Xstream

Showing all content.

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. Yes, like fever dreams. I remeber having scarlet fever and my conciousness was leaving my body. I was seeing the room from every area at the same time. It was like I was looking at myself from the staircase from behind the couch from the ceiling flashing at the same time.
  3. I don’t know if anyone else has noticed this, but I notice that when I get sick my consciousness paradoxically increases. I’m talking about a common cold by the way, not serious sickness. This is interesting because you would expect consciousness to go down, but what I find is that you get closer to the “bare existence” experience when you’re sick. Since you can’t do the things you normally would do, it’s like a small reset button for your life, and you get a chance to really reflect. Also, you get closer to a samadhi “nothingness” experience (which I suspect is what death is like). Bernardo Kastrup actually argues for something similar to this point. He says that mystical experiences were more common in the past because it was harder to survive, so it was more common to have sickness or injury as a part of normal life. Just like how psychedelics correspond to low brain activity, mystical experiences could correspond to low brain activity as a result of sickness or, in the extreme, near death experiences. I’m not sure Kastrup is completely correct about people in the past having more mystical experiences, but he’s definitely onto something. Have you noticed the same trend of more sickness, more consciousness? If not, try tracking when you get sick over the next year and find out what the trend is. I’m interested to hear your opinions!
  4. Im looking past the forum troll talking about being enlightened enough to be okay with predators going on degenerate power trips and being unable to stop their predation because of how strongly they want to gratify themselves with their prey. All while absurdly asking for empathy for their inability to not commit serious crimes against the species. There are well funded organizations pushing for their recognition and thus, their "rights". They're not just asking for a sanitized name change and a little empathy either. Its much better propaganda but there's plenty of similarities with what you can read in the OP. Hence my strong opposition. There's way more nuance to it but since Im being held to one sentence here that compassion can eventually lead one to eventually condoning pedophilia in some way, shape or form (especially if one happens to be a mass of people some of which have organized to push an agenda). My actual argument is If empathy (investing in) for rapists isn't to stop child rape and doesn't stop child rape and can't stop child rape then why recommend empathy for actual child rapists as a solution to stop children from getting raped. Seems like basic shit to grasp. Its true that demonizing them doesn't help the situation either but neither of those (empathy) are workable real world solutions so I sure as hell aint surprised. The love and light goons only seem concerned with convincing themselves that they're a good guy and the way to achieve this is to put themselves in the shoes of child abusers.
  5. Yesterday

  6. Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

    Rafael Thundercat replied to Leo Gura's topic in Personal Development -- [Main]

