aurum

I get that. We could define societal Shadow as just unconsciousness, devilry, corruption, and all the different forms of selfishness that exist. I think the issue is if you equate that to trauma. Trauma, as most people define it, tends to be more basic, emotional and human-centered. Having trauma is not the same as unconsciousness. You can heal your trauma and still be deeply unconscious. The trauma-frame also runs the potential risk of just becoming too reductionistic. You can easily miss the importance of something like biology, systems thinking or flatten developmental hierarchies. It suggests a previously "whole" state for humanity that has been lost, rather than seeing evolving complexity, morality and intelligence. I think you do a good job of avoiding that trap but many do not. At the ultimate existential level, I see unconsciousness not as something humans either are or aren't, but more so as a feature inherent to consciousness itself. But that's probably another conversation.

I watched some of her videos. I’m sure she helps people, but she does not understand consciousness. Watch at your own risk.

What is God?

Freak size:

Lebron James is a total freak. This is him already in high school. Everyone already knew he was about to dominate the NBA: He's now 40 and still playing at an elite level after over 20 years. Freak longevity.

Like what?

Assuming the opposite gender thinks about sex the way you do is obvious projection.

Yes. But that's exactly why it would be easy to assume it's inherently a bad idea.

Look, we can absolutely draw distinctions between tribal dynamics, kingship, and democracy. But I wouldn’t make those distinctions at the cost of missing the underlying similarities. Removing a tribal leader is often not simple, democratic, or egalitarian. It can mean challenging the tribe’s entire mythos, social structure, and ancestral order. It’s not necessarily easier and often requires violence or exile. Surface-level consensus can mask deeper coercion. So this framing ends up romanticizing tribal life. Just knowing your leaders isn’t the defining feature of a non-authoritarian system. Everyone in Russia knows Vladimir Putin, is he not authoritarian? In fact, in many authoritarian systems, the individual becomes more powerful than the institution. They are a god-king, whose word overrides any law or structure. Authoritarianism runs deeper than form. It’s about top-down control, power centralization, suppression of dissent, enforced conformity, and resistance to plurality. And that pattern can manifest in any system.

Canada and the US could do merger if it made sense for both sides. And if there was a respect for national sovereignty in the process. It's not unreasonable that a US-Canada supernation could be beneficial.

How exactly are you seeing trauma and the Shadow in this case? Is it just about emotional healing and integrating polarities, or is it more than that? I'm asking because this is an area we consistently diverge. So I want to make sure I'm getting this right.

Really good. Although I'd argue it's still not as neutral as you are framing it. Trauma only goes so far. Negative manifestations of authoritarianism are not just activated, they are systemically emergent from those with authoritarian physiology and cognitive development.

Low: objective moralization, lack of construct-awareness and metacognition,

Cultural relativism:

Alright then. I appreciate this exchange, it has helped me clarify my thinking. But I am going to exit this conversation because I think we are just not going to agree. I may write a summary post later to fully address all the dialogues in this thread.

See, it worked

Short-term: work on setting the frame early, leading and physical initiation. Be more direct in your intentions. Tell her you find her attractive, tell her you want to date her. Talk about you and her. Avoid being platonic. Long-term: develop yourself as a man. The more you develop yourself, the less you have to actively do. She will just naturally see you as an attractive guy, even if you are friends.

Like what? In this case, seeds are not just being passively planted. It's more analogous to say seeds are being generated from the soil itself. And the seeds also feedback onto the soil. I would say the AI estimates are too conservative. It's a good starting point, but the AIs are going to pull from heritability studies to answer that question unless prompted otherwise. And my position is that these studies are going to underestimate the effect for reasons I've already pointed out.

Observe what makes things funny. If something makes you genuinely laugh, pause and examine it. Notice the timing, the rhythm, the vocal tonality, body language, frame control, element of surprise, freedom of expression, playfulness, saying the quiet part out loud, sarcasm, self-deprecation etc etc etc. Also notice when humor fails and what is NOT funny. You could start with watching both good and bad standup comedy. Why do some comedians kill it and others flop? The more you observe, the more you may be able to train your mind.

If you are living somewhere that hasn't yet developed democracy, someone has to do it.

It matters from a pragmatic, teaching POV. If I posted a video of some rambling fool and said they grasped God, that would confuse a lot of people and lead them down the wrong path. So yes, ultimately grasping God is for you. But assessing teachings still matters.

Those are good points. The only issue I have is with the framing of physiology as inert. It's not inert, it is active and shaping your experience all times, demogogue or no demagogue. Physiology is like gravity.

But your emotional leanings will dictate what scaffolding you choose to erect and keep in place. So making a clean distinction here doesn't work. The ideologies don't have to be identical in surface-level content, just in structure. You can have Christian authoritarianism, Islamic authoritarianism, socialist authoritarianism, capitalist authoritarianism, etc. The point is that they are all authoritarian, and they all have the same structure because they are all coming from the same deeper biological drivers. Many will. But if they don't have the right biology for it, ultimately they will not subscribe to it. This takes for granted how significant biology is. The studies cannot and don't need to predict specific ideology. They just have to show a link to authoritarians structure, and that's exactly what they have done. That conclusion does not follow because culture is rooted in biology. The soil is not inert. It is active in shaping what ideologies survive or exist at all.

Royal bloodlines is just a formalization of tribal authoritarianism. It's part of the scaling up. It's also not historically accurate to say "almost no European king was ever deposed". A quick google / AI search will show you this. You have King Louis XVI during the French Revolution, King Charles I during the English Civil War, King Ferdinand VII in Spain (multiple times), and on and on.

It's a good explanation of non-duality. But I don't get the sense this guy has really grasped himself as God.