soos_mite_ah

I'm taking about things like beyond burgers, plant based sausages, and other meat substitutes. I can see eating these in moderation depending on what kind of ingredients the substitutes have and how processed they are. I can also see them as a way for people to ease into things like veganism and vegetarianism or dip their toe into entertaining that thought. Or if you're vegan/vegetarian and you have an itch/craving you can go for these substitutes. How healthy is this option? What are some downsides?

Emotionless = Cool I've been thinking as to why once I started displaying a more positive outlook on life that people started seeing me as less relatable and even annoying. I talked about this in a previous post. And I've been thinking about how people in their teens and early 20s have this implicit, and sometimes explicit idea that to be cool you need to be emotionless. Honestly I might be talking out of my ass on this one and I don't know if this is just me lol but I feel like I need organize my thoughts. I remember growing up hearing the people around me say things like "I only allow myself to be emotional for 5 minutes a day max and then I gotta be a bad bitch", "emotions are gross, don't fall in love, that shit is cringe", "everyone annoys me, I hate everyone", "ugghhh happy people". or simply this "I don't care, the world is shit, nothing matters, idgaf about anyone or anything" attitude. And like from the ages of 13-18 this shit just seemed normal and like common sense. But ever since I got therapy and got to a more bubbly, optimistic place in my life, I looked back at these sentiments and thought *damn, some of yall need therapy.* Even if for some people this isn't coming from an authentic place and people are just posing to be like this, why is this even considered quirky and cool? I've also encountered people who almost brag about how emotionless they are and how they are borderline sociopathic (these people aren't actually sociopathic based on my encounters with them). Or I've heard people brag about how they haven't cried in years and how they barely feel anything anymore and honestly nowadays I'm just sitting here like *uhhhh.... maybe you should get that checked. That sounds like trauma.* I think there are a lot of different things at play. I think a lot of older adults look at teenagers and young adults as these hyper emotional, hormonal nut cases and then some of those people want to push back with an attitude of apathy and emotionlessness masquerading as rationality. I think there is the whole thing with toxic masculinity for guys to push down their emotions to seem strong. And even though women are typically allowed to express emotions and be more vulnerable compared to men, there is still a sentiment that if a woman is being emotional whether she's angry, sad, or really really passionate about something that she is hormonal and proves that women are irrational and crazy and therefore can't be taken seriously. Then there is the desensitization from the 24 hour news cycle constantly feeding people with the awful things happening in the world. I know that whenever I see a mass shooting on the news, I haven't had a normal response to it since 2013. Part of me is like *it is what it is, just another day* because there is only so many times you get the same story until it becomes normalized even though it is far from normal. I know that I've mainly talked about expressing negative emotions in the previous paragraph, but when you have that emotionless, closed off attitude with your emotions, you can also throw out your positive emotions as well. It's like being phased by negativity and bothered by things in your life is written off as being a cry baby and that you need to suck it up and deal with it. As a result, rather than feelings of negativity getting normalized what gets normalized is this sense of apathy, which also pushes aside feelings of positivity. In addition to that, because numbness is pushed due to the normalization of negative events, happiness can start look like insanity. (Negative feelings aren't normalized but negative events are). Then you start getting the "eww happy people" or "uggh this person is doing too much, why are they so positive, calm tf down" sentiment. I remember encountering these sentiments as early as elementary school. I remember other children made fun of me for being happy and really nice to people. Then in middle school, and high school I got angsty and pseudo-emotionless but then I returned back to that bubby happy self I was as a kid in college. In college, I noticed that in my more liberal arts classes, this was seen as a good thing but in my business classes, while I wasn't getting picked on, I still encountered that same stank attitude I had to deal with in elementary school. Me being in the business school in a way made me feel like I was 8 again. I did write about some of this in a previous post but here is a part that resonates with this post today: And that's the thing, why is caring about people seen as uncool and cringe and why is having a lot of topics you're excited about and having a lot of hobbies come off as "too intense" for people? This might be my high scores on agreeableness and my openness talking, but I simply don't understand that. To me those things are essential in living a full life where you're happy and fulfilled. Isn't that the goal? I don't want to be dead in the eyes all the time. I've been there and it isn't fun in the slightest. I know my personal bias is involved, I'm just having a hard time stepping out of it. To me, that's unusual because I was on the other end of the spectrum not to long ago where I was like "eww happy people." I guess from what I remember is that there is an assumption that bubbly happy people are fake, shallow and lacking in depth, delusional, and detached from reality because they don't have the same perspective of doom, gloom, and apathy as you do. Goes back to the whole thing with negative events being normalized but not necessarily negative feelings.

