Aaron p

Excellent points. I'm growing more and more aware of how my imagination generates reality. Was chatting with my Buddhist teacher just last week about this analogy: A young person sees a person wearing a mask and holding a gun while exiting a bank, they point at the individual and say "Bad!" Clearly, while this does encapsulate some basic and obvious facts, it is also an oversimplification that will invariably fail to calculate other, key contextual artifacts. Maybe the individual is stealing money to pay for their child's cancer treatment or perhaps they're being blackmailed. These additive elements obviously don't excuse the action, but it does shine light on the fact that the real world is often more complex than what is comfortable or convenient for us to assess with the appropriate degree of realistic accuracy. Perhaps the individual is an undercover government agent. This analogy is a slightly accentuated example of how the mind can oversimplify things in the waking dream. AI calls this phenomena "Heuristic-Based Categorisation" or "Cognitive Shortcutting." As has been talked about by others in this community, fear is an excellent defence mechanism for these oversimplified projections. If you can take some scientific findings, formulate them into systematized ideology (set of ideas), enshroud the ideology with more ideas that are scary, come up with a neatly packaged term or identifying label for this "thing" and get everyone to subscribe to it... It will spread like wildfire and will be assumed to be as factual as the concrete on the pavement and the fear surrounding it will make it difficult or impossible for the masses to actually investigate. Some examples of ideas [that are actually ideologies within the mind] (pay close attention to the emotions you feel when hearing each label). Each of these causes a subconscious emotional trigger of being the -prototype- of X or Y: - professional (prototype of competence) - psychologist (prototype of understanding the mind). - astrophysicist (intelligent) - teacher (wholesome) Often you'll find that "professionals" are anything but competent (and yet their value stands) and astrophysicists might make common mistakes in the social domain. Some of my favourite negative ones (pay super close attention to the contextual and emotional sensations that are triggered within the mind and body when you view these terms): - narcissist. - ego maniac. - gaslighter. - terrorist. When the oversimplified mental projections of the mind (which are based in some truth) are shrouded in extra ideas that induce a particular amount of fear...people are energetically discouraged from analyzing them independently or critically.

It is just lack of awareness. Awareness is so powerful that it can generate all kinds of ideas. Ideas like "I'm a hero" or "we help the world grow." Used by Nazis and dictators. Nazis genuinely believed they were helping the world by killing millions of Jews. The same thing happens in society today in different ways.

Mostly the waiting room with Dimitri, and time expansion. Never experienced it, don't expect to. People talk about living alternate lives for years then coming back. As far as my experience goes, that's a load of horse. Also, that's psychedelics are good under all circumstances. What I've realised about them is that if you don't have your life together and your mind established, it can have really destructive effects. Can still produce necessary insane strength and insight, but at much greater suffering. Also I'm starting to get a serious experiential taste that humanity is more advanced than we think in certain remits (tech) (mostly hidden) and far, far, farrrrrrrr less advanced than we think in others. Also the strangeness of the universe, starting to get a flavour for that. Things like black holes, physics, quantum physics, in the natural realm, you can start to recognise that the idea that you know what's going on, is incorrect. You get little experiential tastes here and there and the only question is...if these are just little slices, I wonder how large the entire cake is 🍰 Also religion is simultaneously great for helping people at low levels of development but has collosal flaws. Essentially that it's methods are legit/real but they're too disjointed, symbolic and poetically indirect to provide transformation massive enough to where manual effort is no longer required. You can tell how much manual effort is involved. Feeling like your manually pushing your car up a 45° hill to get to god is a distinct religious factor I remember. Experientially. God's voice is discernable, distinct, trustworthy and extremely motherfucking powerful.

Ok I contemplated and now I have mind bending insight. I can see that if a person views someone else's actions as being bad enough to ignite hatred within himself, what is actually happening is self preservation. As it is a violation of the standards that literally generate his sense of identity. So In a weird twisted way, his primary motivation isn't to stop the suffering of others...his primary motivation is to protect his identity of someone who protects others. A complete self focus. I'm even tempted to say that the only reason he has the standards that generate his identity in the first place (the one that is being violated by others) is because those are the standards he wishes others to hold with him. Because what his identity literally exists as are ideas, when someone hurts another person in a way he wouldn't...they aren't breaking his identity in some symbolic way, they are literally dismembering his actual self before his eyes. Which will generate massive emotional upheaval. There are no circumstances under which emotional reactivity or volatility are the result of selflessness.

I suppose this is what distinguishes what selfishness is and what selfishness judges selfishness to be. Metaphysical selfishness Vs social selfishness. Be a tree..

@Leo Gura what about negative emotions that might be targeted at a person because they hurt others? Would this scenario not be a selfless motivation?

