charlie cho

@Leo Gura I don't understand.

Anyone who call themselves "I'm a spiritual person," I would be scared. Same goes with the person who says, "I'm a religious person." Both would scare me. Not that I dont like people studying authenticity, krishnamurti, or osho, but if someome had to say "I'm spiritual," I immediately have to look the other way. But your anger does surprise me a little bit. You sound very very disappointed by these spiritual people

To learn body language, it's important not to read about body language just by books, though it can help. First one has to engage kinisthetically with the body. If you wanna understand a musician, be a musician yourself, if you wann understand a boxer, be a boxer yourself. Best way to learn body language. No certain 'eye position' 'feet position' studies will help us understand a person. Life isn't that simple. The world is too complex to reduce certain body languages to axioms. Two ways. One has to be so good with body language as if Leonardo Da Vinci sees another painting and he will be able to analyze it better than any fraudulent curator. Read body language as if Kobe Bryant can read the opponent's next move just by looking at someone's eyes. The second way, one has to be able to analyze another person's words as if Oscar Wilde may read another person's writing and will be able to analyze it 100 times better than anybody else. And how Sherlock would analyze a scene scientifically step by step, not by axioms, but by his complex understanding of an evidence. His understanding didn't come from his meditation techniques, it came from years of careful study and diligence. These two ways is the best way to understand body language. Constant practice, but also with book studying, both need incorporation for careful analysis.

If you really love your work, working 100 hours a week is easy. I think what Elon Musk says here is a little bit of an exaggeration. You have to take into account Elon Musk has a peculiar brain that is unlike most of us, with a tinge of aspergers syndrome, which would have isolated him greatly. With great isolation, of course you will read read read, but with a cost where his kinisthetic intelligence or social intelligence will be at risk. It's not too difficult to imagine Musk being hyper obsessed with his science and engineering work as he does. Imagine, Edison or Tesla being like Elon. I would tell you, Elon is far obsessive than Edison because Edison and Tesla were able to socialize easily since they were children, but not Elon. God's sake, with a brain like Elon, and adding to that! Aspergers, You would be retarded not to be isolated and introverted forced by nature. Of course he is a mad scientist, more so than Edison, because Edison, though he was a scientist, was able to negotiate well, speak much better, be much more charismatic than Elon Musk. Of course it's possible to work like Elon Musk. You don't have to be have his brain to do that. If you love your work it's possible. But I don't know if it has to be 'hard' as he tries to show it to be. There may have been a tinge of his difficult past put into that.

@Leo Gura I, on the contrary, thought you were very spontaneous, progressive thinker. Even physically, making videos... etc, you are very creative, you seem to have no problem with acting things out fast. I actually have no problem socializing, as you just suggested to me to do, on the daily, with the exception of making any friends. Maybe, since you've just suggested to me to do this, I should implement more spontaneous thinking, not preplanning things too much with my social life. But I wonder what about with me and work. Planning and executing business ideas for example, work. Work that is not exclusively related to socializing. Shooting a video, writing an essay/book, planning and executing on experiments, rather than constantly reading on my ipad, writing music and actually picking up my guitar, not reading or watching constantly about music theory. I guess what you say can be implemented very well with socializing, but I don't know how talking to women will help with my impersonal pursuits.

@zurew oh sorry I thought you meant me.

@StarStruck who???

@zurew Calm down mate. Nobody here is calling Tate Daddy. I for sure did not.

At least you're more funny than me. I thought I was the funniest here before you. Lol, well then... I apologize just for your sake, for calling her that, you obviously need an encouraging word from anyone.

@Majed Of course he lies. It's to the degrees to people lie. He opened a cam girl operation for porno for god's sake. The question is, to which degree is he a liar? More than any other media members like that cockroach of a being on BBC? I'm very very angry at how people are treating him right now. It's embarassing if we delve into it. Camgirl business and onlyfans, for god fucking sakes women sell their pictures themselves without supervision, voluntarily for god's sakes now! And to that, are we going to screw Tate just for that? This is an embarassment. The question is to what degree does he lie against the bigger liars which he calls the 'matrix' (which I find hilarious how he constantly says this word so musically and rhythmically). It's hard to say for sure who is the bigger liar, but I'm already having ideas of who is the bigger threat to society. And I'm very sure it's not Tate, no matter how much I disagree with Tate, I know Tate isn't the bigger threat here to society.

