This stream auto-updates
- Past hour
-
How much about it you judge as bad and something to feel guilty about. How value ladden judging something as an "addiction" is. That's why medically there are very strict standards for something to be considered an addiction to avoid bias. They way most anti-porn advocates use the term is to mask (though maybe not deliberately) their religiosity. And surprise surprise, the biggest predictor of having a "porn addiction" is religiosity. Most of this anti-porn stuff is conformist nonsene. Also, illustrates how religion conditions people to have low self-esteem by setting impossible standards. There's nothing unnatural with the inclination to jerk off to porn, which is why culturally religious dudes are so vocally against. They feel guilt but can't help themselves, so they externalize the issue.
-
I didn’t listen to it but they talk about Iran too. Crazy. I def think Jake Paul will try to run as a right wing politician in some time, he seems super power driven.
-
I agree with @Joshe False desire is chasing the wrong carrot on a stick, while being blind to the fact you already have the carrot in your hand. You don't need to be a spiritual coach — just be a spiritual example. Maybe if you are a paramedic long enough you can step into some kind of a chief role. I don't know how those units are structured, but something you could work on is leadership and behind the scenes simply become more conscious in the Peter Ralston of Buddhist enlightenment sense (which will have a massive, direct, positive impact on your work). I'm not super developed yet, but that's what I'm doing with my career as a teacher/scholar. It's a beatiful thing.
-
Mellowmarsh replied to James123's topic in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
Yes, and fall without the temptation of clinging to that air for dear life, as there’s nothing there to cling to. 😅 -
They play in Vegas a lot.
-
Lyubov replied to WonderSeeker's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
He is definitely anti Zionist which I like. He just gets clipped and spread around the political side of the “manosphere” so obviously a lot of tards and political scientists from joe rogan university run with him but he isn’t right wing like how westerners understand it. I do think he has academic integrity. He’s a Chinese citizen. -
Ziran replied to Someone here's topic in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
Within the psyche, the metaphorical "heart", the emotive faculties, in conjunction with the pattern recognition of the intellect, can escape the loop. Remember Yoda? "Trust your feelings, Luke". Live long enough or reincarnate. Sooner or later, intuition and natural deduction will take care of it. -
Who the hell plays Rayman with a keyboard? Bro, you trippin.
-
Certain old time games can be fun because it can ignite our inner child again. But I would play it for nostalgia, not because it is fun. Back in the day I was really into Pokemon games. And sometimes I go back to it to remind myself that there is a time to come and a time to go.
-
Lyubov replied to WonderSeeker's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
I haven’t watched all his videos so I may be exaggerating his macro perspectives but from the few I watched where he was interviewed his reasoning culminated in the strings being pulled by secret societies. I don’t have exact examples. I just know he did an interview with Sneako and his shorts are popular on the algorithm that feeds that sort of click baity conspiracy driven content Gen Z/alpha guys consume. So I am able to reasonably assume a lot of tards run with his ideas. It’s not like what we are discussing is a well thought out book by him on geopolitics that takes time to write, read and publish and which is peer reviewed and is academically scrutinized. The bar of entry is very low to learn from him. Don’t get me wrong I think his reasoning is pretty solid but it’s tainted some by social media and his lack of consciousness work. He’s the type to veer off into dark awakening and nihilism. -
Ziran replied to James123's topic in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
RIP, good sailor -
Pluribus is fantastic. It opens the door to a lot of philosophical questions.
- Today
-
I am struggling with your usage of the word "Improve". "Improve" to look like what or who, exactly? If you could draw an image of the perfect human, what do they look like?
-
If you love something, you don't need to cut it out entirely. Just use Pomodoro and set daily limits. For example, "I can use Instagram for 20 minutes a day" and then set a timer.