    @Lila9 https://www.instagram.com/p/DXpvu9xAKNm/?igsh=MWxwY3JpZ3B4dTg5NA== Thanks for your post above.
  7. I am sorry (not really), but I am not "spiritual" enough to have empathy or compassion for the sexual urges of a pedophile toward a child. I am more concerned with people not having compassion for abused children.
  8. Thank you for sharing. I will listen to this when I have the time, and I may add some notes later.
  9. This is on my reading list 😊
  10. I would like to add some notes regarding what Leo disagrees with feminism: The patriarchal paradigm is as deeply integrated into society as materialism and rationality; everything is viewed through those lenses and, obviously, it is untruthful. It is alive within our consciousness, we perceive reality through its lens, often unquestioned. It is a hierarchical and oppressive system that was built for the biology of males by males. Its oppression is deep. It is not only women who are oppressed by men; it is the masculine oppressing the feminine, rather than coexisting with it as it should. It is the oppression of life, creativity, love, nature, mystery, spirituality, and everything that makes life whole. Feminism is not about insisting that men and women are equal in biology. This is a simplification based on a lack of understanding of feminism. Of course, there are biological differences between males and females, which are obvious. The point of feminism is not to deny them but to separate sex from gender. Sex is a biological truth. Gender is a social construct and is not as rigid as sex. If gender were as rigid as sex, all males and females would be born men and women with all the patriarchal expectations of manhood and womanhood built in. But in reality, males and females are not born as men and women they are socialized into these roles. Men and women should be treated with the same human dignity and respect, first and foremost. They should be given the same opportunities to be who they want to be. However, men and women have different biological needs, and this should be understood and valued. Patriarchal society is fitted to male biology as a default. Whether it is medicine, design, clinical research, safety testing, work rhythms, urban planning, public space, protective equipment, tools, default user assumptions, or social policies, this pattern appears repeatedly. Conservatives love to emphasize that "traditional" (oppressive) gender roles are from God and therefore natural, while never actually making society more suitable for women’s actual needs and biology. What problems are you talking about? If you are talking about modern problems such as a toxic productivity culture that leads people to burnout and even suicide, social isolation and a mental health crisis epidemic, environmental and ecological damage, the invisibility of care and domestic unpaid labor, and economic inequality then a matriarchal society, which is more care-centered, could definitely help resolve those. Again, matriarchy doesn’t mean women are at the top exploiting men (something men often fear, because they know this is exactly what patriarchy does to women hahaha), but rather a society that is centered around care. Have you ever asked yourself how we can create a better society? Where does it start? With children. What if you taught children from an early age all the important lessons you teach here, rather than teaching them to become another pawn in the system and another money-making machine for the few rich? If we want to create a better society, we should put most of our focus, love and care on them because they are the foundation. Again, this may not happen soon but we are in a transition to a more matriarchal society. Patriarchy is currently in collapse, this collapse may take a few more decades or even centuries but this is inevitable. There is a difference between sexual attraction and desiring a good-looking person without dehumanizing them, and seeing the other as merely an object or a machine. Do you think that men biologically see women as merely objects for consumption, without any soul or humanity? I don’t believe this is a natural way for humans to look at other humans. If we can perceive humanity and even “soul” in animals, trees, and objects, we can certainly do so in each other while also experiencing sexual desire. Seeing another human as merely an object is not a natural condition; it is a learned behavior, shaped by culture and environment. Women (biological females) obviously have different hormones. We have the menstrual cycle, which men do not have, and this certainly affects mood and energy levels. It is also true that men generally have greater muscle strength compared to women. However, cognitively, women are not inferior to men in any domain. The main thing that limits women is misogyny and bias. Throughout history, men have succeeded only because of the invisible labor of women behind the scenes. Behind every great man, there is an even greater woman. Women also have some physical strengths and advantages that men do not, such as higher pain tolerance in certain contexts (for example, due to childbirth). Women have always performed physical labor, carrying loads, working in agriculture, and caring for children. There has never been a period in history in which women did not engage in physical work. Feminism is not about turning women into men or turning men into women. It is first and foremost about the liberation of women (and men) from patriarchal, narrowed expectations that block them as humans. This is a soul liberation movement. The first wave of feminism was actually about women striving to have the same opportunities as men (voting, owning possessions, working in paid jobs); however, this is not about becoming masculine but having the freedom of choice. People with a shallow understanding of feminism confuse it with liberal feminism. Liberal feminism is not a real, distinct ideology in itself; it is often presented as a strawman version of feminism invented by critics and intertwined with capitalism. Liberal feminism is sometimes argued to be patriarchy in disguise. The only feminism is radical feminism. This is its true core. There is nothing in feminism about making women like men, this is a liberal capitalist invention. Even concervatives try to colonize feminism. The truth is that in a patriarchal society, we are not safe to be feminine. We are not safe to be creative, authentic, spiritual, and loving in our being because we may be exploited or would not survive in the system. This is the patriarchy, which makes us more masculine and denies us our femininity, which we truly crave especially the wild woman and the witch archetype that we long to integrate collectively as women but which is demonized in patriarchy. Additionally, no one in the world can convince me that we are not capable of being leaders and strategic thinkers like men, and even better, because we have greater emotional mastery. Even studies show that women are better leaders than men. In all the leadership measures. