Dan502

@Leonora nice quote

@jimwell Is it useful to distinguish between people who are low-level psychopaths and people who are not low-level psychopaths?

@yangmilun I like your questions. If you logged your thoughts, feelings, behaviours and beliefs, that were apparent to you, do you expect you'd notice any patterns?

I thought Anthony Hopkins gave a wonderful interview in line with this theme of humility.

Nice observation Moreira.

Communicating with people whose minds are heavily occupied is like crossing a busy city street. You can try and stop the cars or complain about it if you want but nine times out of ten, you're best off standing there for a while, paying attention and keeping your eye out for a gap in the trafic.

@28 cm unbuffed I'd agree that you can be.

If you were blue or below, or even straight-up orange, it seems unlikely that you'd be taking Actualized.org as seriously as you appear to be taking it. If you were turquoise or straight-up yellow, it seems unlikely that you'd be asking the question. As an estimate, I'd therefore go for green, probably with elements of orange as western culture leans so far that way, possibly some yellow. I think that what a person does for their occupation and their interests outside of work are a strong indicator of what stage they're at, regardless of what they self-report. People are complicated "things" though and you may have aspects or qualities that a simple analysis would overlook. Please take my response with a pinch of salt. There's plenty of truth in what the other replies are saying about working it out for yourself.

I had to reach a point where I really needed it before I seriously considered seeing a therapist but once I did, I actually enjoyed it and carried on long after "needing" to. Being able to talk "honestly without being judged" was a unique and, I feel, potentially, a useful experience. I saw a psychodynamic therapist. I see the quality of the dialogue in the sessions as a model for human interaction. I'd find it hard to pin down the details or benefits with any degree of certainty although I could create a speculative list. It cost an arm and a leg, so to speak; the UK health service tends to prefer CBT or pills to long-term talk therapy for patients with diagnosed conditions let alone those who feel like continuing the sessions without one. I attended weekly for two years before reaching a point where I felt like I had run out of things to talk about. Don't expect your friends and family, or really anyone else for that matter, to be supportive. Even some therapists don't believe long-term talk therapy is beneficial.

@Bridge to Infinity do you think your friend will see this post?

To me, Sapiens read like some kind of atheistic bible, masquarading as a history book. I'd say it was orange.

@Codrina Leo Gura doesn't merely pursue truth. He also represents it

I would echo what Tanz is saying, I like Tyson's passionate communication and genuine enthusiasm within his domain. I think it's interesting that even hardcore materialists tend to agree that "information" exists. As people, can we appreciate scientific innovation for its contributions toward our wellbeing, as well as making fun of it?

I like the idea of Leo touching or interacting with certain other people with his work. I suppose a person could share a video with an expert if they had already identified how it could be relevant and anticipated, reasonably, that the expert could be open to it. I suppose emailing it to experts en masse could be risky as most of them would probably dismiss it as nonsense or uninteresting. To find truth, one has only to seek it. Yet if one does not seek it, the truth could be right in one's face and one would not see it. We're not missionaries. How many of us have even had direct experience of Leo's insights sufficient to be on board with them, let alone share them? Most importantly, Leo would have to approve of how his content is distributed. I expect he would rather it not be "cold-emailed" out to experts in various fields although you would need to ask him that question. He may respond here. I'd love to see Leo himself interact with others, e.g. (I know everyone says it) someone like Joe Rogan although of course this is also up to Leo.

People shoot the messenger because they've thus far been able to survive "successfully" enough (or haven't yet realised otherwise) while working with a blunt axe. "My axe is blunt? No it isn't! YOUR axe is blunt! Look how many trees I chopped down. Obviously some of them had animals in them; nobody's perfect. Well how many trees did YOU chop down? You'll never chop down as many trees as me. Besides mine's bigger anyway. I don't care, I know I'm right. It doesn't matter anyway. Plus I'm too busy to think about this right now. Let's agree to disagree... ~walks away~ ... stupid messenger..."

For me, 2019 was a very solid 7. My goal was to improve my sleep patterns, which I did a bit. Sleep will remain a goal for 2020. I have a half-baked idea about looking into taking a basic counselling course too.

@assx95 it's true that right now we could already imagine that we are divided by our degrees of awakening. I think what Nivsch is saying is that the extent to which the average person is considered awake would be greater than it is now.

I feel like a fair few people consider science to be more "real" than what gets referred to as "paranormal" because sometimes science can seemingly be reliably used to predict outcomes. e.g. believing a vaccination can prevent polio works, whereas believing an exorcism can prevent it doesn't work. To use an analogy, in a videogame, some items might make Mario stronger, whereas some items might be redundant or harm Mario. When Mario gets an item that predictably helps him, he thinks "hooray, I got a real item". However what Mario doesn't realise is it's all made of the same code. Or something.

I imagine we might become more customisable too.

One way of thinking about anger is that it's always caused by an underlying fear.

Sometimes it feels like I can choose something and sometimes it doesn't! How confusing!!

Because of the importance we place on survival. It seems like we either survive or we don't. Do, or do not. There is no tri

People in general are amazingly good at convincing themselves of all kinds of things. I like to think Leo sets out to share insights passionately rather than trying to convince people of things. I guess it's possible that despite his best intentions, some people will still convince themselves of things. Me included, I'm sure. Fortunately, the videos are peppered with caveats and warnings not to become convinced but to try things for ourselves. By including such warnings, Leo is communicating responsibly.

Is relevance relative? Is rejection relative?