@Arthogaan sam harris does accept there is hierarchy of wisdom. but I dont think jordan peterson tries to argue the bible was written by God. peterson doesnt care if its written by flawed people even. He tries to understand why has the bible have been referenced and cited by the greatest thinkers in history. Mozart was influenced. Bach was influenced. Whether the bible was written by a criminal or a god doesnt really matter. I admire peterson much more now because he understands that doesnt matter at all. Hes simply curious why has it helped so much people to become creative loving and be unique. But sam harris cant even begin to process this peterson's curiosity. So disappointing. I feel even readers of my post cant even understand this, except for you.

I agree, Jordan Peterson seems to try to use 'pompous' language just to seem more sophisticated to Sam Harris. No doubt Jordan Peterson has that element in him. It's obvious though he's not trying to use that kind of language to one up Sam Harris. It's just how Jordan Peterson speaks from his lectures and in his daily life, even with Joe Rogan, he speaks in abstract language. And Sam Harris has quite a reductionist view on things. He tries to boil down the bible as if it's just fiction and nothing else. Come on! It's not that simple and reductionist! Yes, I agree it is fiction. But why has this 'fiction' become so influential? That is indeed the question. The bigger question has to be, and I feel Jordan Peterson wasn't smart enough to say this, why has the greatest novels, classics been influenced by the bible? Shakespeare is one biggest example. Martin Scorsese is one of the best examples! Scorsese references the bible constantly, terribly! He was influenced by the bible so much, basically his whole films are riddled with Jesus questions! And Sam Harris just cuts all of that off with. It's fiction. It hurt a lot of people. So it's bad. Well, you might say, why are you reductionistic on Sam Harris's view? Well, that's what he fucking did with the bible. So I'm doing the same. Don't be so angry that I'm reductionistic to Sam Harris, when he's doing that to Jordan Peterson's arguments for the bible. This could be said the same with Krishna's story in the Bhagavat Gita. It's fiction, of course. But why has it stood the test of time? We are not trying to find facts here! We are trying to find Truth! And it's so obvious Jordan Peterson understands the dichotomy differing fact vs Truth. But Sam Harris tries to show his intelligence trying to bash truth with his arrogant understanding of fact, when in truth, fiction has nothing to do with fact. Fiction is a study of Truth. However bad the fiction maybe, it is a study of Truth. And yes, many studies of history and facts has become elements of Truth. But the nature of truth is such that it's difficult to find Truth in history books. Confucius had tried to do this, but he failed utterly. And there is a reason why so many Taoists and Buddhists hated Confucius, because he utterly failed to find Truth in History and Fact. Jordan Peterson seems like a fool here, I understand, even like a Pompous fool. I feel that too. But let's not pretend Sam Harris isn't arrogant with his view on understanding the nature of stories and fiction. Jordan Peterson has a whole book on stories, myths, and fiction. But this isn't really what's the point. The point I'm here to make is that Jordan Peterson understands something thats True about fiction that Sam does not. It's obvious. I absolutely hated, or have even abhored the comments on youtube simply calling Jordan Peterson 'pompous' or is a 'sophist'! Peterson just talks that way. Watch his other lectures you df.

@josemar What you fail to realize is you think 'fact' is Truth. In fact, 'fiction' can hold equally the same degree of Truth ever the same with 'fact, if not more. Often so, it holds more Truth extraordinarily easily than mere 'facts'. Why do you think Jesus kept talking in parables? You think he talked in parables because he has nothing else to do and just speak random fiction stories out of his hole? @josemar, I hope you before even beginning to think of commenting here have understood this first. Come to think of it, I don't think you at all had understood this from the start.

@Arthogaan Exactly, reducing the bible with monkey's creativity... I was tremendously disappointed with Sam Harris. I always felt he was intelligent, until I just heard this sentence, it made me very sad for him. Must be hellish to live in that kind of brain, too simple and boring.