-
I was raised in a Conservative environment and had many anti-feminist views in the past. But when I took the time to study more about it, I am realizing that feminism is a lot deeper and complex than I thought. I am starting to see that New Age versions of "Femininity" and the "Divine Feminine" are way less evolved than Feminist literature. The New Age religion's approach to women is more similar to Christian conservatism and has no interest in deconstruction work but instead focuses on maintaining the already existing structure. Feminism is hardcore and honest about how women have been programmed and conditioned mentally. It is a deconstruction and stripping of that programming. And it also shows how certain roles and behaviors required of Women aren't entirely innocent and have hidden motives behind them. It also deconstructs popular sayings or phrases used on Women to make them conform. And it is brutally honest about the way women have been hurt in the past by Men. For many women, this deconstruction process results in a form of Horror and Terror. This is actually a good thing, like a form of ego death. But what Feminism doesn't do well, is give women guidance on how to handle the Horror and Terror. It just leaves women there, in their Horror, and this is what leads to Misandry and women hating Men. And in this, you are right. Leaving women in a state of Horror, is not good. The solution is not to reverse or get rid of feminism. But continue to show women how to Deconstruct their programming while also Reconstructing in a way where Men's value and inherent worth is seen.
-
Some philosophers will agree with you, because they dont buy into this divide. So far my understanding is that its a way to try to differentiate yourself from philosophers who you consider to be bad philosophers (because you take it that they are doing bad philosophy). I agree with you generally speaking (especially about your comment on mysticism), but I dont think that most philosophers who consider themselves as non-analytic philosophers are actually into mysticism or practice being a mystic , so I think most of the criticisms still apply to them (and that criticism largely contains the idea that they lack clarity, sometimes they are conceptually confused and their inferences are bad and or unclear and its not just that they have a hard time explicating their views, but they are sometimes reluctant to do so). I also take it that some mystics could actually and genuinely benefit from studying analytic philosophy, because even though they practice and do stuff, they can still get seemingly quite dogmatic about their views and they necessarily rely on some claims that are justified by not direct experience , but by analytic and conceptual tools (even if they dont want to say it out loud and even if they dont want to admit it). I also dont like most of the criticisms levied at analytic philosophers (that I consider to be low-tier) like the criticism that they make things harder by inventing new terms and by inventing new conceptual , analytic tools and frameworks and new ways of reasoning. Just imagine for a second if the same kind of criticism would be directed at mathematicians "Dude, why the fuck do you guys jerk yourselves off with inventing new symbols and why would you guys obscure things by rules and axioms and why do you make it so hard to count and to model things, and to make sense of equations, when you could just convey everything purely using natural language that a 5 year old could just immediately and perfectly understand? "). Its only when it comes to philosophy, where people have this general tendency that they dont need to learn anything new and they can just jump in and understand most stuff and can just do philosophy on their own - but they intuitively understand that none of that shit flies in any other domain (not in science and not in math, because you need to learn a fuck ton of background info and ways of thinking and conceptual tools). And this is not really about learning stuff in a dogmatic way, but more about learning new tools to gain ability to think more clearly and to think deeper about things. Its cool if you can dig 1 meter deep just by using your natural hands, but its better to use tools to dig deeper, if your goal is to go much deeper and to check whats up deeper down (in my view, there isn't any virtue in with just sticking to your natural hands there and your mind is already filled with all kinds of background info and ways of thinking that you pick up from your culture and you are also born with a bunch of cognitive biases anyway and you not learning about those not gonna make them to go away). The irony is that you need to learn some stuff about 1st principles thinking to get better at it, because people are naturally really bad at it.
-
Rufus Du Sol You might know this one - but it's one of my favourites: https://youtu.be/Tx9zMFodNtA?si=6HxlnW6ctWPBjc-W They were great live
-
It's tied to your life and identity. If it reconfigured significantly, you'd be dead or insane. To maintain your self and sanity. Nothing exists unless it is imagined. The notion of a past has to be actively imagined for it to exist. Imagination is happening at the physical level. The physical world is imaginary. If the physical world was fluid you would feel insane and you could not survive. We have mental hospitals full of people who can't survive by themselves without medication and 24/7 assistance. And they have only mild fluidity of mind relative to what is truly possible is the mind was more free. You are taking for granted being human. You think this is just a given. But being human requires imagining that you're human every waking minute of the day. If that stopped you would cease to be human, which you would hate. Survival shapes imagination to be very specialized and narrow. You already know what dreams are like. You cannot live a human life within a dream because it is too fluid.
