RendHeaven

Go out. On your bike, if you have one. Get into nature, bring a book.

Leo has specified that he will only accept interviews with someone who has a "proven, strong audience" in his "Contact" page. This will be the case with most big names. You'll have to claw your way to the spotlight before experienced people will talk to you. At this point, you have 2 clear options (and perhaps more, but I don't see them right now): 1) Interview non-experts 2) Personally reach out to experts with a direct message which shows them that you're not just spamming or casting a wide net. (e.g. "Hi [name], I love what you do, [say EXACTLY why], it would be an honor to have you on..." etc.) Experts tend to be busy, have a keen bullshit radar, and despise feeling used. Typically, you will have to go to them. You can't expect them to come to you. This also means that you will have to expect rejections. You can do both of these approaches at the same time while starting out. Just keep in mind that by writing a blog, you are stepping into the arena of entrepreneurship, willingly or not. This means you will have to fight for attention, and be smart about forging connections. Good luck!

No.

@Key Elements what do you think of Jay Shetty? His recent videos seem "too basic" in my mind, which is a shame because apparently he has a massive meditation background?

A truly powerful life purpose usually involves being a catalyst for change. It's tough to be a catalyst for change working a 9-5 job. Not impossible, perhaps, but certainly rare. Life purpose is more than what you will do to earn money. It is about the theme of your whole life. What would you do if money didn't exist? Or conversely, what would you do if you had infinite money?

What question do you have in mind? If the life purpose course is worth it? Or are you just concerned with what other young people are doing with their lives? Always look inward. If there's something you think you can learn from someone else, be specific!

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with your original post. You are juggling two topics: "Stop being subordinate to women," and "Evolve yourself spiritually." These things are similar but not the same. You can do the former without a regard for the latter and vice versa. In your original argument, you argued for the former (stop being subordinate to women) and threw in the latter (evolve yourself spiritually) as what seems to be justification for the former. That is devilry. Let's go over it: Arugment: "Why you can't date" Why? "You're subordinate to women" Solution: "Stop being subordinate to women! Reclaim your masculinity" Why? So that you can date. So you see, in this example you are "reclaiming your masculinity" so that you can gain something for yourself - women. This is not spiritual. There is nothing "evolved" about this solution. But then you threw the extra wrench in at the end of "evolving spiritually." These things are at odds. If your goal was truly to evolve spiritually, you would disregard the chase for women entirely. You would "reclaim your masculinity" without the goal of dating in mind whatsoever. You would "reclaim your masculinity" such that you would have unconditional love for all women, even if you never get any pussy for the rest of your life. And actually, yes, ironically if you ever achieved that mindset you would probably get boatloads of pussy. Maybe this is what you were advocating? But in that case, you were not very clear in your original post. Don't conflate spirituality with the pursuit of women. That was your mistake. That is what Leo means by "Ego, ego, ego."

Haha, no idea man! Don't think you can. But don't worry, if you post a bit here and there old stuff on your profile gets drowned out. It's not a big deal!

1) This is horribly, horribly wrong. Music done right is one of the LARGEST influences on the human psyche. You are laughably underestimating the power of music. You don't know how many people were on the verge of suicide, but realized there was a spark of hope when listening to their favorite artist. You don't know how many people have cried to songs that mean something to them in times of need (post breakup, after a loved one dies, etc.) The feeling of connection that music brings about is unreal. It can give you hope in the darkest time, comfort in the loneliest times, and it can even get you to self reflect in ways you would never have done otherwise had you not shut up and listened. It's meditative, in a sense; when you listen to a tune it replaces your monkey mind for a few minutes and higher insights can arrive to you in that moment. I remember in high school having a devastating fight with my mom, and thinking to my self "god, she's such a bitch I hate her." Then, out of inspiration I put on my "sad music" playlist and began weeping as I realized what a devil I had been, demonizing my mom when really all she wanted was the best for me. But I was so busy thinking "ME ME ME" that I couldn't see her perspective. Sure, planting a tree might have a more obvious effect than someone playing music, but trust me. Music can move mountains in its own subtle way. Few things are as PERSONAL as music. 2) Refer to my comment above. It's a wonderful personal example of music "raising consciousness." It's on the same level as doctors, if not higher. If you can not open your mind to this, you do not understand the human psyche as well as you think you do. Now, obviously, you could still be a trashy musician and there's a chance that your music will reach nobody. In that case, obviously, planting trees for a living would be far more effective if you are going for impact. But that's not a valid reason to dismiss music. For any aspiring musician @kamill my advice is this: Ask yourself EXACTLY what impact your music has. Every day, for the rest of your life. If your music is not moving mountains, keep refining it until it does! This is not an overnight process. Nobody said it will be easy. Do your research, perfect your craft, and put yourself out there.

Does striving for "spirituality" and "evolution," thereby "ending up with the understanding [and] truth" really equate to social dominance? Regarding honesty, fairness, and moderation, history tells that those traits are NOT required for social dominance. If anything, the opposites (lying, inequality, extremity) are traits of social dominance (Think of the current US president lol. Not to mention every dictator ever). What do you mean by the words "spirituality," "evolution," "understanding," and "truth?" Make sure you don't just fling them around as buzzwords. Their roots go deep; don't underestimate them. I like your message, but choose your words carefully! If you really meant what you said, I'd love an elaboration

This is such a low quality question that it's giving me a giggle Do whatever you deem best. At the end of the day, you'll go to bed and wake up the next morning, and so will everyone else You won't even remember friendship drama in 10 years... train yourself to focus on what matters. Think big!

"hard facts of reality?"

