KingCrimson

Of course it can be worthwhile if you are the type of person for it. We need high consciousness politicians with integrity and intelligence. You could get in touch with the local organization of whatever party you would want to run for and see if the type of work they do is something that would be interesting to you.

This is amazing. The "TADAAA!" at 2:06 really got me. Also love the random Terence towards the end.

@Andromeda Dr. K of HealthyGamer has a lot of useful advice on these issues. You can find other videos, but perhaps this one would be a good start. I'm almost certain you would find this very insightful.

@bazera It's definitely possible. I've had many such realizations on LSD, including my first one ever. Dosage matters, but also how deep you are willing to go. If I sit down to meditate during a trip things get very existential very quickly, as opposed to screwing around trying to distract oneself doing other stuff. For me, 250ug can be enough to have a full realization, provided I sit down to meditate. If I was trying to distract myself with playing guitar or whatever else, it probably wouldn't work though. How you are able to handle the trip is very important imo. It is possible to stay on the surface level the entire time out of fear of going too deep. Or you can decide to sit downand meditate and things will escalate very quickly.

Ahh, a lot of what you are saying sounds very familiar. I can see a lot of myself in you. I can relate to your story a lot and my life purpose is very similar to yours. It's a bit complicated for me because my entire life I have been struggling to decide between two passions (philosophy and music). I ended up studying both of them and I am sort of working both in tandem, which is a challenge, but I have made peace with the fact that I simply can't decide, and that I really don't have to, and I can instead combine the two and have both benefit and transform each other. But enough of me, this is just to say I believe that your life purpose is beautiful, I understand where you're coming from, and my wish is that you will succeed in this endeavour! I think you already figured out quite a lot of important stuff, but in very general terms. What seems to be missing, or maybe you simply didn't include it in your post, is actual, clear, precise, actionable goals. It's great to say that you want to work on your "music theory" or "piano", but HOW are you actually going to do it, what's the timeframe, what's the highest priority? You've probably heard of the 80-20 rule. Especially if you don't have a lot of time it's important that you spend your time effectively and do those things which have the most impact. So, this is something I would think about. Here are some things I might do if I were in your situation. Piano, Music Theory, Songwriting, Ear Training Looking at your list, I would say that definitely getting 1-on-1 lessons with a piano teacher would be my #1 priority. Your playing ability is absolutely fundamental and you can actually kill multiple birds with one stone here. You can tell your teacher what it is you want to achieve, and he/she will structure the teaching accordingly. You don't have to necessarily focus on being able to play very hard classical pieces by Chopin or whatever. For now, you need only some basic playing ability, so you can play chords and melodies at the same time. I would focus on learning chords and their inversions, scales, learning to accompany yourself on the piano while singing, and coming up with chord progressions on the fly. I think your best bet might be a jazz pianist, because essentially, you want to learn improvisation, and jazzers definitely know how to do that. Getting piano lessons would not just improve your playing ability, your teacher could also work with you on your music theory, ear training, songwriting ability, and how to craft effective melodies. So just by doing this one thing, you've basically got the first five points on your list tackled already, plus ear training. Don't underestimate ear training, definitely ask your teacher to practice that with you! Maybe 5 minutes at the beginning of every lesson or something, that would net you huge results. If you live in a city, you shouldn't have trouble finding a suitable private tutor with some teaching experience under their belt. There are a lot of music college graduates out there trying to make a living and looking for students. Not every good musician is a good teacher, though - Make sure that your tutor actually enjoys teaching and doesn't just do it because he failed to make it as a professional musician. This is usually easy to tell by the vibes he/she gives off. Recording, Mixing, Mastering Well, this is a bit trickier, because it really depends on what exactly it is you want to do. Judging by the artists you've named (Enya, Tame Impala etc.) it seems like you actually don't need to be a world-class mixing and mastering engineer. You just need the ability to find your way around the DAW, have a speedy workflow, and craft the sounds that you want. But I might not focus too much on mixing and especially mastering for now, because the other stuff (piano lessons) is more important, and also because in practice, you will probably want to have your songs mixed and mastered by a professional anyway. Yes, it costs money, but it's well worth it, especially if you aren't that great at it yourself. Of course, you need some basic mixing skills. But for the final mix and especially the master I would highly recommend sourcing that job out to a professional and just focusing on the more creative and less technical aspects of music creation for now. If you're like me, you enjoy that more than the technical stuff anyway. Synths As far as synths go, there's a teaching tool you might have come across called Syntorial. It is a software tool/course for learning synthesis from the ground up. I really loved using it and learned a lot. It comes with its own little synthesizer and teaches you to recognize certain sounds and then build them yourself from scratch. This focus on ear training is great and absolutely essential when it comes to creating your own sounds. You will learn to recognize "ahh, this is a square wave with this kind of filter opening up at a certain speed" and stuff like that. You will learn how to deliberately create the kind of sound you want without having to resort to pure trial and error. You can certainly learn by trial and error alone, but that will take ages. There is even a special subsection that focuses on the very popular Serum software synthesizer in particular. So, this is a great resource you might want to check out. Well worth the price imo, I can't remember how much it was but it's not expensive. Obviously, there are many other resources on synthesis, including books, so definitely make use of that. I really like Syntorial because it's 100% practical, you complete exercise after exercise, and you will see more actual results than by merely reading a book. Music theory Music theory is something you can work on with your teacher as well. Remember that music theory is a tool and that it should be used as such. It's not enough to know the theory intellectually - you have to be able to actually work with it in a practical manner. That's why it's so important to learn chords, scales etc by heart. This stuff needs to be part of your muscle memory so you don't even have to think about it too much. Obviously, you can find many great books on music theory too. I like this one a lot, for example - it's compact, concise, yet comprehensive and practical, aimed at the modern musician. https://www.stretta-music.com/en/haunschild-the-new-harmony-book-nr-285912.html Singing If you want to learn to sing well, I would recommend getting a teacher for that as well. If this is not feasible due to time/money constraints, I would say stick with the piano lessons for now, and just make a habit of singing more often. I like to find karaoke tracks on YouTube and sing along with them, for example. Experiment, get comfortable with your voice and with singing in front of an audience. Karaoke bars are or public jam sessions are great for that, too. Music industry Music industry is a huge topic, but I'll give just one piece of advice: Playlists. Today, it's all about getting your tracks into playlists on Spotify, YouTube etc. That's how people discover new music nowadays. Do some research on that. Most playlists have very specific requirements (i.e. there might be a playlist where only acoustic guitars, female vocals are allowed etc.). Go and find playlists that fit your style and get your tracks on there, that will get you lots of exposure. Discipline / How to practice more As to "How do I practice more?" - There is no easy and clear answer to this, but I believe that if you get very specific and clear about your practice routine and schedule a certain amount of time each day, this would make it a lot easier for you. Have your piano teacher devise a daily practice schedule for you, and stick to that religiously. This alone should solve many of your problems and I believe you will see much quicker results than you are seeing right now. Regarding Whiplash It's a great movie, I enjoyed it. But it's important to know that it is not an accurate portrayal of what music college is like. If you're curious, this video does a great job of explaining which parts of the movie are realistic and which not so much. Last piece of advice: You seem to know this already, but you need to create A LOT of shit. Don't be a perfectionist about your songs. Create, create, create. Create a lot of shitty music. Finish a track, even if it's bad, and move on to the next one. As you do this, you will naturally get better at songwriting, and sooner or later, every once in a while you will write something that you will actually be rather happy with. Alright, I could go on but I'll leave it here for now, hope some of this stuff will be useful and inspire you to take your life purpose to the next level.