Lol

I actually completely get that. Good way of putting it. Another thought I was thinking is looking for the edge of my perceptive field. Like I can feel the edge/end of my phone, same thing for my car steering wheel and my TV remote. Can I feel the edge of my field of perception? Interesting thought. Cuz the perceptive field exists, here it is. It is here. So logic would tell me it has an edge or point at where it ceases. Also in terms of solid objects. It's interesting cuz if you look closely, what we define as a "solid object" is only that which our limbs can't pass through. Water wouldn't be, hard jelly wouldn't be, hardened glue...kind of. We could pass through it with lots of effort. And what about materials like oobleck (cornstarch and water), it's a solid object if it's hit with a car, but a fly will easily sink into it if it lands on top of it. Technically hardness Vs softness (solidity) would be the arrangement of molecules, or more specifically, their relationship to eachother, or even more specifically the speed of the vibration of the molecules in relation to eachother. Solidity seems to be determined by just how fast or slow something is vibrating.

@Basman technically not just men, but I was just following your lead But to add insult to injury, the various ways in which governments cripple people. It's not to say that one specific system or area has stupidity. Every area of humanity has stupidity. So the question isn't "does this area have stupidity?" The question is "how much damage does this area of stupidity inflict." What's even more incredible is that many of the government officials and policy developers are fully aware of the hundreds of thousands of crippled lives and the thousands, if not tens of thousands of suicides, including young people. They fane stupidity and ignorance to pretend like they're not aware that they're contributing to the suicides of thousands. When the inevitable time of reckoning comes, and it will, you can actually pay close attention and see the very moment when they start to panic. Which then clarifies that they aren't fighting for the freedom of civilians, they're fighting to continue their paying reputations. In their minds they know these facts are indeed true, and so they are forced to make a choice between 2 options: Option 1: Admit they directly contributed to the suicides of tens of thousands and lose their reputation, career and salary. Option 2: Continue causing suicides, keep their reputation, career and salary. Of course many will have chosen never to enter the system because they know they'll cause thousands of suicides and hundreds of thousands of broken lives and careers, but those people will never be seen. What's useful is how easily seen the ones who stayed now are. In other words, they continue causing suicides to save face.

Actually you raise a good point, probably to stop others from getting ideas. What I find more interesting however, is the government officials that make the systems that cause the suicides. The thing is, it happens. These are facts that are being spoken with minimal judgement. If I see a tree I say, "there is a tree." Or if I see a car I say, "there is a car." Or perhaps I see my dog and I say "there is my dog." These are statements that reflect reality. by this, what I mean is: what is being said, happens. What I also see is governmental systems that cause tens of thousands of males to commit suicide and they just brush it under the rug. And the ones who don't kill themselves either speak out or act out (some more subtly than others). And the ones that speak out or act out...the government points to these reactions as evidence that they they were correct, even though the only reason these people are behaving badly is because the government crippled them. See, if you just cripple peoples lives it's much easier to make them quiet and thereby maintain an illusion that everything's calm and beautiful, unless they interact with a particularly strong individual. If they commit suicide they are no longer a voice to be heard, and they point to the "speaking out" of the ones who don't commit suicide and say, "look! This individual is a dangerous person, this confirms it!" (In spite of the fact that they were the ones who caused the speaking out in the first place) which enables them to continue to be heavier and heavier and heavier. Until of course the system breaks after a couple hundred thousand suicides. It's like a suicide feedback loop that confirms it's own bias by crippling people then pointing to their bad behaviour thereafter and using it as evidence that the initial crippling was justified. what really gets me is that, statistically, there are children who are males who exist right now for whom it on only a matter of time before they grow up end up being victims to this. And within further statistics, some of them will be crippled so badly that, not only will they not be able to speak out, they won't be able to speak about it to anyone and some will simply commit suicide.

Leo's extremely opinionated. Just a good job most of them seem to be extremely accurate and helpful 🤩

Preach

Did some research, according to data, of all the people who enter an extremely negative situation in life in the UK and USA combined, lots commit suicide and it's not even reported. Of all of them, over the last 20 years, if 1% commit suicide that's 18,000, if 0.5% commit suicide that's 9,000 and if 0.1% commit suicide that's 1,800. From 2005. What's strange is, it doesn't get much media attention and that's a conservative estimation. There are different procedures in other countries. Namely, what is reported on

Put a bit of pressure on them and see how they behave. This works for me. Talk is talk

Careful, assuming you are wrong is as much a trap as assuming your right. The objective is to avoid assumptions altogether. It's a paradox, most people think they're right. Most people would be deluded. We understand this so we anticipate our own delusion. However doing this makes us less susceptible to delusion, and more likely to be right. Knowing this, we can practically assess that if we possess this level of mental agility, it's only appropriate to admit that this makes us more likely to be right in the end. However then also remembering that thinking your right, even with this meta perspective, once again makes you susceptible to being wrong, as per the initial logic. This can be combatted again with a further layer of meta perception. You just keep attacking it with layer after layer of meta intelligence. 2 supplementary insights: - usually it's safe to assume that there's a lot that we don't know. I'd say the entirety of mankind still doesn't know how gnarly reality can get. - don't fall into the trap of being right without being loving. Or perhaps this point could be better articulated by saying; there's a difference between theoretical/knowledgeable correctness and spiritual, energetic or loving correctness.