I'd like to know what you guys find of this video: The main impression I get is that it's a little tragic how external-oriented these people are... so much excitement over brain waves and new technologies, no self reflection or metaphysical inquiry. There doesn't even seem to be much of a thought (haha) about what a thought is. It's just assumed to be some function of neurons firing. Notice the paradigm here: "If we do enough research into brains, we can digitize our thoughts." Naive realism, materialism, and separate individuality are instantly assumed. That we were born and will one day die is implicit as well (notice the opening comment about this potentially making us "immortal"). Finally, that thoughts are "inside the brain" is assumed (thoughts have no location, really. If we're honest with ourselves. Neither does anything else since location is a concept). It's not considered that perhaps if this technology does one day come into being, we still wouldn't be any closer to knowing what a thought is (through means of this technology). This technology will be paraded globally as breakthrough cutting edge stuff - to be promptly marketed and weaponized into a corporate moneymaking tool. They say it's to help the disabled, but in reality most people will use it for entertainment/manipulation purposes. Also, imagine we hook one of these up to the average person... the clusterfuck of monkey mind will probably crash the system instantly lol On the flip side, this technology may just never be successful because these materialistic scientists are beginning to bump heads with problems (from their paradigm) regarding consciousness. This cannot be avoided. You don't just "tinker with the brain and extract one's thoughts" without addressing the phenomena of awareness. In a cool way, this technology may only be created IF one first does the inner work necessary, to examine their own metaphysical assumptions. P.S. This post sounds like I'm saying that there are a bunch of ignorant scientists running around being devils, and in a certain way, yes, yes they are; but also note that I am attaching no moral judgement to any of this, I am merely saying "look! ain't this crazy." Other thoughts?

Who's been watching Jordan Peterson~

+1, well said.

@Leo Gura +1 It's all or nothing for me as well, the second I dabble I get hooked...

Hehe. Bookmark this thread, my man. I want to see your reaction to yourself 10 years down the line

For those unaware, Plato was an ancient Greek philosopher. Let's look at one of his works, the Timaeus (using the Bury translation). Here's a short recap: Timaeus (a character) is in the process of telling a mythical origin story of the entire cosmos. However, he makes a disclaimer that his story is actually not True in an absolute sense, but rather that it is a "likely story" (or "plausible account"). Though his story involves many fantastical elements which should not be taken literally, one passage in particular gave me chills. At line 50A, Plato has Timaeus say: "Now imagine that a man were to model all possible figures out of gold, and were then to proceed without cessation to remodel each of these into every other,- then, if someone were to point to one of the figures and ask what it is, by far the safest reply, in point of truth, would be that it is gold; but as for the triangle and all the other figures which were formed in it, one should never describe them as "being" seeing that they change even while one is mentioning them; rather one should be content if the figure admits of even the title "suchlike" being applied to it with any safety." In this hypothetical, Plato gives us the example of someone who models "all possible figures" out of gold. If one were to ask what any one of these figures were, the only real answer here is "gold!" even if this gold took the shape of a triangle. To say that the thing itself is a "triangle" is wrong, for it is in fact "gold." Clearly, though, the substance behind everything we know is not "gold," for "gold" has distinct properties and therefore cannot be all things. Timaeus elaborates further by stating that whatever substance underlies all of creation must in itself be formless, without any qualities: "[...] For were it similar to any of the entering forms, on receiving forms of an opposite or wholly different kind, as they arrived, it would copy them badly, through obtruding its own visible shape. Wherefore it is right that the substance which is to receive within itself all the kinds should be void of all forms [...] So likewise it is right that the substance which is to be fitted to receive frequently over its whole extent the copies of all things intelligible and eternal should itself, of its own nature, be void of all the forms." Now go watch this older blog post by Leo https://www.actualized.org/insights/absolute-infinity-demo

I believe Dan Lok talks more about building an audience on a platform as opposed to isolating one customer

lol that is indeed such a random workout, to quote kieran

Hmm not quite, I think "those kind of questions" are fantastic! @MM1988 What you don't realize yet is that from your paradigm, God's plan seems flawed. What hasn't clicked yet is that it's not a question of conceptualizing your way to this beauty. "What's God's reason for making certain people suffer... despite gurus saying it's all beautiful..." No! This is God's plan we're talking about. The architecture of the entire cosmos. You're not going to reconcile suffering and beauty by thinking about it. It's only beautiful when you see the whole picture. But from certain angles, it's very ugly! The whole re-contextualizes the ugly into something entirely different. But you won't see that until you see the whole. From your specific angle, you do not see the whole. Right now you're looking at this thing we call reality from your specific angle, and you're asking your thinking mind, "how is this possibly beautiful?" Well, it's not! It's ugly. And as long as you stand where your stand, looking at reality the way you're looking at it, it'll stay ugly It's good to ask these questions though. Just make sure you follow through on them. Don't abandon them when the answers you get from other forum members don't satisfy you. You have to answer this question for yourself, alone, and without thoughts.

Perhaps his video is indeed too long. In fact, I actually agree with that! BUT Don't like it? Cool. Let him be. The comment you made is so charged with frustration. If Leo is truly as "egoic" as you claim, there's no reason that it should rile you up so much. Just let him do his thing, man. If you feel the need to correct him, maybe do it in a way where it's constructive instead of just gushing angst? Food for thought.

In the same video he says "avoid starchy vegetables" (potatoes) Fries are out of the question, really. As far as chicken goes, no, you won't get fat off of it if you also eat your veggies and exercise a little. Obviously if you only eat 1 thing (of anything) it's going to be unhealthy.

Grades don't matter at all... BUT ONLY IF YOU HAVE A CRYSTAL CLEAR & SUSTAINABLE LIFE PURPOSE

Nice! Next step is to not talk about it Notice how the mind re-frames what happened as "I" "experienced" "nothingness." I'm sure you're aware of this happening.