RendHeaven

Everyone buy his booklist!

I wonder if the first model really is "scientific." I don't think there is any branch of modern science investigating the passage of time. Regardless, it seems like you're starting to get the idea I wonder what's beyond the idea?

Of course not. And your judgement of them is not necessarily open-minded or loving either! Notice how these people, no matter how ignorant or paradigm locked, are not outright inciting violence, discrimination or hatred in their speech. Hell, even the pepe guy you mentioned wrote: "Hope your wife is feeling better - best wishes" My only point here is that calling his following malicious is just not true. I'm not saying his followers are saints. I don't have much else to say on this topic because much of what I'm writing is becoming redundant. It's fair to critique him - just make sure you've done lots of digging. Your initial criticism was rather weak, that's all.

All I'm sayin is that the purported rampant hate comments are media propaganda. Peterson is flawed and ignorant, but we must be VERY PRECISE as to how exactly this is the case, for our own sake. "His followers are haters" is what I'll call criticism from below. You cannot say this if you've actually investigated his following firsthand. Something like "His metaphysical beliefs are misguided" is what I'll call criticism from above. You can only say this (and really mean it) after actually investigating his metaphysical beliefs firsthand.

@Odysseus Sorry but I'll have to agree with @Setty here. Though it is true that his followers are generally suffering people, they are by no means malicious as the media paints them to be. You'll have to go look and see for yourself. He has a Youtube channel. It's 99% people cheering each other on. Setty is right to point out that clips of him stolen by right-wing propoganda channels contain hate because they attract a different tribe. Be really careful when judging his following, even this requires some nuance.

@Setty I agree with you on many points. JP is useful in certain contexts, and many people on this forum, Leo included, border on demonization (though they claim not to). Is it so hard to just accept JP for what he does? Yes he is a devil. And so are we. No need to spiritually assert yourself and your tribe over him, even if there's validity to that assertion I also agree about your points on spiral dynamics being misused. It's far too easy to slap a color on someone and do away with anything they have to say. I loved @Serotoninluv's further elaboration on how humans tend to be a blend of various colors, but it's worrisome that this sort of nuance usually gets lost during most spiral dynamics conversations. Now here's the part where I double cross you! All of this being said, I think JP's biggest red flag is simply the fact that he paints an "enemy." In his words: "postmodern-neomarxists" AHAHAHA! This guy is a gem. This red flag goes for anyone, ever, by the way. Not just JP. The second that someone paints an "enemy" into their narrative, you can be certain that their words are coming from a partial, self-biased frame of reference. This isn't to say that JP's teachings are invalid since they are partial and self-biased. There's no superior-inferior teaching hierarchy. It's merely a matter of "is this person ignorant?" If they are ignorant, cool. Let them be ignorant. We live and learn. If they are not ignorant, cool. Let them be not ignorant. We live and learn.

My girlfriend and my mom. My mom (stage blue/orange) really loved the "how to shop for healthy food" video but can't seem to get into any of the metaphysical stuff. My girlfriend is a juicy blend of stage green and yellow. Her yellow tendencies include the ability to see multiple perspectives as well as being incredibly nonjudgmental (even toward perspectives that threaten her survival). Perfect candidate for Leo videos! At least that's what I initially thought, haha. Reality is, she has trouble sticking around through all of his meticulous articulations. She is more of an energy/emotion based learner, as I suspect many women are. Leo frankly appeals most to rational/argumentative types.

Thanks for the message

Yes @Jkris is correct. Hypnotism is real but only insofar as the subject is willing to participate in it. Nobody can hypnotize you into stuff you are averse to. So if she did indeed hypnotize you, that means you already had inclinations toward Christianity. Otherwise, what she did was not hypnosis. If anything, it's just raw indoctrination.

That's the point of music, art, nature, sex, competition, newborn babies and all other forms of conditional love. Even in what you may call "everyday mundane existence" there are hints of God. Not the whole thing of course, but parts. If you are asking why all of God isn't glaringly obvious at all times, that's a different question. But to be clear, beauty (God) is right in front of your face. You don't need to be enlightened to tap into that. Even an unaware person is occasionally brought to their knees by beauty. Whether they call this God or not is irrelevant. Transcendence is intuited by many on a regular basis. Spirituality is not as cryptic as you might think!

That's a little redundant and circular

Holy shit that's golden What a lovely distraction

Your question already assumes "people." That is an imaginary boundary. God won't be found in your imaginary boundaries.