Lack of Life Experience, FOMO, and Feeling Like a Child I can't sleep because my mind decided to go on a negative spiral and normally i would brush it off and try my best to go to sleep but clearly it isn't working since it's 4 in the morning and this is keeping me up at night. I hope to god that journaling can help me get things out of my system. A lot of what I want to write had been written before in a previous entry so I'm linking it below to avoid repeating myself: I have this anxiety of becoming a full fledged adult. I know that sounds really silly especially for the people reading this who are significantly older than me. I am afraid that I won't be able to function on my own and that I'm not going to measure up in terms of maturity. The first I know is mostly bullshit. I have lived on my own at one point. I can do basically all the things I need to do to take care of myself including but not limited to cooking, cleaning, keeping things organized, driving, taking care of finances, knowing the basics of how taxes work, and keeping up with basic responsibilities. But I'm not financially independent from my parents, I don't have a career, and I don't really know what I'm going to do after college much less with my life. That's the one box I haven't ticked off yet and my nitpicking tendencies likes to hyper focus on it. I think it's reasonable for someone my age and circumstance to not have everything figured out and as a college student still being somewhat financially reliant on my parents, but I'm still insecure about that. As for measuring up in terms of maturity, well.... sometimes I really don't know where I stand. There is this part of me that feels childish due to my lack of life experiences. I have talked about much of that in the journal entry that I linked above. But I have this fear of going out into the real world and having actual adults look at me like I'm this naive girl. I always hear that the biggest part of the college experience is growing socially and learning how to deal with people and tbh, socializing is not one of the things I did much of so far in college. I spent the first year and a half getting my life together and emotionally recovering from a difficult home life after finally getting access to help and then the moment I felt like myself again and like I can socialize like a normal person, I had to move back home because of the pandemic. I also didn't socialize much during my junior and senior year of high school because I had an awakening of sorts and I didn't resonate with my main friend group overnight and we all basically started growing as people in different directions. And because I went to a really small school, I didn't have many people to talk to so I tried to sit tight and wait for college. So basically, from age 16.5 to 21.5, while I always had a couple friends here and there, I haven't had a normal social life or crowd I was around. That's a solid 5 years. And tonight I went on a spiral and I checked my snapchat stories. I normally don't check my snapchat but I'm spiraling and the devil on my shoulder told me to do so. And I see people partying, hanging out with friends, chilling with their significant other, travelling and simply living life. I feel this sense of jealousy and insecurity bubble up in me. It just reminds me on how I'm not living a normal life. It makes me feel like I'm behind socially and that to me means that I'm not maturing through life experiences. Then there is this whole thing of me never having a "crazy phase" where I went out to parties a lot, got drunk frequently, started experimenting with all types of things, and basically do other wild shit that people typically do in their late teens/ early 20s. Sometimes I feel like that is a rite of passage, like you didn't live and get things out of your system if you didn't do some crazy shit when you were young. A lot of it simply doesn't resonate with me and I know that if I forced myself to do things because people around me were doing it or that it was something that I was expected to do in a certain phase of my life, that it would make me feel miserable and out of alignment with my authentic self. But there is this part of me that sees this as me being straight-laced, boring, sheltered and naive. And then there is the pandemic and how I moved back home and how that makes me feel like I've been frozen at age 19. Moving back home definitely doubles down on feeling sheltered. The fact that I'm turning 22 this year feels fake, It also gives me a bit of an existential crisis because oh shit in a couple years I'm going to be in my mid 20s. How tf did that happen?!?!?!?! I mean I know the days are going by but there is a part of me that feels like I've been reliving March 13th 2020 over and over again. I talked about this more in this post I made a month ago: I think a way of looking at this is that I'm experiencing FOMO. I know that term is usually used for people when they compare their boring lives to everyone having fun on social media. For me, while social media does trigger FOMO, I think the FOMO I'm experiencing is in a deeper existential level where I'm sitting here like *what am I doing with my life. I have this one life to live. I'm wasting my time here. I should be out there living* I'm trying to reassure myself by reminding myself that I am growing and maturing as a person because I am doing the inner work that is arguably harder for a lot of people compared to stumbling through life and learning from experience in this laize faire kind of way towards self development. I try to reassure myself by telling myself that *Hey, you're never not experiencing life. As long as you're conscious and mindful of every moment, you're living. You don't have to be constantly doing something whether it is being productive, getting ahead, socializing, or travelling to be living. Doing isn't the only way to live. Being is a huge part of it.* It's one of those things that I understand intellectually but it will take my heart a minute to take it in and integrate it. Emotionally, I just want to go out and do things because that's what feels like living. I'm so fucking tired of just being. It was nice for a few months but now I'm over it.