I remember reading about the camel, lion, and the child from OSHO first, not Nietzsche. I was surprised to know that it was Nietzsche that talked about this concept, when I first read him, not OSHO.

In real life, I don't tolerate not only idiots (of course, I bash them openly and very successfully), but I also don't tolerate unresponsive,dull behavior. Once my ex-girlfriend told me I had this demeanor, where when people see or speak with me, they act differently, or try to act intelligent in front of me. She told me this because I complained to her that I met a few people in my life, or even dated once a girl who kept talking about 'intellectual' things with me on a date, when I knew she was just mouthing off whatever she had read, without deep thought, whilst I was just trying to speak on more fun, physical 'dating' matters. So my then girlfriend told me that I always had this demeanor that says 'I don't accept idiocy' about me. I didn't understand what she was saying at the time, because I always thought I was a very funny person, not that 'serious', but now I understand. The reason I had this 'demeanor' was because I didn't accept not only idiots, I didn't accept people who were unintelligent. Basically, if a person was not striving for excellence, if a person was happy with not being competent, I just cut them off, and didn't regard them as human. (which I now feel maybe not so good?) To make myself not look too evil, I would paraphrase again, that I just didn't like people who came off to me as someone who didn't truly care to do what's beautiful, what's good, what's important, what's valuable, what's courageous, what's smart. Basically, intelligence. But the same girlfriend once said to me, 'I don't care for good texting or calling', which I found odd. Anyway, I recently had this insight. We usually think texting and calling has nothing to do with physical reality, so if people are disrespectful in there, we just shun it off. This is the most dumbest thing I could possibly think of. Texting and calling is just as physical as the physical reality of the world. And if the other person, like my ex-girlfriend, thinks that texting and calling is nothing important, it means they are not intelligent. Obviously, I wouldn't tolerate disrespect on the phone, but I did used to tolerate unintelligence, or dullness, unreactiveness. This was my mistake. I didn't set boundaries to these things. With my country where 99% of the population, like Japan also has this problem, uses the same messaging app that disallows people from turning off read receipts (so 99% of conversations on phone in this country is read receipts, the idiocy of this country, honestly) I have to constantly deal with people speaking too fast, speaking too much on text, having useless dumbest fucking emojis on there texts. I used to tolerate unintelligence. But I'm fucking stopping with this idiocy now. It's easy to cut off idiots, but it's hard to cut off the bozos. Because the bozos look like they don't harm others. But the normies are often the ones who cause problems most. The fuckers who text weirdly must be banned. Anyway, this is a diary of me deciding not only to cut off idiots, but to cut off 'normal' dull people on text. I'm going to act like I do in text, like I do in real life. Cutting off idiots is easy, but cutting off anyone who is not 'intelligent' is harder. I'm not tolerating someone who is not smart, who is a sheep, who is a drone, mf often writes like an idiot, I have to detect them from the start.

Well, you at least done that right, congratulations. My stupid behavior was successfully mirrored by you. At least, I can give you my love, since you think I'm mad at you, I'm not. <3 <3 <3 foryou.

@Lila9 no. Maybe you're smarter than me. Sorry for valuing intelligence. I didnt know some people could be disgusted at people like me for seeking and valuing competence. And try quoting more accurately where i said i was smarter than people. Read carefully, so i can learn from you as you 'seem' to be smarter than me very much. In reply to your quote.

@Israfil lol, your linguistic 'prowess' is far beyond my reach, thanks.

