RendHeaven

@DivineSoda @Marinus I love that you guys just threw yourselves into the mix. Did you have to push through any internal resistance to put out your first video?

Woah, that's wonky! I'm new to this genre of music but I must admit you're very talented

Careful - I find that assigning warning points under the umbrella term "trolling" tends to be myopic and disingenuous. According to Wikipedia, an online troll is: A person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses. Though the first half of the definition seems to accurately describe some people on this thread, I would not say that anyone here is doing anything for the sake of provoking emotional responses. I mostly say this because I've been hit with "trolling" in the past, and I found it rather sad and laughable, as I truly had the intent of civil discourse. Those being framed as perpetrators here, I imagine, think of themselves as having civil discourse as well. Whether or not that is true is ultimately subjective, but please be sensitive to the perspective of those being warned. In some cases, truly, they are simply being devils and the points are well deserved. However, even then, I recommend not merely framing them as "trolls." Personally I would appreciate it if mods would be hyper specific about what warning points are for - e.g., "starting non-duality quarrels, distracting from the original point of the thread, projecting onto other people while blindly spreading self-deception." Thanks in advance if you read this

Dude you are seriously awesome (insightful)

"Psychology" is very vague. What do you like about it, whatever it is? What precisely turns you off about studying it?

Many people, including myself, have critiqued "little Conrad." I only meant well for him in this comment, but I got warning points from cetus56 threatening to ban me for "nonduality wars." I suggest you be careful, @Aakash. No, that is little Aakash. You are just telling yourself that it is Big Aakash. Be REALLY CAREFUL. You sorely underestimate the devil. It's obvious from how much you post. I don't want to make this into a finger pointing game so let me just say that I sincerely mean the best for you. Please do take into account what I'm saying. Don't dismiss this just because I'm slightly confrontational. Don't defend yourself in a follow up post, either. Breathe and live. We both have lots to contemplate.

@Charlotte You're shooting yourself in the foot. Your question is riddled with relativistic assumptions. You cannot verify the absolute by using the relative. They call it the "groundless ground" for a reason. Although technically every single word you've typed is a relativistic concept, I've highlighted the worst offenders in red: 1) You are assuming a one/not-one duality. The number line is imaginary. The labels "one," "two," "three," and so on are things which you and your culture have adopted in order to describe phenomena. These labels are not inherent in phenomena. This is to say, you are looking to ground Absolute Truth in a certain point on the number line without realizing that the entire number line itself is only a partial truth. If we want to be hyper-technical, we would have to say that there are an infinite amount of Absolute Truths; that there is only One Absolute Truth; and that Absolute Truth is not quantifiable at all. Furthermore, we would have to say that Absolute Truth is all of these at the same time and beyond. "Infinity = One = Zero" Also, "Infinity + Zero + One = One" Also, " " Etc. They're all saying the same thing. It's so TOTALLY "one" that numbers fail to encapsulate it. Every number ever (to infinity and beyond) is nested INSIDE Absolute Truth. It's so TOTALLY "one" that it's also infinitely fractured and divided, so from certain perspectives it does appear to be not-one. 2) You are assuming "other people." I want you to go and find an "other person" for me. Really, do it. Got it? Good. Now prove to me that they are 1) "other," and 2) "people." This is a trick question, by the way. You cannot actually prove this without contradicting yourself and reality. But I encourage you to try anyway, otherwise this point will not hit you as hard as it needs to. 3) You are assuming that an experience, perspective, mind set, paradigm, or outlook is something that can be possessed and "had." Though all of these words point to the same thing, and the thing which they are pointing to is certainly real, you are mistaken in thinking that "experience" or "perspective" can be possessed. Possession is a lie. Not a single thing, ever, has been "owned" by anyone. You don't own "your" house, nor do you own "your" car, nor do you own "your" clothes, nor do you own "your" money, nor do you own "your" dog. "Are you married?" "Yup! I have a husband." Nope! You made that up. Furthermore, you don't own "your" body, "your" senses, "your" "soul," or even "your" "experience." As if one part of reality can be objectively, metaphysically, and permanently subservient to another part of reality Everything you think you have can be taken from you. You think your house is yours? Not if the government takes it. You think your husband is yours? Not if he leaves you. Would you really be so stubborn as to insist that your husband is really yours if this were to happen? "But what about my body? My senses? My soul? My experience? Surely those cannot be taken from me. They are MINE." Ever heard of death? So you are asking "how could Truth be one thing?" while unquestioningly assuming that "individual" "people" "have" "their own" "experience." If you can see past these dualities, you will realize that your question is not really saying anything at all.

I do this currently as well. It's a lot of fun. I understand the irrational fear where you imagine every wrong thing that could happen haha. Just do it!

Please take a look at this article: https://www.livescience.com/37930-seven-bad-for-you-foods-that-arent.html It claims that wheat and gluten are great for your health and that "wheat is bad" claims are a myth. How do we reconcile this with Leo's health video? I'm just so confused on what to believe regarding wheat anymore, especially since all my friends and family believe it's completely harmless. They keep asking me for "evidence" that it's bad and I must admit no matter what studies I cite I just sound like a fraud. What I'm realizing is that I just don't have a firm stance on this anymore, but if wheat is really as bad as Leo claims, how is this subject so slippery? Shouldn't the answer be straightforward? For example - drinking cyanide is bad if you care about your health.