just really liked this video

This also reminded me of mardi gras. I didn't know it had religious roots until I looked into it more. It's that you get everything out of your system in a couple days so that you can give up something for Lent for the next 40 days until Easter. I guess the reason why I wasn't thinking of mardi gras is because most people I know don't do it for religious reasons rather it's an excuse for college kids to party which makes me think that it's more orange than blue. The weddings part also makes sense. The emphasis on family, tradition, sometimes religion makes it more blue.

Hedonism Through the Stages I've been thinking of where I'm at when it comes to what I want to experience, work towards, and grow into. And I think there is this part of me that wants to live a more hedonistic life style just to get somethings out of my system. When it comes to hedonistic life styles, because western society's center of gravity is stage orange, traditionally we think of the Dan Bilzerian and Jordan Belforts of the world. Filthy rich, expensive sports cars, being surrounded by models, cocaine, etc. It's clearly very egotistical and insatiable. I'm pretty sure there is a trope that is along the lines of rich girl/guy parties, does drugs, chases success but then ends up depressed because they realized that those things don't make them happy and that they are hollow because they never paid attention to the meaningful parts of life. For me, the hedonistic life style I want is more along the lines of stage green hedonism. For me it's along the lines of travelling to countries, exploring different cultures, collecting experiences instead of things, connecting with a ton of people, having an amazing romantic relationship, finding creative work etc. But at the same time, I see the limits of this. Because ultimately, things external to us won't make us happy even if they are something that is more higher consciousness like collecting experiences instead of collecting Lamborghinis. I think a really good example of the limits of stage green hedonism can be seen in Anthony Bourdain's life. His whole thing was travelling, exploring different cultures, having good conversations with the locals while shedding light of the social issues in the area, exploring different cuisines, etc. I don't know what he or really any other celebrity is like when the cameras aren't rolling but from what I remembered, there wasn't any indication from his work of anything being superficial or hollow like what one would think of with stage orange hedonism. His work was very stage green and very heart centered. But he still killed himself. This is such a cliche when it comes to celebrities when the commit suicide where people are like "oh ___ had it all, the money, the power, the success, the fame, the beautiful spouse, and the beautiful home but they were still depressed." And it was similar to how many people reacted to Bourdain's death. But instead of being like "look he had such a well rounded life and he was truly making an impact, but he was still depressed." I'm not someone who is impacted by celebrity deaths mainly because I'm not very tuned into celebrity culture in general. But I remember being 18 and this instance having an impact on me. It felt weird. I liked Bourdain's work but not so much to where I binged his show and was a fan so it wasn't some type of parasocial fixation. Now looking back, I think it was this implicit realization that all of the travelling, all of the good conversations, all of the social justice, all of the quality relationships still won't make me happy. I think part of me back then looked up to Bourdain's life style and saw it as aspirational and knowing that despite all that he was so depressed to where he committed suicide. It felt threatening to my ego because I'm here thinking this will bring me happiness but clearly it actually doesn't based on how he ended up. It was me realizing that stage green hedonism is still a form of hedonism even if society might think it's a more conscious form of it. Stage red hedonism to me is like stage orange but more brutal, gaudy, and animalistic (think golden toilets, hunting lions for sport, and having a gold pleated AK-47). Don't know what stage blue hedonism would look like since that stage is built on repression. I already talked about stage orange and green hedonism. Stage yellow hedonism to me might be along the lines of having this insatiable thirst for knowledge and research because you don't realize that analyzing and thinking too much can make you miserable because it cuts out from being. I really don't know what stage turquoise hedonism would look like. I'm guessing that it would be chasing mystical stages by any means necessary whether it would be doing WAAY too many psychedelics or going to some other super extreme level. So yeah, hedonism isn't isolated to only one stage of the spiral. The reason why I strived for this stage green hedonism when I was 16-18 years old was a reaction against stage orange hedonism and it's definition of a successful, well lived life. I was moving deeper into green and to me the hedonism at stage orange was so obviously limited and hollow to me. I also had a lot of anxiety regarding figuring