I know this would be the hardest to understand what I wrote below here. But still I'll make it curt and simple. Making a good strategy has two aspects. One is a personal/spiritual reason or meaningful goal or directive/mission/direction. This is largely subjective and everyone will have differences. This can be found from the very beginning of the stage of making a strategy, if not, one might have an existential crisis. And a good 'knowing of oneself' is needed in one's journey to create a good strategy. Second, and lastly, making a 'plan' is the last aspect, but unfortunately this 'planning' category also is divided into two parts. One is immediate planning and taking action on it. The second is long term planning and taking action. One has to be good at both, not only one of them. To accomplish mastery of both, one has to have good physical aptitude, and a good mental mind. Good physical aptitude will help with good planning in immediacy. Reading broadly and deeply will help with a good mental mind, with long term planning and short term planning. I know I just said 'read broadly and deeply' very simply, but it's not simple at all. You need to study more harder than the PHDs in universities. I mean, no rote learning. As AI has come to bout, those people who don't truly educate themselves will find themselves destroyed. What is true education? God, you find it yourself. Without good education, there is no good 'long term strategy'. Some might say, 'Oh just write it it one day and we'll be fine! We don't need to understand statistics, mathematics, physics, geography, logistics, business to write a good strategy! We don't need to socialize with people, learn from experts, learn from the common man, learn from friends, learn from lovers to write a good strategy! Just do it out of the top of our minds! Just work hard!' Anyone who tells you this is a scammer, and get the fuck out of the way, and don't shortcut yourself to great long term strategy. To write good strategy without good socializing with the common people, without a great meticulate psycho level education of oneself, without good physical aptitude for risks, dangers, or even for creative adventures, without any of these things, one is kidding oneself when he or she says they will make a 'good strategy'.

@Danioover9000 I know Eminem.

@Danioover9000 I understand PBD looks like a feminist hater. It's very very easy to label him that way. But you have to see and listen carefully before one does that. Yes, the two has stupid ideas. But bring that on with understanding where they are coming from. And when we see where they are coming from, it's obvious to see they come from true concerns. I'm not saying they are good intentioned people who brings out bad results, but they are also concerned with the results too. With anarchy that's happening these days, they just want a bit of structure too. Have you read Dostoevsky? An author who's a bit of a conservative, he himself was quite a liberal man, he believes in love, he even believes in compassion for the evil man, downtrodden, and hurtful people, and his political takes were conservative, because he just wanted a bit of structure to society. His takes on communism and the psychology of how communists think is incomparable. And to label Dostoevsky as a monarch entusiast, a Tsarist enthusiast is the most dumbest label to put into him, because we all know he's not like that. Same with the common man on youtube, even if they aren't reknown great artist authors we know today. We can't just label them like that. Then you're not learning at all. Please learn. See this part, and tell me he's a complete chauvinistic fuck up. Even chauvinistick fuck-ups have good views. This part shows Andrew Tate, even as a chauvinistic fuck-up, he's still better than 99% of redpill fuck-ups, or even the cockroach unintelligent fuck-up like the BBC interviewer.

@Leo Gura You don't think there is wisdom behind Andrew Tate's and PBD's 'orange' statements in politics? Believe it or not, I understand what you mean, but when Andrew Tate spews out nonsense, it mostly comes out of not what he has read (because I can see myself, the guy doesn't care for that at all) but it comes out of the wisdom he's received from boxing, socializing, and interacting with the world intensely. That's what PBD and Andrew Tate is extremely good at than 99% of us men. There intense experience with physicality and socializing, given what I seen how PBD interacts with people in interviews, only a layman will think he's average in empathizing with people, but I can see the guy is very very good at listening and responding. Because the average man socializes with people like the cockroach that BBC interviewer was, but anybody with above average social intelligence will immediately tell that PBD should be taking the job of the BBC cockroach any day. I think, even the political takes Andrew Tate and PBD make, although riddled with many 'organge' biases, has tremendous wisdom that we sometimes like to avoid and misconstrue. When Andrew Tate says that people forgot that God is the highest value, then it is the family name, there is tremendous wisdom there. Of course, his idea of God and 'family name' is very crude to us, but still, in terms of political undertaking it's a very pragmatic way of getting people to do what's right. Some might say 'family name' can become corrupt, though I agree, if one does this the right way, this way of 'honoring the family name' can become tremendously valuable, because we all do come down from our ancestors. To honor the 'family name' is basically saying, to 'truly love your ancestors and who they were'. And it is very important to truly love our ancestors, even if they did things that are dishonorable in our eyes. And to criticize and fix the dishonorable things our ancestors had done is a form of truly honoring our ancestors. So I feel PBD's and Andrew Tate's conservative political takes that are extreme in many takes, there is real wisdom in that if one has the 'right logic'. But I emphasize right logic is very very important to truly enact what their idea of good political acts are.