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2023/03/31/new-research-women-more-effective-than-men-in-all-leadership-measures/ The existence of gender roles may be efficient for society in fulfilling its purposes however, they are not natural or rigid and can vary between societies. In patriarchal societies, gender roles are such that men are above women; they enjoy more privilege, freedom, and protection. This is not a natural construct but a human-created system of gender roles designed to benefit patriarchy. There is nothing natural about it. The only natural thing is for women to have babies. How those babies are raised (in a nuclear family or a community), with how many people, which people, how resources are allocated, and which behaviors are valued or not in each gender are all constructed by society. People aren’t born as blank slates, they are born with their own temperament and personality traits that feel relatively stable. However, they are not born with gender roles and expectations they learn them. But children do have their own preferences, and socialization into gender roles does not always come easily to many. For example, I struggled with my socialization, and it made me frustrated. I hated that I had to be a “good girl,” which meant being nice and pleasant, downplaying my intelligence, and constantly caring about my appearance. I always had my own temperament, opinions, and a unique view of myself and others, which I couldn’t fit into this narrow box of gender roles. As a result, I often felt flawed and confused. I know I am not the only one who has struggled most of us do. Maybe the problem is not with gender roles themselves, but with the narrowness of them. Maybe there should be many acceptable ways to be a man or a woman, depending on the temperament of the individual, not only one narrow and rigid way which suits a few people. The problem is patriarchy, not men. Yes, it is a system that is built for men, but it harms men as well. The criticism is about toxic masculinity, not masculinity itself. The fact that many people cannot differentiate between masculinity and toxic masculinity which men often perceive as the only form of masculinity, and therefore feel is an “attack on masculinity” is very unsettling. It is also unsettling that when women express real issues like unsafety, femicide, rape, and predatory behavior from men, some men perceive this as an attack on them or their masculinity rather than as a real problem to address. Imagine if it were reversed and women were raping and killing men, and when men complained about it, women perceived it as an attack on femininity rather than actually addressing the issue. Still there is an inequality no matter how you rationalize it. If women are socialized from childhood to be pleasant, nice, attentive, and pleasing, it can make them more vulnerable to harm from men who are socialized in the opposite way. There are definitely measures that women can take to reduce the risk of sexual abuse, such as education about patriarchy, awareness of how some men may perceive women, and trusting their intuition. Without it women, such as men uphold the patriarchy. However, men are still more accountable for their behavior because they are the ones who act like predators. Some men coerce women into sex, manipulate them in various ways, or love-bomb them, often targeting young and vulnerable women, but not only them. This is why I believe that women need to assume that any man they meet could be a potential abuser until proven otherwise and maintain very high standards for men’s character. No one in society often teaches women this. Instead, women are frequently taught even by other women that having a male partner is their ultimate goal in life, regardless of who they are, to understand men, give them chances, ignore poor behavior, and try to fix them. When women set standards for men’s behavior, they are often seen as delusional, crazy, hysterical, or overly picky. Nothing justifies sexual abuse. Men should be held accountable for it. It is their responsibility to treat women better. Also men can also be attracted to toxic women who use them like rags. I have seen it a lot hahahaha. Some people are attracted to toxic people, regardless of gender. Sure, there are plenty of curropted and selfish women as well. The point of feminism is that there are many competent women who are not elected or hired for the mere reason that they are women and not men. I actually see the opposite: the breaking of the illusions of patriarchy regarding gender, biology, and human nature. I would love to hear some examples of privileges women enjoy that men don't in society. Maybe I am not aware of something. Not all women are saints who never lie or distort reality. However, women are not always listened to or taken seriously enough when they report abuse or sexual crimes because of male bias. Women can be genuinely angry or emotional because of the pain and humiliation, and men may not take them seriously, saying, “Oh, she is just overreacting” or “She is dramatic.” In contrast, when men report abuse or crimes against them, they are often taken more seriously, even if they express anger or emotion, because society tends to listen to men more. Holding men accountable for predatory and abusive behavior and asking for empathy and genuine connection is not turning men into women. It is turning bad men into good men. The fact that many men view being a good man as being like a woman shows how deeply they perceive toxic masculinity as the real or only form of masculinity. I agree. Men are often governed by conformity to other men, their ego and lust which distorts their perception of reality and truth.