my life out and becoming an adult and my number one goal was to live the most meaningful and fulfilling life possible without wasting my time of stupid shit. Even now, one of my big fears is wasting the one life I have. I think now I have a healthy dose of nihilism in me to where I can be more carefree, but back then I couldn't sit with that nihilism. I had to find meaning in something or else what even is my life? Why tf am I here? So why is it that after all of this I still want a stage green hedonism? What's different this time around compared to where I was at in my late teens? Me in 2019 and onwards: Now at 21 I see indulging in this stage green hedonism as scratching an itch rather than seeing it as a life style I have to have. It's wanting to travel, make friends, have good conversations, and a significant other but not necessarily needing it. It's being able to enjoy those things instead of getting attached to it as the pinnacle of meaning and fulfillment in life. Again, there is a healthy sense of hedonism. I would compare it to me finding out that I'm going on a yacht party tomorrow. I would enjoy myself and take in that experience, but I wouldn't be yearning for that lifestyle and day dreaming of becoming super wealthy to where going to yacht parties is what brings me meaning and is what is my norm. Travelling and connecting to people is defiantly something that I want but it isn't this deep existential craving that I had in my late teens. The desire is there but my attachment isn't. Me from 2016-2018: In my late teens however, stage green hedonism felt like the blueprint for living an actualized life much like how some people see the glamor of stage orange hedonism as the one should strive for. Rather than being attached to achievement, I was attached to finding meaning. I think there is a part of me that is attached to finding meaning and analyzing things which is why it's rare for me to dip into nihilism. Part of it stemmed from fear particularly the fear of wasting my life or the fear of messing up my life. I still have anxieties regarding those things now but I have worked through a lot of it tbh. Those fears are still here now but they are not anywhere near as existential crisis inducing as it was back then. Back then I really thought those things would bring me happiness. Now I can see those things are something to enjoy but it isn't the end all be all. Because even if you do end up living the stage green hedonistic lifestyle of your dreams, if you don't take care of other areas of your life and work through your regular human shit and the traumas that you accumulated, well you're still going to be miserable. In my late teens I understood the importance of working on myself but my understanding back then wasn't as deep as it is now. There was still a part of me back then that thought happiness is external. There is still a part of me now that is like that based on the complaining I do on here but I'd say that I have become better than before.

@RendHeaven

A Rant About the Incels in the Dating Section I'm just writing this out to get it out of my system. It may or may not make sense I find it so annoying that some of the guys here are so fixated on sex mainly because they aren't getting any. To a certain extent I get it since I feel rather repressed because of my lack of experience and I find myself thinking about sex too often. But even though I have these thoughts, they aren't creating a significant portion of my world view. There are guys out here talking about the 80-20 rule on how the top 20% of men attract 80% of women and the rest of the men get the scraps. I mean, from experience of being out and about, I have met ugly people of both genders getting in and out of relationships. If the 80-20 rule was true in this case, we probably wouldn't have 7+ billion on this earth. This point reeks a lack of personal responsibility, poor social skills, and inferiority complex. I'm willing to bet that most of these guys aren't even that ugly (on the outside at least) and they built up an identity of being undesirable. Then there is the whole rating women on a scale of 1-10. I find this really weird tbh because of how subjective beauty is and how the standards change every decade or so. I'm pretty sure that if you put me in a time machine and dropped me into the 1920s that people back then would look at me and think that I'm an abomination because I look like the opposite of the standard at that time. On top of beauty being subjective, I find it weird that it's something to be measured. Sure I have probably said that if you dress nice you can go from a 4 to a 7 real quick, but it's more of a figure of speech talking about how small changes can make you more attractive rather than actually being on a 1-10 scale. This whole scale makes beauty seem something rigid and absolute as though if you aren't a 6 or above based on some scale an incel made up, that you are destined to die alone. And I can tell just how insecure these guys are on their own desirability as well as their looks. They project it out to other women in the form of objectification because they also objectify themselves. They have this idea in their head that unless they have a lot of material success that they