Well, any spiritual circles that promotes 'not have sex' is proposterous, unless they don't have a true understanding of celibacy. Because celibacy has nothing to do with 'not having sex' physically. Celibacy is a state of mind. And what pertains to discipline and its faults. Krishnamurti helped me out into completely taking action on non-discipline This concept is not a new-phenomena. It has existed for centuries obviously. When we read Bhadavad Gita, it talks about non-goal oriented action or non-goal oriented fight. When we read Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu, they both harshly criticize Confucius for being overly effort conscious, habits creating conscious, because Confucius was too much of a pragmatist and a group-think type of person. Confucius understood people don't change and that people are prone to the status-quo, so his idealogy was based off of using that human nature to the advantage of his version of 'harmony'. To Confucius' eyes, this is harmony, but it's an absolute travesty because although people may seem to be following a certain habit, a certain discipline, (people love being enslaved, even if it takes so much effort, but you hold it very well saying this 'effort' is something that is detrimental to society sometimes) Chuang Tzu would argue Confucius just loves to follow the status quo and not challenge people, eventually destroying flow, good reason, even good politics because people don't truly abide by nature. But I feel it needs both. Effort 50%, non-effort 50%. OSHO argues the same. OSHO would tell people not to be harsh on 'disciplinaries', but rather adopt them, and at the same time, understand what true 'effortlessness' is. OSHO would even recommend Confucius books to his commune, even though that book is riddled with ideas of discipline, effort, habits, which is a contrary view of what OSHO always held. But he understood so much is important in creating the soil for spiritual growth. And that soil may be something that has to be practical: like effort, discipline etc. of which you like to think is detrimental somehow.

Reading diligently, I know people call this neurons rewiring, but to me it's not a repitetive action that I feel in the brain, the sensations. It's not pain, it's quite pleasurable at times, but if there is a pain, mildly, there is a pain. I first got this sensation in the brain through meditation, doing meditation using a technique I got from a local meditation center. I also get this sensation when studying the sciences. But only when I appreciate the sciences interconnecting it to the insights I get in meditation, never before it. I know for sure many scientists and mathematicians will feel neurons in their brain rewiring, but I doubt that they feel it to the degree of sensation as mine. It's not only the sensation that exists in the brain, the sensation starts from the root of the brain spreading the 'insight' like a branch to my prefrontal cortex, back of my brain, the whole of my brain, to the whole of my body, and even out of my body and to the world. This insight I get is never cumulative. It's always, even when I study the sciences, maths, any reading, accumulation never gets me to the sensation I feel from the root of my brain. It's always that this insight comes about when I discard thoughts from the brain. Whenever there is a discarding, or loss of thought or emotion, or a loss of ideas in my brain, when I lose something I get an insight. whether that insight comes about because of some reading, logical analysis I've done in order to lose something in my mind, an idea, thought...etc., or simply from meditation I feel the sensation with the insight. I asked Chat GPT4, and it said, it's a bit weird, and maybe I should consult somebody. It only references "rewiring of neurons" but the problem is, my sensation in the brain feels or seems vastly different. It's not a simple understanding of a proof in mathematics, and I feel a bit of a connecting sensation in the brain. The sensation I feel is not just 'a connecting' feeling. It's much more purer and clearer than that. The closest thing I read that was similar to this was when Krishnamurti described a 'sensation in the brain' in his diary I read. But I can't be sure that is even the same thing he is referencing to what I'm saying here. I really want to know from anyone, to what degree in terms of sensation in the body do they feel when they study maths, sciences, do reading, or even meditate? Sensory feeling, mind you, not an emotion, thought, or an idea. Sensory. I just get impatient when Chat GPT 4 says that sensations in the brain can be good when it happens mildly, but not when it's excessive, so go consult someone? Chat GPT can be dumb sometimes, so I ask you.