Xstream

Showing all content.

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. Just finished the show. It really highlights the peril of putting power, money and status at the top of your values. @Leo Gura your videos on the importance of truth and love as top values make even more sense to me now. Augustus seemed really like a dead inside psycho and every character is basically ruined by having values in the lower stages of the spiral. Really makes sense why Christianity grew out of the Roman Empire. It was really a shit show.
  3. Turn out this whole behavior activation thing backfired. I’m very anal about stuff so when I choose a strategy or a Motto for my life, I have a hard time being flexible. To counter that, one affirmation that I’ve been experimenting is “do nothing”. You know, being lazy is widely considered one of the worst traits one can have. But oftentimes it is a necessary defense against toxic productivity. So doing nothing can actually be quite healing, because it removes all the unnecessary stress. Of course, it can have its own side effects, such as slacking off way too much. But overall, it can be a way to recover your natural self. That doesn’t mean that I’ll just vegetate on bed all day. But instead, knowing that some things that I will do require some willpower to initiate, but that I will let go of the constant excessive control of my own self. Let’s see how that goes!
  4. You need to meet people at least in Zoom. That is a minimum.
  5. You have the accounting knowledge of a failing undergraduate student or a smart high schooler take your pick. You don't understand the math of what you're talking about. A global mega-bank handles trillions in customer deposits. Even if they lend out the vast majority and keep just a 10% to 15% liquidity buffer to handle daily withdrawals, that still leaves them holding hundreds of billions in 'Cash and Cash Equivalents' at any given time. Multiplying that across the top 100 banks easily hits that $32 trillion figure. When a database pulls 'Cash on Hand,' it pulls that exact asset column. That money isn't corporate profit sitting in a vault that a CEO can legally spend; it's the aggregate checking and savings accounts of everyday citizens and businesses globally, held in reserve so the system doesn't collapse. Your entire 'gotcha' argument relies on looking at highly regulated depositor liquidity and confusing it with a corporate piggy bank. Confusing a bank's corporate equity with its depositor liabilities is a day-one accounting error. You remind me of the average Redditor and are even less fun to have a conversation with.
  6. You need a certain buzz to do marketing. So take that into consideration. If you have no drama, that is not going to work.
  7. Today
  8. Trying to understand the language used and meaning: First, you’re drawing a strong split between “surface-level behaviour change” and “root system change” .... then immediately conceding a loop exists: behaviour feeds back into structure. Then you say behaviour change cannot address the root but then add a condition where it does work when the system isn't resisting. Aren't you then implying behaviour change CAN shift the system? "Can't" but then you describe conditions where it can? So can behaviour change the system in your view? Or it can't? You also presuppose a relatively fixed system with it's own inertia patterns, but if behaviour feeds back into structure, then isn't the system by definition composed of accumulated behaviour?
  9. @JoshB Consider it growth spurts.
  10. @prophet Can you elaborate more?
  11. @Joseph Maynor I think what most people don't realize is how lucky we are that the "I" has emerged in this experience of reality we share. Or perhaps better to say emerged "with" this reality.
  12. Those are corporate banks. I'm puting you back on ignore, bye. Cash on hand is cash they own, not your savings. Banks loan out 9/10 dollars they receive, storing only 40-10% of your savings, they loan your money out, they don't make money by storing your money and then paying you interest! You think they're like Pokémon geeks but with benjamins? "No, a bank does not count depositors' accounts as its own "cash on hand." [1, 2] On a bank's balance sheet, customer deposits and cash on hand are separated into two completely different categories. [1] Here is how they are classified: Customer Deposits are Liabilities [1] The Reason: The money in your account belongs to you, not the bank. The Accounting: The bank owes this money back to you upon request. Therefore..." Global "Broad Money (M2/M3): ≈ $100 - $130 trillion (includes all physical cash, checking/savings accounts, and easily liquidated short-term deposits)" You geniuses think school.teachers are sitting on this or something? Like where the fuck do you think this actual money is, Mars? Global population 8.3 billion, that's $15k for every individual on earth, every starving African baby, you think has 15k under their mattress, when it costs 15c a day to feed them yet they're starving. That's 266 years of food for every person on earth. "The U.S. federal government holds approximately $893 billion in operating cash and other monetary assets." "Chinese Central Bank Balance Sheet: The total size of the PBoC's balance sheet represents approx. $6.75 trillion, which includes a mix of government deposits, claims on banks, and foreign assets" (this bank is not on that list I posted, it's a government bank not corporate)
  13. True but that site doesn't only count corporations it counts banks as well. So that cash on hand includes all the private deposits that people like you and me and people in china deposit. At this point we're talking about global liquidity and not just a few big corporations being too greedy and stocking cash in a vault. Have you watched Mr.Robot? The plot is basically that there is a big company E corp that controls most of the banking in the world and they hack it in hopes of resetting the system and making it better. It basically devolves into chaos for a while until it becomes even more centralized and dystopian. Unfortunately there is no real easy solution to global inequality apart from slow gradual change IMO. Maybe UBI tech singularity can solve it but then again it's still about international trade agreements and peace treaties.