won't be able to attract anyone at all. And when I look at that, I'm sitting there like.... that's such a materialistic way of looking at yourself. That's not all that men have to offer and that's not all that women look for. Similarly, men aren't always only fixated on whether a girl looks like a model. Yeah being attracted to your partner is important, but there isn't any one way of being attractive especially when you take character into account. It's like these incels think that all men and all women only operate from the most superficial level and aren't capable of creating any type of bond with a person that doesn't have to do with looks and money. Then there is this notion of how guys don't get laid and how women have all the power. Just because you aren't getting laid doesn't mean that the vast majority of men have a problem with this. Most normal guys figure this stuff out in their own pace from their high school to young adult years. The average man isn't some incel who is online the vast majority of their waking life. People actually have lives smh. Next, there is this fixation with ranking high in value in some type of sexual market place. And to that I say, stop viewing human beings like a commodity and focus on connecting with them. Stop thinking you're in competition with people and stop having this superiority/ inferiority complex because that shit isn't cute and will repel the people you are trying to attract. This also goes along with the resentment that these guys have towards people who are having sex. Worry about your own damn self, Why does it matter what other people are doing with their genitals? Mind your own damn business. They put sex on such a high pedestal like as if it's their oxygen. Honey, it's not that special or interesting and most mature adults don't' care whether you're a virgin or not. They don't care about your sex life in that way because they are minding their own business like you're supposed to. Having no experience is such a part of them to where it's like they behave as though they have virgin written across their forehead. And finally, there is this notion that everything revolves around sex. Like these guys are so fucking fixated on this one area of life. Sometimes I get this vibe that they think that everyone is fixated on sex the way they are. Oh you're focused on your career? You doing it for sex to attract a mate. Oh you like dressing up and expressing yourself? You doing it to be more attractive so you can get sex to attract a mate. Oh, you have genuine hobbies and interest? You doing it for sex to attract a mate so that you appear like a well rounded partner. Oh, you want to develop yourself? You doing it for sex to attract a mate. And no matter how you present yourself, it always comes back to how you're trying to attract sex into your life. I get that sex is a need for many people and that it can be frustrating to go without it for an extended period of time but there are plenty of other areas of life that you can find fulfillment and joy in. Sex and attraction doesn't have to take over your life. They just come up with so many theories that further entrench them into their misogynistic world view and their victim mentality to where it's genuinely astounding how deep they go. These mf don't need pick up, they need therapy and medication.

Mainstream vs Intellectual Versions of the Spiral Dynamics Stages I know people talk about the healthy and unhealthy manifestations of each of the spiral stages. But I think it would also be interesting to see the nuance between the mainstream and the intellectual versions of the stages as well. I was thinking the other day something along the lines of "isn't it funny that the Kardashians and scientists who operate under the materialist paradigm inhabit the same spiral stage?" Both groups of people are stage orange. The Kardashian are entertaining and something that people watch to chill tf out and turn off their brains a little. There isn't much complexity there. (I wouldn't say there isn't any complexity because I have seen people do analysis on the Kardashians, the way they impact society, and what they reflect about society. IMO, I don't think there is any shallow form of entertainment, rather it's the lens you use to look at it.) But on the other hand, there is a lot of complexity in scientific studies. As someone who isn't really good with science and is a normie in that regard, I need things to be broken down in layman's terms because god knows that I'm not going to understand a thing from technical jargon. Every day I pick up my phone and I know how to use it and I know that it is a product of technological advancement, but if you ask me how it works, I'm probably going to say something along ~~**science**~~ which isn't that different from saying that this shit looks magical to me since I don't know how the intricacies work. The other stages has something similar. A mainstream example of stage blue is someone like Ben Shapiro, not super complex and appeals to a large audience, while people who set up the catholic church and it's doctrine is a more intellectual example of stage blue. A mainstream example of stage green is like your average social justice warrior while a more intellectual example