I'm a musican with a degree in music production. I don't work professionally in the music industry right now though, just making my own tunes and playing in a band. Having said that, I have been playing various instruments since I was 4 and I think I know a thing or two about the field and how to practice. It really depends on a lot of factors, and I think you need to be very clear and specific on what it is you want to do. Music is such a huge field that even mastering any one small subset could take you a lifetime. You could spend your whole life practising just a single instrument and get really good at that. Hell, not even a single instrument, you could spend your entire life just working on one particular style of music on that instrument, e.g. if you wanted to be a jazz guitarist you would have to practice completely different stuff than a classical guitarist. The same goes for all aspects of music production - you could focus on synthesis, sound design, mixing, mastering etc., all of which are so involved that people specialize in one of these areas and find work that way. Another area is music theory, ear training, solfege etc. Depending on what it is you want to do you will need certain skillsets more and others not so much. If you want to produce EDM music, what you want to focus your practice on will be completely different from a classical violinist. Do you play an instrument? Do you have any formal musical training or went to a music school, or did you mess around on your own so far? Do you want to get a job in the music industry as a producer, engineer, arranger, composer, session musician or whatever, or do you want to make your own, original music? What style of music do you want to create? Depending on the answers, I could give you much more specific advice. Generally speaking, my best advice would be to get regular 1-on-1 lessons with a teacher. If you wanted to master rock/jazz guitar, for example, have guitar lessons once a week with a guy who has mastered the instrument in that particular style. The lessons should be at least 50 minutes, 25 is not really enough in my opinion. Let your teacher guide you and do your homework diligently. You will learn how to practice correctly, and having weekly lessons will motivate you to do your homework, if only because you don't want to disappoint your teacher. 30 minutes a day of instrument practice is not a whole lot, but if you did that for a couple years, you would get enormous results. Obviously, the more time you put in, the quicker your progress will be. If you actually wanted to be a professional musician, 30 minutes a day will not be enough, though. All the great players I know had a time in their life when they just really went to town with their practice, focusing on almost nothing else for a couple of years, practising anywhere from 8 to 12 hours A DAY. This time is usually music college, and this is when you really get good. When you go out into the world as a professional musician, you won't have that much time to practice anymore with all the touring, gigging etc. But yeah, if you shared a bit more about what you have done so far and how you go about creating your music, I'm sure I could offer some more specific advice. Writing your own music is one of the most satisfying things I know in this life and I am happy for you that you found enjoyment in it as well. I would gladly help you improve as a songwriter and musician, just need a little more info.