-
Elliott replied to Husseinisdoingfine's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
This is pretty big, Iran fired at Diego Garcia. I think this is a world record war-time distance, Iran held the previous record. -
I have a few thoughts on this, but you wouldn't consider me traditionally successful, but I've thoughts for more than a decade about this because it has been a huge problem finding "my purpose": Congrats for reaching such a point, hopefully all of the effort you put into all of your life will keep getting easier. At least for me the point of my life is not to live SO I CAN grind my teeth. If I want something is results, not constantly exerting high-effort --- You are thinking "wrong" because you are looking for something that doesn't exist. A specific point to which you will arrive and that will not happen, no matter how aligned and how much progress you make. The reason is because with each step you take YOU change and THE WORLD changes. So, the way to think about this is in direction, not coordinates. Think of you standing like a dot in the middle of a circle. You are trying to look for a point to walk towards, "the point of fulfillment", but you should look for the "cone of fulfillment". You take out everything you know you don't want and then you try things that look most interesting TO YOU. The more you walk and learn the tighter the cone. Hopefully that analogy makes sense. --- Ok, so I told you to look for interesting things (you know lots about this from what I can tell from your post) and now it is time to try Because you will find not answers in theory, you will find them in the action The answer being: you feel good doing it, you see yourself doing it for a long time, etc Just look for something and try it out for 1-3-6 months. Exploration is fun because you get to do it without pressure and you learn a lot. I did a writing challenge where I'd write a post daily for 30 days and I discovered I actually liked writing, when I thought I really disliked it. I saw some uniqueness in the way I think, etc Now I am coaching 2 of my friends, because like you, I like helping. Just trying it out and in this regard results have been more negative than positive. But conclusions cannot be taken without examination because I believe the reason is because I do it in zoom and I am not a skilled coach. But that is also great learning --- Glad I wrote the comment before reading the other ones. @Joshe wrote a great comment. Ego can be a dangerous thing. He reminded me of something, a useful question to ask yourself when you are thinking of possible directions is: "If I get no money, no status and could tell nobody about this. Would I do it?". Do it privately and see how you feel about it because those are things the ego loves to chase -- Again, glad you are in the position and keep living life and helping people!
-
Hey @Leo — I also read your response to my previous question, so I’m building on that here. If you have time to respond, I’d be interested to hear how you’d address this more precisely, or if there are aspects I’m still missing. If not, I’ll continue exploring this and may return with further questions as I refine it. I’m trying to understand the “only here and now / no past / you are imagining everything” idea more precisely, because when I follow it through, it seems to split in two directions. On one side, it clearly points to something real: Everything I experience only ever appears now. Even things like memory, history, or other people’s experiences (for example NDE reports, past lives, or historical figures like Cleopatra) only ever show up as appearances in present awareness. The same applies to things we assume are fixed. If I read Shakespeare or listen to a piece of music at different stages of my life, it doesn’t feel identical — the meaning, tone, and emotional impact all shift depending on my current state. In that sense, experience feels fluid, constructed, and not fully grounded in something fixed “out there.” But on the other side, there’s a contradiction. If everything — including my past, identity, and body — is being imagined here and now, then it seems like that imagination should be reconfigurable, at least in a meaningful way. Yet my experience feels constrained. There’s continuity, causality, and accumulated effects. Patterns, habits, and physical states persist in ways that I can’t simply “re-imagine” out of existence. Reality doesn’t behave like a lucid dream — it feels structured and resistant. So the question is: If all of this is being imagined now, why does that imagination appear both fluid (in perception, interpretation, meaning) and yet rigid (in structure, consequences, and identity)? Is “no past” only meant in the sense that everything is accessed in the present, rather than implying that the past and its effects can actually be altered? And if imagination is happening at some deeper, unconscious level — what determines it, and why does it produce a reality that feels constrained rather than freely reconfigurable? I’m not rejecting the idea — I’m trying to understand where its limits are in direct experience.
-
@Leo Gura I'm afraid what you are offering in the blog, to "transcend humanity" and to become "post human" or God would be theoretically impossible as you are currently in a human vassel, yes you are God, but forever limited by your humanness by the inherent limits of this avatar. That's the story of Lucifer basically, but he wanted the other way around, he was Pure Godness, but wanted to be human, so became corrupted and limited. A plant can't decide to transcend itself and become a conscious animal. The very idea of transcendence is quite sketchy in my eyes, but sure you are welcome to try and show us. I think it might be psychologically dangerous, so I must warn you, but sure go ahead dude. You can purify this vessel to a point, and be sage like, but that's the max.