of green might be Cornel West. Mainstream Green Intellectual Green I think there is great value in both the mainstream and intellectual versions of the stages. I think that the intellectual versions of the stages build up the framework for society and eventually those ideas become mainstream to where it feels like common sense or the baseline of society. For example, we needed stage orange philosophers from the Enlightenment era to come up with ideas on how society should be built or else if say the Kardashians came up in a predominantly stage blue society, they'd probably be cast out or burnt at the stake for being too sinful. But at the same time, mainstream forms of the stages shouldn't be looked down upon because they are "less complex." I think it's important to package higher consciousness ideals and stages in a way that regular people can understand it and integrate it into their lives. I think the necessity of packaging higher consciousness ideals in a easy to understand mainstream fashion can be best displayed by the scene from 16:34 -17:10. The problem with too much intellectualization is not the complexity of the thoughts and ideas not resonating with the "ignorant masses" but it's the intellectual and spiritual ego it tends to exuberate. People can sense that air of superiority off of you if you think you are more conscious and smarter than thou and it isn't a good look. I think that's part of the problem with stage yellow. The stage is still at it's infancy and most people who get to this stage get there is by doing a lot of consciousness work and reading/analyzing theory. Which is fair, we need to set the intellectual framework of stage yellow before a more mainstream and relaxed version of the stage comes along. But at the same time, I can't help but feel that stage yellow, more than any of the other stages, is going to be more prone to this intellectual hubris because of it's desire to model and analyze the world. Intellectualization will be more of a fixation. Like I want to be my stage yellow self around people but at the same time I can't help but feel that going on about some complex theory would be a buzzkill at a party. There isn't anything wrong with complex theory and having deep conversations, but it isn't appropriate in every situation, especially in situations where people want to let loose and relax in a party. There are situations that require you to be more casual and I wonder what a casual form of yellow would even look like. So yeah, that's something that I'm thinking about. I'm wondering what is the best way of making stage yellow ideals mainstream and palatable without watering it down. I think a good example of a mainstream, casual example of stage yellow is the show Avatar The Last Airbender. The show discussed spirituality, the importance of looking at different perspectives, and a variety of social issues ranging from genocide, cultural appropriation, sexism, animal rights, and more. While all of that sounds like green, the show did this in a very stage yellow way to where they didn't demonize the antagonists rather they humanized them and showed that their behaviors aren't outside of the system they were born into it. And by the way, this is a kids' show that was aired on Nickelodeon and can be found on Netflix. I love how this show breaks down complex themes to where even children can understand and learn from them. The lessons are also framed in a way that people of any stage can resonate with it and feel compelled to reflect because it takes on a route where it humanizes systemic issues rather than moralizing and lecturing to the audience. Even though mainstream American culture has its center of gravity at stage orange, this stage yellow show has a 97 on Rotten Tomatoes from critics and a 99 by audiences. I did a whole thread on this about a year ago just fangirling about the show and how/why it's stage green/yellow:

@Preety_India It comes from the ye ol days when women were seen as the property of their husbands and fathers because men had so much authority over women to where they dictated all of her personal decisions. They were seen as a maid who would pop out children and that's it. Forget her personal goals, desire for education, agency of her sexuality, financial autonomy, emotions, or anything that would make her an independent person with rights. Seeing people as property opens the door of all type of human rights violation ranging from sexism, slavery, and worker exploitation. You use people as tools for your selfishness without looking at what their agenda might be. It's easy to use, beat up, and discard an object because an object isn't sentient. It's difficult to do that to someone you see as similar to you. When you identify as something or identify with someone, hurting them becomes a moral dilemma because it also hurts you because your ego picks up on the lack of love. To expand your consciousness, you need to expand your sense of self to include all of consciousness instead of the sliver your carved out for yourself that only includes your race, your family, your gender, your sexual orientation etc. Seeing people as property makes people more ruthless because they see objects as something they can't possibly identify with.