@Epikur Rammstein is not a Nazi-band, nor even right-wing. If you knew the first thing about them you would know that they are actually extremely left-wing and anti-fascist. This is obvious to anyone who understands the lyrics, and the band have again and again confirmed their stance in interviews. They even made a song called "Links 2 3 4" ("Left 2 3 4") to address these ignorant accusations. The lyrics of the chorus translate to: "They want my heart in the RIGHT place, but looking down on me It's beating LEFT LEFT" Please do your research and do not spread ridiculous misinformation. You have no clue what you're talking about. Also, the blanket statement "German music is bad" is ridiculous. What the hell even is "German music"? There are German musicians playing all different kinds of genres, and of course what you will like or not will be highly relative. There is plenty of awesome music in Germany if you know where to look. On the topic of learning German, I am a native German speaker myself but I'm afraid I don't have any particularly great advice. May I suggest though that you looking for a "fast way to learn German" reeks of trying to find a shortcut, in which case you would set yourself up for failure from the get-go. Realize that learning German will take considerable dedication, time, and effort and will be a project that you will likely work on for many years until you become fluent. I myself have learned some Italian using busuu.com. I liked it. It's easy to find other language learners to help and correct you. Within a week I had found an Italian guy who was learning German, and he would be correcting my exercises while I would be correcting his. I thought it was a great experience and it worked better than I had expected. Maybe you wanna check it out as well.

@Carl-Richard Very interesting and good to know. Thank you for sharing!

@MarkKol What are people doing on their phones? Listening to music, watching videos and photographs, playing games, among other things. What's the use of a smartphone if there is nobody there to create all this stuff which you can access on your phone? As I have said previously, I find this whole business of comparing apples to oranges and trying to argue which one is "better" or which one "people" "care more about" a rather pointless exercise. I am curious what you are expecting to gain? Understanding?

@Knowledge Hoarder First of all, I have to say I find your response quite disrespectful and childish, and I don't want to engage in a verbal fistfight. I'm not your enemy. You are right, I don't spend that much time on the forum. I don't know who you mean by "some people". Since you came to a thread about the hypocrisies of the West and your only contribution was an off-topic complaint about Russian propaganda, I assumed you were aiming your response at people in this thread. I have certainly seen some people here spreading Russian propaganda and looking at the issue in a one-sided fashion. What I have seen even more of though is people who are extremely biased towards the Western/NATO perspective, which is not surprising, since that's what we are exposed to every day in our media anyway. Leo even made an entire thread about the Russian perspective because so many people have a hard time understanding it and are only engaging in demonization. I find it more valuable to expose people here to the Russian perspective and to point out the hypocrisies of NATO simply because this is what most people in the West are lacking. In Russia, it would be the other way round - people there would gain more from exposing themselves to the Western perspective, because all they hear on the news all day is Russian propaganda.

