aurum

I looked up Vietnam on the CPI (https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023/index/vnm). They rank somewhere in the middle at #83, which also makes this significant. Seems their leadership is in the midst of attempting to crackdown on these kind of things. My guess is that she could have continued to get away with what she was doing, if it weren't for the fact that she caused a bank run. A bank run is very bad for the government as a whole. They cannot allow such things.

I am suggesting that many of our current paradigms, mindsets, institutions and otherwise ways of operating society are functional, precisely because they are congruent with our level development. There needs to be a balance of idealism and pragmatism. Fundamentally, the society you are describing will not exist in our lifetime. I understand that is what you are for. And that's a valid perspective. What I am asking you to consider here, is that we are not at a point where society is collectively ready to function like that. And if you attempt to structure society is such a way, it will badly backfire. Yes, the mundane reality of accomplishing goals can be far less exciting than daydreaming. And I think there is something to be said for daydreaming and not immediately getting sucked into the "how's and what's". But wouldn't you also have to agree that if you find your vision exciting, it's exactly because you imagine it could happen in real life? You aren't just excited about it as a theoretically possibility, you imagine that society could actually function this way.

I actually went to visit the Venus Project and got a tour. As far as I can tell, it has been a complete failure. It broke my heart really. Jacque and his partner essentially devoted their entire adult lives to making that project a reality, and they have almost nothing to show for it. And they seemed like genuine people who wanted to do good. Of course, it's possible that Jacque's work will be rediscovered. Or perhaps his ideas will inspire someone else in the future. But I would be wary of chasing these utopian dreams. You might just end up spending your whole life on a dead end.

It's got nothing to do with how I personally feel about doing nothing. Don't get me wrong, you have a beautiful vision in many ways and I want to acknowledge you for that. There are some impulses here that are deeply correct. But society at large is nowhere near stage Turquoise. We barely even know what Turquoise is and what it looks like, because so few people have gotten there. So now here's a test: if you truly care about actualizing this beautiful vision, you need to accept that much of society is going to be a brutual game of survival for still many years to come. Until you accept that, you will just be stuck in utopianism. And you will actually be less successful at helping to bring your vision into reality, not more.

If we can't agree on ~33,000 deaths, which is the estimate I've seen from every reputable source, then this discussion will not go very far. We are not even relying on the same basic information.

That was excellent. They both argued their points quite effectively while keeping the conversation civil. I think what is missing from this dialogue, especially for Dr. Mike, is a few solid transpersonal experiences. Dr. K has had some so he understands the bigger picture better, while Dr. Mike seems more stuck in rational / materialism. And this makes him very skeptical of anything spiritual like Aryuveda, since for him spirituality fundamentally doesn't mean much. This is of course not to say that all of Aryuveda is correct. But when someone understands that the ancients were not just superstitious primitives, and that in some ways their knowledge exceeded that of modern scientists, then you are much more likely to have to seriously consider Eastern practices. Personally I am interested in integrating Eastern ideas into my practice, although I've not yet figured out how exactly that will look. The challenge is sorting out what is actually true and what actually works for patients / clients.

@Michael569 great list. I especially like the part about description, not persuasion (which is mostly just manipulation in this context). That really seems to be the only way high consciousness sales can exist. Here's my piece of wisdom: Drop this idea that simply because a customer is wiling to pay for something, that you are offering them value. This is an incredibly toxic belief that is widespread in the internet marketing community. Rationalization on top of rationalization about why you should just figure out what the market wants and give it to them. Doesn't matter what it is as long as there is demand. In reality, demand =! true value. There might be demand for cigarettes and drugs, can you honestly say selling those things is a high consciousness business that brings value to people? Perhaps in a twisted sort of way you could rationalize it. But it's obvious to me that people can demand all sorts of things that are not higher consciousness and may even hurt them. If you actually loved your customers, you would care about what is best for them. End of story. Of course it practically may be more of a challenge to sell higher consciousness products. You might be get all excited about how your product is going to change the world, only to discover that people just want low consciousness garbage and get outcompeted. So get too idealistic either. You have to find a balance of demand and value.

You went wrong by severely underestimating the challenges of survival and the current development of mankind. The world you are describing is not going to exist for a very long time.

Your graph ends in 2023. We are already 4 months in 2024, with much the damage being done in the last several months. Also consider: 1) How much higher would the population number in 2023 have been without the war? 2) Attempting a genocide does not necessarily mean you have successfully eliminated an entire population. That may take much longer for Israel to accomplish, assuming they continue on their current path. The genocide is ongoing.

I would be skeptical of anyone who claims to be enlightened. No one can even agree on what that means, let alone how we would determine that someone had achieved it. But to answer your question, spiritual work as not killed my enjoyment for life. In fact, I'd say I have more happiness at this point in my life than ever. I've been able to set up a very nice situation for myself. So don't despair and think spiritual work is going to turn you into some kind of robot. That's just not been my experience. At the same time, some things have lost their charge. You do need to surrender some of the fighting that your ego is constantly doing against reality for the sake of survival. The tradeoff of peace is a lack of drama.