Are you kidding?? The sunset is one of the most amazing forms you can witness in nature! I agree that it has a sense of finality, ending, or even decay. But I find that flawlessly beautiful. It makes me want to cry happy tears when in the right mood. It reminds me that all of my hustle and goal setting is a myopic game. Isn't it interesting how we attribute the same meanings to the sunset, except that I find it tranquil whereas you do not? I think it's hilarious that you could be DEPRESSED about it, but hey. That's just my perspective

@LastThursday It could be said that everything is fantasy, and therefore to measure it is redundant and circular. Working within a framework of relativity however, you could also choose to measure "amount of fantasy" by how many stories are ignorantly layered on top of one another. Anyway, if we are working with the latter premise, I would say that yes, sexual relationships on average involve more ignorant stories than friendships. Ignorant stories are woven to preserve identities and avoid loss. Culturally and individually, we choose to place a lot more significance in sexual relationships over friendships for various reasons. (Too many reasons to go over in one post!) Bottom line is, it's VERY easy to create an identity out of sexual relationships. Almost impossible not to, actually. Once you do that, you've got a lot of defending and preserving to do. And many stories must be told to avoid loss: "baby we're meant for each other!" "I love you!" Friendships tend to lack this particular flavor of delusion.

@Pouya Read my responses in this thread whenever you have time. It might take a little effort on your part because I wrote quite a bit, but part of asking questions is sifting through large answers

You're thinking about reincarnation the wrong way. You can't really think about it either, by the way, because the mind will start to pick out "individual people" and imagine that there is something tucked away within each individual that will find itself in another body given time. That is all misconception. Your question is fundamentally unanswerable because you have too many assumptions about the way reincarnation works, none of which are True.

HAHAHA If you absolutely insist on nailing every single word of your script as well as showing your face (and eye contact), then yes perhaps look into the technology. But as Leo says, showing your face in a rehearsed video tends to become unrelatable... we can tell you're raking your mind for the next word! That's not engaging. We want expressiveness and emotion! Fuck up for once and say "whoops." I'm more likely to subscribe to you for that than if you were to deliver a flawless robotic speech

Aw cummon give us a link! To answer your question: it totally depends on how articulate you are when free-associating. If you suck at having a focused point without the aid of a script, don't shoot yourself in the foot. Play to your strengths. A good place to start might be to strike a compromise. Have the script in your head, but give yourself leeway so that you are not strict about nailing every single word.

@LastThursday @Uncover The game of relationships is pure fantasy. Since the whole point of this fantasy is that you play your respective roles for their benefits, you must then go ahead and reinforce it (for example, with quirky compliments) - that is, if it's in your interest to have the fantasy flourish. You really have no place to say to your woman: "Hey! Stop wanting fantasy!" You both chose fantasy the moment the relationship was conceived. In many ways the whole charade is unsettling if you fancy yourself a Truth-seeker. To partake in the relationship, you must delude yourself into thinking she's special. There's no Truth to be found in such a thought. Nevertheless, many who seek Truth (such as I) opt to dip their toes into this arena of fantasy, fully conscious of its imaginary nature. I find it rather silly sometimes when I start telling my woman about how special she is - whenever I say such a thing (and I do it a lot ), I am simultaneously 100% truthful and 100% lying. It's not my place to shatter the fantasy in the name of "Truth," or to insist that she become realistic. That would kill the game and there's no fun in that.

@Salvijus I don't think that's quite True. These practices and states are not mutually exclusive, and the line between them is arbitrary. They dovetail in many ways, and to call one practice or state superior (in your words, "higher") is ironically only tenable in the realm of relativity. And even then, I could technically rebut you by saying that ranking "pure awareness" above "no-self realization" on the basis that the former involves NO desires while the latter DOES involve desire is only true insofar as you believe that desires should not be had. But that would be a silly debate, really. My only point here is that there's no Truth in rankings.

@whoareyou Would you say that romantic love is "real?"

What's your frame of reference?

HAHAHA LOL

This is very very true. ~95% of girls (just a guess) have genuine crippling anxiety, and maybe over half of them also have a slew of other issues on top of that: body image issues, food issues, loneliness issues, acceptance issues, abandonment issues, sexual abuse trauma, sexuality complications, bipolar-esque behavior, poor family life, poor financial situation, addictions, etc. This is completely normal, and certainly not exclusive to women. Men have just as many issues on average, though they tend to experience depression more than anxiety (and numbness more than strong polarizing emotions). Nonbinary folks have a nice juicy blend of all of that with the added pressure of fitting in with the demands of society. And I haven't even mentioned distracting activities and thoughts. Ain't humanity lovely Now, the key insight though is that stable people (and thereby women) actually DO exist! Maybe like 5% of women actually have their shit together or are at least actively structuring their lives to eliminate dysfunction. So the real question is not whether or not they exist; but rather, are YOU someone who deserves to be with one of these high-functioning women?