I think I can add some valuable insight here for a few reasons. Firstly, I have been working with mentally ill people (mostly schizophrenics) for 7 years now, so I know a lot about the ways they behave from first-hand experience. Secondly, I have experienced both nondual states (using psychedelics) and total insanity using deliriants like Daturah and Diphenhydramine (don't take these, please! Both of these substances I have only tried once out of curiosity and had I known exactly what awaits I wouldn't have taken them at all. They are extremely toxic to your body and offer no value whatsoever for your personal or spiritual growth, and you are putting yourself in serious danger). First, let's talk about schizophrenia. The first thing you have to realize is that schizophrenics SUFFER immensely from their condition. There is this sort of romanticised notion in some New Age circles that schizophrenics are merely misunderstood, that you shouldn't treat them with medication, and that we should just let them be or even learn from them, because they are in a way "wiser" than we are or "know" things that normal people don't. Let's be frank, this is total horseshit. Only a person who has never had any personal experience with schizophrenics would say that. These people are suffering tremendously and even with antipsychotic medication, they are barely able to function like a "normal" person. There are many different forms of schizophrenia, and every individual case is different, but there are certain patterns. Paranoia is a huge one - one of my clients believed there were snipers aiming at him constantly, he was afraid the people at the grocery store might kill him, etc. Another one had episodes where she believed that poison gas was coming out of her shower, that she was being raped by strangers all the time, and she regularly believed me to be her mother, father, brother, child, romantic partner from twenty lives ago, and so forth. She also thought people on the radio were conspiring to murder her. She regularly broke down in tears weeping, because she couldn't take all this suffering anymore. If you didn't even give these people antipsychotic meditation, you would condemn them to a life of even more extreme suffering, and they would wreak total havoc within their communities. Sapolsky's lecture on schizophrenia is very enlightening as well, by the way - for example, he talks about the case of a schizophrenic woman in a neolithic tribal society that he got to know during a research trip. That woman was not revered as some wise old shaman or something. The people in her tribe had absolutely no tolerance for that woman's antics and had no clue how to deal with her erratic behaviour. One of my clients was particularly interesting. When he had his psychotic episodes, he described them as "seeing shapes/figures" and "non-existence". When these episodes occured, he was terrified to death, and the only thing that would help him was his emergency medication. With this one, I am not entirely sure what to make of it, but my guess is that what he described as "non-existence" had more to do with depersonalization/derealization than awakening. Now let me share some of my experiences on Daturah/DPH vs. those on psychedelics. They couldn't be any more different. I imagine what mentally ill people like schizophrenics go through is a lot more similar to what you experience on deliriants than what you experience on classic psychedelics. On these deliriants, I experienced full-on hallucinations: Having conversations with people who weren't really there, thinking I was in a totally different place from where I actually was, trying to grab water glasses and only realizing when my hand moved right through them that they weren't actually there, hearing a cacophony of both familiar and unfamiliar voices, both male and female, seeing spiders crawling along the walls everywhere and actually FEELING their touch when they crawled over my body, seeing dark figures (a man dressed in black wearing a hat, the shadows on the wall turning into swordsmen dueling each other, for example), thinking I was smoking a cigarette which wasn't really there, etc. All combined with a terrible feeling of dread and paranoia, extremely painful RLS and the all-around feeling of being poisoned. It's like being thrown into a real-life horror movie. Never again will I expose myself to this. The only positive I can take away from these experiences is that I feel like I can relate better to my schizophrenic clients. Psychedelics, needless to say, are completely different. The hallucinations are beautiful, mandalas everywhere, eyes looking back at you, waves of love and pleasure rolling through the body, letting go of the ego and effortlessly melting into the ocean of being, total bliss and ecstasy, profound realizations and new perspectives, and so on. It's not even remotely the same. Therefore, my best guess is that what is called "depersonalization/derealization" in psychiatry has very little if anything at all to do with awakening, but that they are very different phenomena. Your question is a very good one though and one I have contemplated myself for some time. Hope this helps in clearing up some confusion.

Let me share an anecdote with you. When I was 15, I started reading (Western) philosophy. My first interest was with Nietzsche, as I guess is true for many young people. When I came across his concept of "eternal recurrence of the same", it totally blew my mind. I didn't know what to make of it, though - was something as radical as this actually possible? So, giving away my authority as one tends to do , I asked my German and philosophy teacher, a great guy, well-read, very intelligent, cared a lot about his students. He had written a few books and taught at University level as well. I owe him a lot. I told him I had read about Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence, and asked him what he thought about it: "Can you take this seriously? I've read online that many philosophers think he had already been insane when he came up with that idea." I will never forget his answer. Grinning, he said: "That depends on whether you take infinity seriously or not." It took me a few seconds to grasp what he had just said. Then it dawned on me. "Oooooooh! Wow!" He smiled. I realized in that moment, that IF you take infinity seriously, that is, if you believe it "exists", then "eternal recurrence of the same" would be the logical consequence. Infinity implies eternal recurrence of the same. If infinity is real, then eternal recurrence of the same has to be real, too. On the other hand, without infinity, there cannot be any eternal recurrence of the same, because, well, how can something recur eternally if time is limited? After this, I started contemplating the nature of infinity. That's when I came across a paradox that I still do not have a satisfying answer to. It is this. If infinity exists, then every possibility exists. Everything that can happen, will happen, in every way possible. So I tried to apply this to my own life. There had to be infinite parallel realities that were all exactly the same, with the difference that, at one moment in time, I did something slightly differently. Let's imagine a universe where everything is exactly as it is right now, with the only difference being that at one moment in time, let's call it moment X, instead of scratching my head, I scratch my nose. Otherwise, my entire life and the entire world are exactly the same. BUT the problem is that, logically, such a world cannot exist. In a world governed by the natural laws that we know, it would be impossible for me to do anything other than what I had actually done, that is, scratch my head. If I were to scratch my nose instead, not only would it change the course of my entire life, but of the whole universe. The entire universe would have to operate according to different laws so as to make it possible that I scratch my nose instead of my head at moment X. But if the entire universe has to operate according to different laws, how can it be exactly the same in every other way? Wouldn't the entire universe have to look completely different from the get go, my entire life included? BUT, if infinity is real, it would HAVE to be possible, because infinity implies every possibility, every single world in every possible configuration. On the other hand, it seems like there are configurations which are impossible. But if there are impossible configurations, that would contradict infinity. Now there is no escape from the paradox. The cat is chasing its own tail. You can use any example you like obviously. Imagine a universe where everything is exactly the same as it is right now, except that on October 1st 1977 a singular ant in an Arizona forest walks slightly to the left instead of to the right. You get the idea. So, my question to you is quite simply - What do you make of this? Is there a way to resolve this, or is this just an instance of the finite human intelligence trying to grasp the nature of infinite using very limited rationality? Please forgive me if you consider this useless mental masturbation. It probably is that. I guess I enjoy mental masturbation sometimes, and I just figured that in this forum, there might be people who could offer some valuable insight into this problem. I do not suggest that anything can be gained from contemplating this. At the end of the day, infinity has to be realized in one's own direct experience, I understand that. I've had profound mystical experiences on psychedelics myself. I am quite simply curious whether anybody else had come across this paradox - I guess countless people contemplating the nature of infinity would have had to have come across it, I would think that it would have to be a known paradox among philosophers even - and whether you have any thoughts on this. Thank you!