  11. Anger is not always wrong

    UnbornTao replied to integral's topic in Personal Development -- [Main]

    Hmm, reasonable questions. I do think the 'victim' frame isn't all that useful here, though. It might not be true that we are the victims of anything but of our own unconsciousness. This isn't meant to invalidate feeling victimized, occasionally, as that could be... appropriate or valid in some cases. So your questions would be: Who's angry? Why would you be angry? What are you angry about? Something to look into.
  12. I was thinking the whole Trump fiasco was gonna be a wake-up call for America. That's the optimistic view I think. I think the next election will put the theory into practice. There are probably going to be some "new Trumps" like Dan coming into the scene, this time with an anti-jew rhetoric rather than an anti-gay or anti-immigration rhetoric like Trump was doing. I guess the test is to see if people will vote for a highly hateful and narcissistic person a second time.

  13. Learning coding

    Fruehlingserwachen replied to shahar uriel's topic in Life Purpose, Career, Entrepreneurship, Finance

    No it can't and it never will. AI is just a large language model, that repeats patterns. It has no concept of what it is coding. And if it is good at making code, then this is even worse. Because it will create very subtle bugs, that no one can debug. Because for debugging you need a good understanding and this is what people will outsource more and more. Yes you can create more and better prompts and you cann tell the AI to create workarounds. But this will just bloat the code and and increases the need for processing power because the AI generated code becomes more and more unperformant. It is already a shitshow that we use AI to create code in languages, that are made for objekt oriented programming. OOP was developed to make the maintenance of complex software easier for humans but it is less performant.
  14. There's a discussion going on in this thread about anger: Also, fuck you. -- That said, why do you get angry? How do you see people and situations such that the end result is one of feeling angry? (Not that anger is good or bad, mind you.) Also, besides suppressing it or enacting it, can you feel it without acting it out? Obviously it seems convincing to us that, especially with our more volatile emotions, others or "the world" are at fault, and we're just simply reacting - as victims to the stimulus. This might not be entirely true, even though we may strongly believe this is the case.
  15. How is he different from Trump? He's a radical right winger which is the complete opposite of being a Leftist like Bernie Sanders, AOC, or Mamdani. Only, true leftists with enough power can give you actually what you want. However, centrists are the 2nd option for pro-palestinian rights. Even, Bernie Sanders, AOC, or Mamdani say that it's still better to vote for a moderate/establishment Dem than for any right-winger or Republican, including when it comes to pro-palestinian rights.

  16. Anger is not always wrong

    Hojo replied to integral's topic in Personal Development -- [Main]

    @UnbornTao Whos angry? A victim. Why would you be angry if you havent been the victim of something? What are you angry about? Its kinda the same just rephrased differently. The victim comes first then the anger. Then the anger thats there cant come. Now its just the victim surpressing what it wants. If the victim cant express the anger it cant be what it wants to be. The unlreleased anger the victim created is just sitting there now. You can stop the anger only if you stop the victim and just accept the pain, and manage it, but all those times you didnt are still there.

  18. Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

    UnbornTao replied to Leo Gura's topic in Personal Development -- [Main]

    State comes and goes. Our problem is how we're holding our conception of these things, and not knowing that (or when) they are conceptions. If we look, we'll find that we may well not know what is meant by consciousness, truly. "State of consciousness" - from the way you talk - is what I'd just call a state of mind, cognition, an experience of some kind. It's rather essential to the discussion, as it takes a stab at the heart of the matter. You may well think that Ramana getting drunk, following a certain breathing pattern, taking some drug (etc., etc.) would either "increase" or "decrease" his "consciousness." In other words, as with many people, it's assumed that awakening is some sort of experience or state - a great feeling, a state of bliss and peace, a shift in our awareness, a new perception of some kind. I follow your logic, and it sounds reasonable, but it is based on flawed assumptions. Like I said, maybe even death doesn't really make a difference for Ramana, so what are we talking about? Can you see that this 'thing' can't be an experience, state, and so on? It is impossible to "find" awakening in your experience, which is the place you'll look - and at the same time it is also possible, but this possibility is not logical or known. No practice or action does it. It is not a conditioned experience. Experience is all we have and know of - are aware of. What you talk about is stuff to do while waiting to make a leap. And what causes the leap? Mu? Perhaps not the best question. If you see someone promising enlightenment, or a "path" to awakening, I'd be wary of them - especially if they guarantee it. Most likely they're selling what people want, which is a good-sounding, pleasing, hopeful story, and as so-called spiritual people, we're no strangers to such things. Actually, just look for the other threads. Be one of the first here to put them to use.