That's going too far. I do see the potential for emotional bonding between human and AI, at least from the human side. I've already had several conversations with ChatGPT that were emotionally fulfilling and felt similar to talking to a good friend. But I don't think all those predictions are going to happen in 10 years. The integration of AI will not be that total.

I would guess the second option is way more likely. The actual THC you were exposed to sounds minimal from your story.

Could be both. Placebo effects are often objectively measurable.

Maybe you have a genuine sensitivity that I don't have. But it seems like you could be reading too much into this. The exposure you had was minimal, it probably barely affected you.

I think of it more generally as pain. You can just feel how hurt a lot of these people are. And then they clash with women's groups, who are often also experiencing a lot of pain. And each sees the other side as the source of the pain. Note I am not saying it is invalid for these groups to be in pain. The pain is often extremely valid, based on real experiences of trauma and / or lack of some kind. And I see valid points made by both sides at times, although the bias and distortion is very real as well. It's obvious how this leads to tons of conflict. I think another caveat to consider is not to engage in trauma reductionism. I see this in a lot of SD Green-type communities, where everyone is hyper-focused on healing their unworthiness and pain. But this can lead to gross oversimplifications of things. A multi-lens approach will likely be more effective.

It started early in the morning and runs late into the night. I would definitely not fly in same day. Rest up. Also, Tony keeps the room temperature freezing. So bring.warm clothes you can easily slip on and off as needed.

If you want to start a conscious men's group, you can't make it about pickup. The community as a whole is still far too immature for that. You need to make it about things that conscious grown-ups would be interested in. Things like inner work, developing intimate relationships, conscious communication skills, etc.

Creepiness is about violation of autonomy, comfort and consent. If fundamentally you respect all those things in a woman, then almost nothing you do will seem creepy. Alternatively, if you don't respect those things, then trying to mimic non-creepy behavior is still likely to fail. Making the internal switch will help more than anything else if you struggle with creepiness. Use examples to help program your mind with the right attitude, not to mimic.

Highly unlikely. Inequality comes in waves. There will be a correction. There are solutions. And whatever solutions we don't have could be worked out. The issue is implementation. People have to be ready for solutions.

Yes to all of these. But corruption is also a much deeper issue than just cutting corners. That's just one way corruption can manifest. Corruption requires the elimination of strong self-bias. The most self-biased people will be the most corrupt.

There are official tests. Just search them online. The problem is not the lack of tests, it's the influence of self-bias when taking said tests. It's easy to skew the results once you've studied the model and know the "right" answers to give yourself the result you are looking for. The best way to actually determine your level is to rigorously study the model and then do personal development work for many years. Your level will become much more apparent, although always open to some degree of interpretation.

@cjoseph90 I went to UPW once. It's good as far as basic personal development material. You could definitely see some practical changes in your life from going, depending on how far along you are in your journey. But yes, you will definitely sit through a bunch of marketing pitches. A significant portion of the lectures are a mix of information and selling. And lots of people there are stuck in self-help group think. It is also expensive for the average person. If you have above average disposable income, then it might be worth it.

Extreme reactionary right-wing policies also do not get codified. In a sense, you could say these people are as naive as leftists, just in a different way. The US is not going back to becoming some sort of Christian theocracy. What is codified at any given moment is mostly just the status quo and our recent past. Which I would argue leans conservative, since conservatism as a strategy is about maintaining the status quo. That's its fundamental flaw: clinging to what is. Leftism is about spotting the errors in the status quo (in a non-regressive way) and pushing for something better, usually based off of higher developmental values. Thus when leftist policies are codified, they are usually replacing things that are outdated and have been causing problems for a long time. It's only after the problems of the current policies become very obvious that change happens. So when left policies do work, they usually work well. Of course, none of this is to say that just because a leftist gets something passed that it must automatically be good. It could be too strong a push or unworkable in some other way. But I think you already understand that. Asymmetry is probably the right frame here, as opposed to assuming it only happens to the right or the left.

I understand all that. Very reasonable. My point is that you may struggle in your quest due to the nature of leftism and how it goes wrong. The majority of harmful leftist ideas just don't get codified. Yes it is harder. When leftism works, it works very well. But it's not just because it's harder that people are going philosophical. The fundamental error of leftism is philosophical. Thus, philosophy is appropriate. Agreed.

Well that's a highly debatable number. Regardless, if we want to go with 50%+, I'd consider that a lot. That's the problem. The left-leaning laws on the books ARE the ones that are more reasonable, less harmful and more workable. Otherwise they would not have gotten there and sustained with any length of time. The more problematic policies just simply don't get passed. But many of these positions still very much exist among leftists regardless. And then they want to blame it on right-wing sabotage, which of course does happen but is not the full story. The fundamental critique of leftism is that it's too utopian. Expecting to find such policies being enacted in the real world is by definition unlikely to exist. I consider myself mostly a leftist. And as I already said, most of the things on the books are fairly reasonable. So there's not much to discuss. I think a more productive conversation will not strictly focus on current laws. It's about leftism more generally, and self-reflecting on how and why we as leftists get it wrong. If you want to strictly focus on current laws, that's obviously your choice.