@Reciprocality I think I can intuit that general rule you are talking about. I need to mull this over before getting back to you. I am not sure I fully understand yet. @Gili Trawangan Hmm. I think I see what you're saying. Here are the thoughts that came up for me: Aren't you making a distinction between possibility and actuality here? In the last analysis, is it not the case that there is no distinction between possibility and actuality? But let's keep the distinction and remain in the realm of possibility for now. If infinity CAN be anything, it CAN be a universe in which everything is exactly as it is now, only that instead of writing this comment, I am taking a bath. Logically, even the theoretical possibility of such a world seems impossible, does it not? At the same time, infinity would have to have the freedom to (theoretically, potentially) be anything it damn pleases, which is a contradiction. -> The paradox still stands, does it not?

@Knowledge Hoarder Just because someone is critical of NATO does not mean they automatically want to justify Russian aggression in doing so. What makes you think that? It is perfectly possible to be critical of BOTH Russian and NATO aggression without justifying one or the other. That is NOT whataboutism. I don't know how to make that any more explicit for you.

@Reciprocality But these mathematical expressions of infinity whose patterns necessarily never repeat are only a very tiny fragment of Absolute Infinity, right? There is an infinite amount of lesser infinities (like the whole numbers, or the mathematical expressions you're talking about) within the Absolute Infinity. Am I missing something?

@Gesundheit2 The religious people you are talking about are dogmatists who have no direct experience of God. They do not know what God really is. The "God" they are talking about does not exist. It is a figment of their imagination, anthropomorphized and extremely limited. It does not even come close to what God really is, what You are. Like all distinctions, the distinction between creator and creation exists only in your mind. It is possible for you to become directly conscious of this. You can verify it for yourself, but nobody will be able to prove it to you. Even when you verify it for yourself, you will not be able to prove it to anybody else, even though you will know it's true. That's just the way it is. If you don't believe it, that's great. You shouldn't. Go out there and verify it for yourself instead.

Very enjoyable podcast. I don't watch much JRE, so I might not be able to judge this correctly, but anybody else notice how Joe seemed to behave differently around Sadhguru than he does with other interviewees? Less loud, less brash. It felt like Sadhguru's peaceful presence was rubbing off on him.