-
zazen replied to Husseinisdoingfine's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
From Claude: “Security as a motive is universal and morally neutral. Every state in that analysis is acting from something it calls security. Iran calls its proxy network security. The US calls its military bases security. The Gulf calls its arms purchases security. If security justifies everything, it justifies nothing — it becomes a password that unlocks unlimited violence. The question isn’t whether Israel is acting from security. It’s what kind of security doctrine it has chosen, and what that doctrine requires as a permanent operating condition. A normal security doctrine says: we need defensible borders, deterrence capacity, and a stable equilibrium with neighbors. It has a logical endpoint — a point at which the security need is satisfied. Israel’s doctrine has no such endpoint — because it is not purely a security doctrine. It is a demographic and territorial project wearing security language. The project requires: ∙ Continued control over Palestinian land and population ∙ Suppression of any political entity that confers legitimacy on Palestinian resistance ∙ Prevention of any regional power achieving the capacity to impose costs on that control ∙ And therefore — permanent regional destabilization as a feature, not a bug That last point is the tell. A state genuinely seeking security seeks stability. Israel’s strategic behavior consistently produces instability — the destruction of the Lebanese state, the de-development of Gaza, the fragmentation of the Palestinian political body, the pressure on the US to confront Iran. These aren’t regrettable side effects. They are the mechanism. A fragmented, weakened, externally dependent Arab and Persian world is the condition under which the territorial project can continue without a coherent force capable of stopping it. So the distinction you’re drawing is exactly right: Security seeks an equilibrium. Domination requires the permanent incapacity of the other. A state that has satisfied its security needs doesn’t continue expanding settlements. Doesn’t level civilian infrastructure repeatedly. Doesn’t work to ensure its neighbors never develop coherent state capacity. Doesn’t require its patron to sanction, threaten, and periodically bomb every regional power that arms a group capable of hitting back. The maximalism is the evidence. Not evidence of greater insecurity — evidence that security was never the terminal goal. Security is the frame inside which a project of permanent demographic and territorial control is prosecuted. And because the project can never be completed without generating resistance, and resistance is then used to justify the next round of force, the doctrine becomes self-perpetuating. The tragedy is that this produces real insecurity for ordinary Israelis — because a population sitting on top of an unresolved dispossession, surrounded by people with legitimate grievances, actually is in danger. The maximalist doctrine generates the very threat environment it claims to be responding to. But acknowledging that would require acknowledging the project itself — which the political architecture of the state is designed to prevent.” If we just had to Birds Eye view the region it’s basically a security dilemma / power competition between Israel, Iran and to a degree even Saudi Arabia/GCC - all within a US hegemonic order that wants a defiant country (Iran) submitted. But each country has different risk appetites and demands ie maximalist or not. US/Israel seem to be maximalist (dominate the region). Saudi/GCC seem to be balanced because they are more vulnerable / weaker. They benefit from the status quo / folded into the US order - but also want stability with Iran to prevent chaos in the region that Israel seems to be more tolerant of or prefer (divide and rule) But at the same time it’s not like GCC would want Iran to become a hegemon if fully normalised / sanctions lifted. Iran has way stronger fundamentals that would make it so (90m population, highly educated, geography / resources, deep culture etc). So they occupy a narrow band / box - they want stability but Iran defanged to a degree as to not feel threatened. Irans foreign policy has caused bloodshed and angered Sunni Muslims massively. Supporting Assad in Syria, Hezbollah, Yemen etc. But from a cold geopolitical lens - they felt the need to gain strategic depth against an empire wanting to destroy it. We can see how after Assad fell Israel then struck Iran - weaker air defence over Syria creating an air bridge to Iran - whilst also disrupting the land route to supply Hezbollah. All these countries in between Iran-Israel have run into trouble due to this - hence both are hated to a degree by many. But at the same time many can see much of the root cause is this rivalry - and that Iran has simply had the strength to resist subordination to the larger imperial order of the US including its regional junior partner Israel. Dune 3 came out early in reality: -
May the Source be with you !
-
She could even be lowkey mad that he didn't sleep with her and putting the act the next day I've met quite a few of those in my days.
.thumb.png.caa0392a59e4da83bccc1849e8912205.png)
