one of them.
Libertarianism of today is used by the west to aggrandise and bolster any individualistic ideal. Which is why we see so many random schools of thought sprouting.
-
58 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:@Jacobsrw People who claim math is racist are not doing so on libertarian grounds. Libertarians usually don't give a damn about racism, since most of them lean right-wing.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that. Many individualists operate under herd mentality. Detesting anyone that argues against the rights of a person’s autonomy and banding together to do so. Eg. Radical feminists whom argue for the individual sovereignty of women to be unbounded by governmental stratification of gender and yet still assume a leftists position which resists capitalism. Just because one is a leftists does not denounce their adherence to libertarian beliefs.
in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw
Now that’s a meta point. Totally agree. Would this not suggest intelligence is contextual not merely learned. One who is exposed to the right environment will inevitably adopt the systemic thinking necessary to survive within it.