  19. Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

    lostingenosmaze replied to Leo Gura's topic in Personal Development -- [Main]

    Really? That news to me. So newest members being added from weeks or months ago wasn't a bug. Posting here really do be a privilege.

  20. Video, audio & book Journal

    Emptiness-one replied to Emptiness-one's topic in Self-Actualization Journals

    Spiritual Enlightenment - Part 2 - Understanding The Conceptualized Self Intro The notion of being a self is the illusion that cultivates the narrative of societal and individual illusion. There are distinctions within the illusion. There are four questions Who am I? What is the truth? What is reality? What is existence? Am I really this consciousness? Where does consciousness begin and end? (Ghost in the shell analogy) If you are the body, this is the self, if you cut off the fingers, you are still you. If you cut off the arms and the legs, you are still you, this is the ghost in the shell question. If you get a heart transplant, you are still you. What would need to be different, would it be the brain, could the brain be transplanted and still be you? Is the 'me' inside the brain, if no, then why does the mind conceptualise you as the bodily tension that houses the brain, it is the identification with the contours of the head. Though this is the ego mind seeking to assert certainty on the physical by believing you are the tension. Who is thinking thoughts? Do thoughts think other thoughts? What is the originator of the thought? What is reality and existence? What created the big bang, what is the origin of the universe? Citing god explains nothing, where did God come from (this is the strange loop self-referencing thing). Consciousness is an infinitely expanding potentiality. Kant said, we can know phenomena, but never neumina as that is the thing itself due to the filters of perception. Qualia is the components of the perception that hit the five senses, with an orange you can smell it, taste it, touch the slightly rough surface. This raises the question of what are qualia made of which is the question of what the qualities are made of, how did those qualities come to arise in the perception and its construction. Inner vs outer distinctions. The concept of conceptualisations. These are the things that we think about the qualia, neumina and judgements of them. Who is the one having the thoughts. The Voice/The narrator This is the one who provides the commentary on day to day events. Who creates the voice, and who listens to the voice? The narrator is the cultivator of egoic identification. The narrator cultiavtes the identification with body, notions of self, identity and bodily tension. What is outside the ego? The narrator and its identification.

  21. Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

    lostingenosmaze replied to Leo Gura's topic in Personal Development -- [Main]

    🤖 My farts are better than Leo's farts 🤖

  22. Fearless Love!

    No1Here2c replied to No1Here2c's topic in Self-Actualization Journals

    All of Infinity! Standing there the whole time!

  23. Fearless Love!

    No1Here2c replied to No1Here2c's topic in Self-Actualization Journals

    No such thing Its absolutely limitless

  24. Fearless Love!

    No1Here2c replied to No1Here2c's topic in Self-Actualization Journals

    There's no need

  25. Learning coding

    Jirh replied to shahar uriel's topic in Life Purpose, Career, Entrepreneurship, Finance

    It can already code better than a human. There's no doubt about that. But like I said, when it comes to specifics and details, a human will always be needed. One persistent error will never be solved by AI alone. Human intervention is required. And coding is just one part of the whole process. You need humans to walk the AI through the required process. This will always be the case, as far as any profession is concerned. So this does not only apply to coding, but virtually to all other professions. AI can do most of the heavy lifting, but the finishing touches belong to us. Always will.
  26. In maximization of Love pleasure & pain collapse. They become literally Inseparable.
  27. Yeah men just have the "bully" genetics and women have the "being a perfect saint" genetics. That's the only reason why this woman wouldn't agree with me. Thread solved. That's the only possible way to explain why I can't stop beating people up. I mean it sounds scientific enough cause I said genetics a bunch. ¯\(ツ)/¯
  1. Load more activity