aurum

In that case, I’d definitely shoot for increasing your income until you’re at least 250k a year. 1-2 million invested I think is also a good goal, but that will likely take longer.

What about family? You’re going to need a solid income if you want kids. Most of that other stuff can be done relatively cheap.

What are your long-term goals? I think what you outlined here is your better option. Stay invested and focus on growing your income with your current income. Only touch that money if you truly have something worthwhile, like a solid business opportunity. Otherwise, you eat shit. 165k is nice but you want to grow that number over the years.

@CarbonI recommend instead of trying to get rid of your anxiety, consciously leverage it into becoming more responsible. You are recognizing the seriousness your situation demands. This not a mistake. Alternatively, you could also decide the stress is too much, leave your business and find some lower-stress, lower responsibility position. But keep in mind you will probably be poor and not be contributing much to society.

The bottom line is that if you refuse to acknowledge that your experience is God, you will never understand God. And you will never understand Truth, because all experience is absolutely true. Right now you are looking at God.

I’ll take a shot at it. Sanity is a particularized state of consciousness characterized by internal coherence. It is generated by the sum total and interconnection of rules, memory and consistency within the experience. Because sanity is local to that state of consciousness, it does not need to hold outside that state. Sanity is useful for creating certain kinds of experiences and must necessarily exist and be imagined within the infinity of Mind. Insanity is also a state of consciousness, characterized by a lack of internal coherence. It is a loosening of said rules and interconnections. Taken all the way, insanity is unlimited Mind, unbound by all constraints. Insanity is not conducive for most creatures and normal human experience. Because it of this and because it is fundamentally a different state of consciousness, it must be experienced to be truly understood.

Relative = the absolute! Otherwise you are making a duality. All you have is experience.

This is backwards. Heaven = experience = the absolute. I'd recommend more contemplation then. Every question I asked you is answerable.

Anti-vaxx nonsense.

I find this take simplistic. It understates the challenge of actually tackling climate change. But I still feel it is good all things considered. High: non-ideological, non-partisan, global perspective, empirical, risk-reward analysis

Leaving behind Joe Rogan is growing up.

Low: circular reasoning, question-begging, justification This one is also good:

It’s a hard but good lesson. Never get too attached to any of these influencers. Learn, but don’t idolize. Stay in your own power and authority. And never doubt self-deception.

You say we have knowledge good and evil, but you've still yet to define or give any criteria for what that is. Seems rather strange given that good deeds are what get you to heaven, and bad deeds take you to hell. If such knowledge is objective and innate, why is there so much disagreement among people? How do we know we should listen to Jesus and not someone else? Watch the personal attacks.

Aware of what? You've not provided any criteria for what counts as good or evil. My kid nephew hits his infant sister and cries when he doesn't get to hold a spoon, so I don't think eyes of child will be sufficient here.

Who is deciding what deeds count as morally sound or unsound? And on what criteria? What happens if evil is committed without repentance?

Can you be more specific?

@TruthFreedom what is heaven?

Oh god, I had forgotten about Pascal's wager. That one is exceptionally bad. Maybe the worst on the list. I had gone through these proofs over a decade ago when I was deconstructing my religious upbringing. Leo's channel didn't exist yet and I had no real direct experience with God. So I came to the conclusion of "I think all these proofs are bullshit, but I still have no idea if God is actually real". It was a profound full-circle moment to come back to these proofs, after having achieved at least some direct consciousness of God. What a plot-twist.

@sda my guess is that it's just genetics. Your genetic welfare is always unevenly distributed. On somethings you get lucky, on others not so much. Your whole body is likely not aging as rapidly as your hair. The reality is there may not be a solution for you besides hair dye. See how far you can get with lifestyle modifications like diet, toxin reduction, exercise and sleep. Talk to a doctor and see what they say. Maybe research some more alternative treatments like red light therapy.

I'd like to have one. Although I know there's more to go, I've accomplished a world class big-picture understanding of reality. But that required sacrificing quite a lot. So I think at this point, a family could be helpful for rounding out my development. Having kids is also still important from a collective perspective.

The models are fine, you just have to synthesize the disparate pieces. Individualism and collectivism feedback on each other in complex and sometimes counter-intuitive ways. If you read and understand her work, you will see Susanne Cook-Greuter is not enforcing a rudimentary hyper-individualistic / deconstructive frame on Green. Her framing is nuanced and understands Green's increasing interconnection with all of life. There's no contradiction here.

This is one of the best steelman cases I've come across for conservatism. Lots of crossover with Leo's work: If you're a liberal / leftist, these are the kind of people you need to be sharpening your intellectual sword against. You get a false sense of confidence debating with MAGA fools, like a boxer who has only ever fought children. Your political growth will be severely handicapped by this. Liberalism / leftism cannot possibly contain reality. And you're already a conservative / MAGA, you should watch this as well. Many of you cannot properly articulate the value of your own philosophy. This does a great disservice to conservatism and accelerates the spread of unhinged liberalism / leftism. You can also combine this with other thinkers like Leo Strauss to further sharpening your sword. I myself have made a list of such people for future reference.

To quote from Susan Cook-Geuter on the Individualist stage (4/5), which approximates to the transition to SD Green: This all correlates with the SD Green value system. So no, Green really is the first post-conventional, deconstructive stage in these models. All stages below that, including Orange, are conventional or pre-conventional. You can also look at Ken Wilber's Integral map and see this for yourself. Re-coalescing of community does not mean you have integrated conservatism. In practice, all these SD Green communities are full of hippy fantasies, leftist politics and delusional anti-mainstream thinking. That's what actually happens when you actually gather a bunch of SD Green people together. This is the opposite of conservatism. And it's not just because they're not "truly Green". They ARE Green. That's the problem. I'm sorry if I'm being blunt, but this is an absurd position you are taking. You seem to truly value community, but don't let that bias blind you on this. If you want to integrate conservatism, you must go beyond Green.

That could be a way to bridge things. I’d definitely be thinking about ways to make it sustainable for your body. If this is going to be your career, it has to financially provide for you for a long time. Also, don’t try to predict things too far in advance and map everything out perfectly either. Life purpose evolves and often in unexpected ways. It could radically change over the years.