The single biggest hypocrisy of the "West" - which equates to the US and their vassal swarm, also referred to as NATO - is that they continue to invoke public international law in order to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when they themselves have repeatedly, knowingly and willingly broken international law, invaded other countries and killed millions of people, exported weapons to crisis regions, financed and trained terrorists to destabilize other nations, instigated military coups in foreign countries, spied on the entire world including even their European allies, dominated the entire globe due to their superiority in the air and on the sea, and generally, used every military, clandestine and economic tool at their disposal to further their own interests at the expense of other countries, especially those who refuse to bow down and play according to their rules. Of course, it would be a great thing if all nations agreed to abide by international law, and stop bullying and invading other countries. But that's not how reality works right now. The countries who can afford it, especially the US, break it all the time without having to fear any consequences. If international law could actually be enforced, a whole host of American politicans would have had to be tried as war criminals over the course of the 20th century. Only it didn't happen, because international law is not enforceable. He who has the most power makes the rules, and at the moment, that's the US. So to act like international law is this sacred thing that has to be abided by all nations at all times, to act like Russia is the only country in the world which has imperial ambitions and the audacity to break international law, is the ultimate hypocrisy. NATO propaganda wants to spin the narrative of "good vs. evil" and acts as if NATO was the true champion of the people, defender of international law and human rights, when nothing could be further from the truth. They don't give a flying frack about human rights or international law. If they did, they would have to immediately disband their alliance with Saudi Arabia and condemn the regime there in the same way as they do with Russia or China. Of course, they can't do that, because Saudi Arabia is an important ally for them in the Middle East, and what really matters to them is furthering their own interests, NOT enforcing international law and human rights. Put it this way, when I get caught cheating repeatedly at a game of monopoly, and then, when somebody else cheats, I put on this show of self-righteous indignation - "How dare you cheat at monopoly! This will NOT stand!" - that would be utterly ridiculous and hypocritical. When I don't play by the rules, I lose every credibility to tell others that THEY should abide by the rules. Just to be clear, I am not defending Russian aggression in Ukraine by saying this. Breaking international law is just as wrong for Russia as it is for the US.

I want to thank Leo for recommending the Olver Stone interview with Putin and would like to recommend it as well. 2 hours in and I already feel like I understand Putin and the way he thinks a lot better. There are a lot of fascinating insights about how geopolitics works and it really makes you appreciate how complex all of these situations are, and that nobody really ever has total control over what is happening at any given moment. There are dynamic systems at play that one has to masterfully balance against each other. Putin mentions that his work is in many ways quite similar to that of a creative professional, and I fully believe that. I had seen interviews with Putin before, I have studied the history of Europe and read quite a few books on the subject. I'm a bit of a history nerd in general. The image that I'd had of Putin before the invasion of Ukraine was that of a very intelligent, educated, capable, responsible, stable, and strong man who was genuinely trying to act in the best interest of Russia. The answers he gives are thoughtful, rational and nuanced. From the way I perceived him, I would have never even entertained the thought that he might be a lunatic psychopath had that image not been painted in the media. The interviews have made me appreciate even more what a difficult job Putin has, how much responsibility he carries, and I do believe that most people do not appreciate this enough. Most people would crumble immediately if they felt the weight that he carries on his shoulders. This is true for any statesman, but in the case of a vast nation like Russia definitely even more so. It's possible that he has gone off the rails, but I find that highly unlikely. It is certainly an explanation, but there are far more obvious, rational explanations that have to do with geopolitics which I find way more plausible. It has all been talked about in this thread before: The expansion of NATO and the perceived threat by Russia, broken agreements, openly hostile communication (Biden calling Putin a "killer", Hilary Clinton comparing him to Hitler are just the tip of the iceberg), etc. I believe the most plausible explanation is that since NATO refused to promise to Russia that Ukraine would not join NATO, and that this would never change by means of diplomoacy, he took matters into his own hands, acted tough and did what he thought was necessary. I do not agree with his decision. Like everybody else, I am obviously against war and violence of any kind. But I believe it is easy enough to understand Putin's rationale for what he's doing, if you are actually interested in understanding, not moralizing. I do believe he might have made the mistake of underestimating Ukrainian resistance. This is bad news for him. I would like to believe that he really does not want to incorporate Ukraine into Russia as some people believe, but that the conditions which Russia has presented are genuine. The acknowledgement of independence of Donbas und Luhansk regions as well as a neutral Ukraine. They will probably install a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine as well. However, at the moment it is far from certain how things are going to unfold in the long run. Sadly, everything seems to point towards a new arms race. Germany for example has now committed to spending over 100 billion dollars a year on their military already, which would make their military the third most expensive in the world behind the US (~800 billion) and China (~250 billion). NATO has been pushing for Germany to spend 2% of their GDP on their military for years, but Germany didn't want to. This has now changed. I do not agree with this decision at all. It is a punch in the face of all the regular working poor and elderly people in Germany who had to hear from politicians for years that sadly, the state didn't have enough money to improve their conditions, yet they readily conjure up 100 billion to spend on more weapons. This money would be far better spent on education, health and social systems, infrastructure etc. I also find it noteworthy that for many countries in Europe that had previously wanted to stay neutral and not join NATO, public opinion has swayed in favour of joining NATO. Even in Austria there has been a discussion about abandoning neutrality, although it did not last long when politicans saw that voters did not agree. Austrians are very proud and protective of their neutrality and the majority of the population does not believe there is a genuine threat coming from Russia that would justify joining NATO. However, in countries like Sweden and Finland, there has been a massive upsurge in approval for a possible NATO membership. I could be wrong, but this situation reminds me of when a terrible crime happens, and suddenly, there is a rise in approval for the death penalty in the morally outraged public, which returns to normal levels after some time has passed. It is understandable that Sweden and Finland would want to consider joining NATO under these circumstances, but I think it's a bad idea. Expansion of NATO has led us to the ever-increasing escalation we find ourselves in now. Having even more countries join NATO and them spending even more money on their military will further destabilize the balance of power. Already, NATO are outspending Russia 20 to 1 on military expenses. The US alone spend more money on their military than every other nation on the planet combined. This is an undeniable reality that has to be factored into one's considerations on this tricky subject at all times. NATO claiming it is not a threat is all well and good, but how believable is that when they have by far the most technologically advanced and best-maintained armed forces in the world? Of course they are a massive threat from Russia's perspective.