  14. Thought Art 📓

    Thought Art replied to Thought Art's topic in Self-Actualization Journals

  15. If the behavior doesn't fight against load-bearing structure, it's easy. For example, if you ask me to stop interrupting people, I can work on that because it means nothing to my sense of self. If you ask me to say please and thank you more, I can work on that too. But if you ask me to stop analyzing everything I encounter, I can try to do that, but I'd be fighting a very deep load-bearing structure and it would eventually fail. No amount of CBT or behavioral modification will work. It's how I get rewarded. Also, I could attempt to change it, but why would I? It's me! No, I'm saying behavior change is surface level and can't address the root. You do not simply uproot narcissism with behavior habits, and if you try to fight your narcissistic tendency, you will be trying to fight a very deep structure that has been operational and load-bearing since you were an adolescent. They are getting something from the structure, it exists for a reason, it serves a purpose, it's their main source of reward. That's why narcissists are so easy to spot, because they can't help but seek that reward of being superior. Take that away from them, and you take almost everything. Why would they give it up? Of course behavior feeds back into structure, but it only works when the system isn't actively fighting the change. Think of someone with anxiety. They WANT the change, so they can go to therapy and alter those deep structures. The structures that are causing anxiety aren't really load-bearing to the self. They want it gone. A narcissist wants to keep the structure. How can you solve a problem you don't even consider a problem?

  16. Confused ?

    Rishabh R replied to Rishabh R's topic in Personal Development -- [Main]

    @PolyPeter Thanks dude when I made the decision of acceptance of negative emotions like suffering ,jealousy I think it was one of the best decisions of my life . Whenever I feel it fully the emotional turmoil gets reduced significantly to the manageable extent.
  17. Right, gotcha. I am trying to make out how easily you think people can change behaviour given earnestly intended alterations. Are you saying you believe, in Leo's case, there would be an attempted behaviour change not in earnest? Which would imply reversion to the previous structure. I know people can change significantly due to behaviour, internally. My claim would be behaviour isn't just an output of personality, but it feeds back into it. The system runs both ways. A change in behaviour alters the internal structure, sometimes whether we want it to, or not. The reverse can be true. Maybe then the question is - which side of the feedback system (behaviour vs structure) has the bigger 'permanence' or harder to move the dial on. I wish I had a rotary switch tacked onto me for this, a fleshy rotary dial lol - ultimate life hack.
  18. $40 trillion, and that's only the top 10% of corporations. Many of the biggest corporations in the world are private. https://companiesmarketcap.com/companies-with-the-highest-cash-on-hand/ I said for 50 years, at $40 trillion, that's $800 BILLION a year not $100. By your number I OVERESTIMATED how much is needed. We're literally already starting another great depression. That's not just people starving, that's what caused the second world war, and this time 1.)Iran, 2.)Israel, 3.)Korea, 4.)Pakistan, 5.)India, 6.) Russia have nuclear MISSILES, ww2 we only had a bomb you drop from a plane, you saw what Iran just did to the great 'Iron Dome' in Israel right?
  19. By load-bearing structure, I mean a psychological structure that exists for a reason. We all have load-bearing structures. Nothing inherently pathological about them. A narcissistic structure is pathological/unhealthy/toxic. (I know you like precision so I'm trying to cover the field 😝)
  20. That is my view. People like to say the infinite doesn't know the finite. I say the infinite and finite are joined. The finite allows you to know the finite. But that is not all you are. It is a both, and not an either or. This is just my perspective.
  21. You're not wrong but you're inflating numbers. The total cash and liquid marketable securities held by all public corporations globally combined sits closer to $8 trillion. It would apparently cost $100 billion per year not 50 to feed everyone globally but that's still manageable. With the current political polarization we're experiencing the US can't even manage to not cut its own already working benefits program so we're not quite there yet but ultimately all the problems we have globally are not more than a few years to a couple decades to fix. We should be quite optimistic about the future! @Hojo Yes you're right. I'm glad Leo taught us about the spiral dynamics model because it makes a lot of sense. Most of societal problems stop existing at stage green but below it's just a clusterfuck of competition and annihilation. It's hard to get rid of though, I've spent the last 10 years of my life self-actualizing and I still love petty competition. Let alone people that never did any that salivate at the thoughts of the death and suffering of their enemies. Which is like most of the politicians globally it seems lol.

  22. Thought Art 📓

    Thought Art replied to Thought Art's topic in Self-Actualization Journals

  23. What would you say about the "I' being a local and non-local awareness?
  24. By load bearing (if you could clarify) do you mean to point toward a personality disorder as opposed to a disorder? We would have to make a case to support the claim that Leo has a personality disorder or 'load bearing' issue. Or something more permanent than a simple disorder that have better prognosis. Which, without a clinician assisting, would be difficult. Public facing content - do we think this is sufficient to establish a construct like a personality disorder? Without clinical assessment any strong attribution is speculation. Which is fine, if that's the basis of the claim.
  25. When the behavior is trying to change something load-bearing in our psychology, not really. It works when it's something simple like just being nicer in situation X or something like that. Like, if you wanted to not be as reactive in your responses, it's easy to adjust that with practice. But when you're asking someone to change behavior that manifests from deep psychological structures, I don't think you stand much of a chance.
  26. Leo said he had a traumatic experience when realized he imagined his mom The initial realization is jarring but after integration and realizing it at a deeper level it becomes beautiful thing
  27. @Joshe Do you think that behaviour change does not influence structure of personality or psychology?
  1. Load more activity