@mandyjw @outlandish So as I suspected... the answer is "wheat is bad" but also "wheat is good." Must we now add "wheat is both bad AND good," "wheat is neither bad OR good," "wheat is none of that and all of that at the same time," and "wheat transcends all of that entirely"

Please explain.

So actually, I agree and disagree with you at the same time. I disagree with you in the sense that I believe some of your critiques are outdated - pickup as it is now ACTUALLY transforms you into an attractive man by prioritizing inner work, addressing trauma, getting over fear, and learning to "love yourself." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, all of that aside, one ENORMOUS fault of the industry is the fact that it exists at all... Despite all the glowing praise I seemingly gave it, one thing the industry will never admit is that it is leading these men on a serious inner journey FOR THE SAKE OF ATTRACTING WOMEN. This is terribly, terribly backwards. If you listen to their seminars they will harp on the importance of self discovery but it will always, always be done in the name of getting more "results." They will take shy, introverted men who hate themselves and turn these guys into social dominators who actually have self esteem, but now these guys hit a ceiling in their inner growth and get caught in the cycle of chasing women because that has always been their goal. It doesn't occur to these guys that at some point they must let go of women entirely to progress further. From a male perspective, that is the real tragedy of modern pickup. Doesn't matter how much you reinvent yourself, you're still on the hamster wheel. A fully conscious and evolved pickup company would run themselves such that they undermine their whole cause - they would say, "we teach you to get women but we also teach you to eventually not need us!" See why this will never happen? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Back to your very first point though, it is also very true that just because men have learned to be attractive, it doesn't mean that they will genuinely connect with the women they get with. There's no guarantee that they can have a long-lasting, sustainable relationship. This seems to be seen as a separate skill from what they might call the "initial attraction phase." In some ways they are right that attraction and relationship building are different skills, but they are also very wrong in prioritizing the former. There must be an equal importance on forming healthy, lasting relationships which is woefully neglected.

It's very hard for me to tell because I'm still young and I have a superstar metabolism. I can eat like trash and nothing happens. Despite this, I eat very clean for athletic purposes. I also think of myself as a visionary, so I like to pretend that I am setting good habits for the future when my metabolism becomes unreliable. Obviously, there is a clear night and day difference in subtle bodily signs such as "energy" or "mood" when comparing, for example, a fresh salad to a greasy burger. That one's a no-brainer, and takes minimal awareness. But sneaking in a loaf of whole wheat bread every morning makes no change whatsoever in "energy" or "mood." And we don't even know if that's because wheat doesn't affect me, or if I'm just straight up lacking awareness. So I'm still careful then not to proclaim wheat as "good" or "unharmful" just because I don't feel anything. The truth is that I just don't damn know. Must I await old age and a slowed metabolism before I get a clear answer? @Leo Gura

I agree, it's stupid to micromanage your foods. But have you seen Leo's video I linked above? He calls wheat the number one health detriment (or something of that sort, i'm paraphrasing) If you need me to find the exact time stamp I will. So it's not that I'm being nitpicky or paranoid, rather I'm just trying to screw my head on straight. One camp believes wheat is horrible, the other camp believes it's good. It's hard to walk the middle with something like this.

These are very tricky and nuanced grounds. Don't fall into the trap of demanding "all perspectives be heard." Don't forget this forum has the express goal of helping people self actualize. Leo does his best to prevent the spread of misinformation to uphold the forum's goal of helping people self actualize. He isn't haphazardly shutting people down because they disagree with him. He is elaborately targeting ignorance and inexperience. So the question, then, is: at what point does ignorance become wisdom, and inexperience become experience? Well you'll never find that dividing line because it doesn't really exist... but Leo has to do his best. If we allowed people to chatter away, things would become so toxic so fast.

Oh wow so you're really going coast to coast. Amazing.

Vegas? I thought you said NY!

Unicorns exist???

Benefits? Hmm... Your dick starts to work ;D

My only question is... How are you gonna shower

You can say that again

Amazing. I've subscribed. Video game music is so inspirational. People sleep on it completely. I mean, think about it. Video game music is meant to capture without words the emotions of an entire virtual world. That's a tall task! Are you currently balancing a day job while attempting to grow your channel? I hope you don't mind me asking.

Currently I only do solo piano compositions like @St Clair If things go according to plan, I'll have a YouTube channel up sooner or later What does deliberate, focused practice look like when you're creating? I must admit I more or less "wing it." I have a natural gift of hearing how chords fit, so I mostly disregard music theory, even though I have studied it. Personally my process looks like: Get inspired by cool songs > Visualize the chords they use > Mix and match > Come up with a melody I'm interested in the idea of "practice."

Trolling? Haha wow I left my honest feedback to Conrad, that is all. He has room to grow. I did not respond to his reply precisely because I have no interest in conflict. I was impressed with his level headed, reasonable response. I can only hope that he took my words to heart. If my words were unnecessarily harsh, I understand. I will be more aware of that in the future.