There's an infinite amount of ways in which music changes people's lives. But I'll elaborate a bit on what spontaneously comes to my mind. Fundamentally, it's about how music makes us feel. Listening to music can elicit all sorts of emotions and reactions which people find extremely pleasurable. I feel almost stupid writing this because to my mind, this just has to be obvious to anyone who has ears and has ever listened to any piece of music at all. Human beings are wired to respond to music in certain ways. Personally, I have been to concerts that had such a profound impact on me that I can only describe it as a transcendental experience. Music has the power to shake you to your core, to express things which one cannot put into words. It can give you goosebumps make you cry, make you ecstatic, even temporarily transcend your limited sense of self. It can also be amazingly therapeutic. For me, growing up as a teenager and young adult, there have been times were my mental health was pretty much carried by the music I was listening to. I felt like the artists creating this music "got" me, as opposed to parents, teachers etc. You know what it's like being a teenager. This therapeutic effect is even greater for those making music themselves. Countless times I have come home, feeling a certain "negative" emotion like sadness, and putting that emotion into a song is extremely effective. A lot of musicians will tell you that they feel like they "have to" make music because they would not be able to cope with life in any other way. I feel this is a very constructive way of dealing with your "stuff", channeling it into something creative. This ties into the question of identity. Music plays a big part in the formation of an identity for many people, especially in their teens. Many people identify as a jazzer, or a metalhead, or a goth, or a hip hopper, whatever. This has a huge impact on their lives. It dictates what people they hang out with, what clothes they wear etc. Entire subcultures with millions of participants are formed around certain styles of music. There is a political dimension too. Quite a few artists use their music to convey political messages, which can absolutely have a tangible impact. Passion for music can bring people from many different countries and of all walks of life together in harmony. Of course, it can and has been used as a potent propaganda tool and even a torture device as well. At the end of the day, though, there is no point to music other than the music itself. It does not need to serve any other function. It is its own purpose. To me, and I would guess most people, this has always been apparent. It's a bit like asking "What's the point of having an orgasm?" Well, if you've ever had one, the answer is pretty obvious, isn't it? Not everything in life has to be utilitarian. There is an infinite amount of examples one could use to illustrate why people love music so much. Look at this performance by Paul McCartney for example: https://youtu.be/uXdGOYo_fsE People dancing, screaming, vibing, grown men crying...Obviously, the lives of all of these people are enhanced tremendously by the music, and they are extremely grateful to the artists who share their skill and passion with them. Being an artist is in no way inferior to being a scientist or mathematician. Moreover, viewed from a certain perspective, every scientist or mathematician is an artist themselves. But that discussion is another huge can of worms. I hope that my answer made at least some sense to you. I am curious to hear your response since your perception of reality seems so fundamentally different from mine when it comes to how you relate to art that it boggles my mind. I feel like I can learn something from that.

Obviously. What's your point? Did you even watch the video in its entirety?

People are unwilling to educate themselves on the historical context of what is happening. They are clueless about how geopolitics works. They are not willing to self-reflect and examine their self-bias. They are not willing and/or able to question the information that is presented to them in the media. They are not willing to try to look at the situation objectively. They are not trying to understand different perspectives and the survival agendas of the parties involved. They are easy prey for the propaganda machines both in the West and in Russia. Most people talking about this subject literally just repeat verbatim what they have read in a news article or heard on the radio. No independent thinking of any sort has occurred. This is true even for people who consider themselves educated, went to university etc. I am not surprised about this, but it is still mind-boggling to me how effectively propaganda is able to shape people's perception and opinions without them even realizing that this is happening. This whole situation is incredibly complex and an "analysis" of "Putin is Hitler 2.0 who has gone completely off the rails and wants to reestablish the Soviet Union" is laughably shallow, naive and ignorant. To even be able to seriously hold such an opinion you have to be completely ignorant of what is actually going on. I can understand the appeal of it though. Good and evil are clearly separated, you just pick a side, engage in group-think and self-righteously shout together with the mob to bring Putin down. If you think the problem is as shallow as simply getting rid of Putin, you are completely deluded. Even if you could get rid of Putin without escalating the situation even further, what then? Another man like him will seize power, possibly someone even more authoritarian and violent than Putin. If anything, this sort of unconsciousness and deliberate misunderstanding wiill only lead to more violence, more wars, more escalation, more money spent on weapons and military instead of schools and health care, less understanding and less less peace. In Germany, we even have a derogatory term "Putinversteher", which translates literally to "Putin understander". Someone who understands, or tries to understand, Putin's perspective. And the people who use this term aggressively act like it's immoral in of itself even just to try to understand his perspective. How absurd is that? How can any form of diplomacy EVER work if I am not trying to understand where my opponent is coming from? How are we EVER to find peaceful solutions to conflicts of interest if we keep up the demonization and Good vs. Evil narrative? There is a great old episode by Leo called "All criticism is untenable" which I would recommend everybody watch again and apply these lessons to the way in which they judge Putin and the situation in Ukraine as well as how they engage in debates on the issue.

Wow. I don't even know where to begin to respond to this. Some of the things that have been said here are so ridiculous, confused and absurd that it makes me think people are just taking the piss. "People don't care about art"? Dude, you can literally go to ANY song on YouTube and find people in the comments who express their gratitude to the artist. "You have changed my life!" is one of the most common expressions you'll find. Artists and the works they create are absolutely essential in every conceivable way. This sort of attitude reminds me of the Stage Orange kind of people who consider anything other than STEM fields as worthless and laughing at anybody who is pursuing the humanities and arts, whom they perceive as lazy and involved in something that is not practical to the evolution of mankind. From my perspective these people are completely stuck in their head and totally deprived of one of the most beautiful aspects of their humanity. I don't even see the point of trying to divide up "artistic people" vs. "technical people" and trying to argue that one or the other is superior to begin with. That whole endeavour is absurd and pointless from the get-go. You're also seriously underestimating the creativity, genius and discipline that goes into creating great art when you say that someone like Picasso "couldn't hold a candle" to Einstein or some other scientist. If you have to ask the question "What's the point of music?" - Seriously, have you ever listened to a piece of music in your life? If the "point" doesn't jump out at you straight away I don't even know what I could say that would make you see (or rather hear) the point.

I wanted to share with you the work of this guy called Ryan Kurczak. He is a Kriya Yogi who I believe is associated with the Self-Realization Fellowship and has been practicing for around 30 years. He has two YouTube channels, one focusing on Kriya Yoga, the other focusing on Vedic Astrology. He has also written two books on the subject of Kriya Yoga and enlightenment that I haven't read so far, but plan to do so in the future. I found his content extremely valuable and practical for my own spiritual path. However, it is worth noting that he is one of those teachers that do NOT recommend/condone the use of psychedelics (I asked him directly about this). I believe he is misguided in that regard, like so many of these teachers are, but other than that, his content is very solid. If you are in any way interested in Yoga, Ayurveda and Vedic Astrology I highly recommend checking him out. Ryan Kurczak Kriya Yoga channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/KriyaYogaOnline Ryan Kurczak Vedic Astrology channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/RyansVedicAstrology His website: https://ashevillevedicastrology.wordpress.com/ If you want to go really deep into Vedic Astrology and master that art, there is an extremely extensive and detailed (paid) course he offers as well: https://vedic-astrology.teachable.com/

Thanks for the heads up. I remember Leo talking about this, probably in his Kriya Yoga video. Can you elaborate in what way exactly you think the SRF/Ryan's teachings are watered down? What I've heard from him so far seemed perfectly congruent and in line with everything that Leo and others are talking about. There are two things that rubbed me the wrong way though. As mentioned, his stance on psychedelics I disagree with, but many otherwise good teachers are like that. The other thing was that he seemed to at least imply that you are not a "real" Kriya Yogi unless you are officially initiated. But I can look past these flaws and for the most part, I found his videos quite valuable. Of course, I don't take anything he says as gospel, and I use other sources as well to educate myself about Kriya Yoga. Also, I'm not familiar with "Csa", can you explain what that stands for? @Yarco Great recommendation. I really love ManojTheYogi! His video course got me started with my Yoga practice. I found it much easier to learn having someone actually show me all the exercises, rather than only having the book as a guide. He's recently started a Discord server where he offers guidance to newbies as well as regular Satsangs. You need to support him on Patreon to get access to that though.