The Limits of Science I know that there are already a couple videos up talking about the limits of science as it is practiced today. While many of the points are valid, I feel like for most people, watching those videos is like going from pre algebra to calculus real quick. I have my critiques of science and while it isn't I guess the highest critique of science, I guess it's closer to the collective understanding of science to where the critiques don't seem too outlandish. Instead of going from pre algebra to calculus, think of this as going from pre algebra to algebra. First, we have the god damn skulls The way experiments are conducted and the way results are interpreted are not separate from our social landscape and politics. The best example that articulates this is the pseudoscience that was conducted in the past to justify eugenics and racial differences. This was used to justify the notion that people of color were inherently savages, inherently stupid, and inherently inferior compared to white men. People nowadays know that this is pseudoscience based on the biases on the time and how the experiments were conducted. We know now that the way the experiments were conducted and the conclusions the scientists came to weren't doing anything more than doubling down on their current world view at the It seems very obvious now. But back then, the men who came up with such theories thought they were doing real science. Things like racism were such an integral part of life back in the 1800s and early 1900s to where even the most educated had their perspectives clouded by it. Here are a couple sources that go into what I said above in more detail: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/column-the-false-racist-theory-of-eugenics-once-ruled-science-lets-never-let-that-happen-again https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2017/03/05/phrenology-and-scientific-racism-in-the-19th-century/ There was another series of experiments studying the health of black people compared to white people during this time period. The results that came from these studies concluded that black people were more likely to suffer from a variety of diseases and live shorter lives compared to white people. While the study itself wasn't flawed and the results were correct, the interpretation was off. Back then, this conclusion was interpreted as definitive proof that black people were genetically inferior. Now, the interpretation is that black people have worse health outcomes due to factors that contribute to systemic racism that include but aren't limited to, limited access to health care, health care providers being less likely to take the health of black people seriously, and the stress of racism and the tragedies weighing on them emotionally to where it impacts their physical health. In other words, it's not that the race that impacts their health, it's the racism. We now also have the field of epigenetics. Basically epigenetics in a nutshell talks about how the external environment impacts people's physical health which then over time puts a strain on genes and even alter them. One of the most well known studies on epigenetics involve the lasting physical health implications of those who are decedents of Holocaust survivors. The Jewish people who went through the Holocaust went through incredible amounts of mental, emotional, and physical torture to where even if they survived, the memories aren't only stored as trauma psychologically, but the body also keeps score by altering genes. Those altered genes are then passed on to the next generation making them more prone to certain diseases, especially anxiety and panic disorders. While this could be dismissed as generational trauma due to socialization, even when Jewish children are adopted by non-Jewish parents, they are still more likely to develop those diseases. There was also another study conducted that involved in the rates of birth defects in the Arab American community. There was a spike in the number of birth defects per 1000 births right after 9/11. It is likely that the events of 9/11 caused a significant amount of stress for women who were pregnant at the time which raised the likelihood of a difficult birth and birth defects for the baby. Here are more sources on epigenetics: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24029109/ https://forward.com/culture/318509/is-jewish-anxiety-no-laughing-matter/ Who's to say that the social, political, methodological, and capitalistic self interest biases today dont impact the way science is conducted? Science was biased before in history so who's to say it still isn't biased now in different ways with our current paradigms. I'm sure it would be obvious a couple hundred years from now but right now, it isn't obvious to us at all. You might as well ask a fish what is water. Next we have food, Science isn't great at studying the mechanisms of multiple variables at once. Much of science is dependent on isolating a variable and studying that or else there is risk of fudging the results and misattributing factors in causal relationships. However, the problem is that the natural world doesn't isolate variables in that way. The natural world and the way it works is much messier than a contained lab environment. It's a case of the map (the lab controlled results) not being the same as the territory (the way things work in the natural world). The thing that made me realize this is the way that nutritional science can be a difficult field. When it comes to food and they way people's genetics are different, there are many variables that need to be accounted for, And sometimes, isolating variables can mess up results. That often contridicts the way most science is conducted where variables are isolated in order to determine a causal relationship. For example, there is a notion in diet culture that fruit makes you fat because it has sugar. The study that was conducted isolated fructose from fruits and it compared fructose to the way regular sugar, sucrose, reacts. The test results came out with the conclusion that the body metabolizes both fructose and sucrose in the same way. In fact, the body can't tell the difference. It's well known that excess sugar messes with blood sugar levels and this causes things like weight gain. So next you know, you have a bunch of people talking about how fruit makes you fat and how fruit is basically the same as candy. But this isn't the whole story. What separates fruit from candy is that in addition to the sugar (fructose) that is in fruits, fruits also have fiber. So, even though there is no differentiation between fructose and sugar, when you add fiber into the equation, the body metabolizes it differently. The fiber in fruits counteracts the blood sugar spike that something like fructose by itself could cause. If anything, the fiber along with the additional vitamins that are in fruits help blood sugar levels and have an overall positive effect for the human body. Comparing fruits to candy is a conjecture. Here are a couple videos that go into this more in depth: Isolating variables is very much necessary in some experiments but in others they are counterproductive. Isolating variables to determine a causal relationship is a very linear way of looking at science. However, multiple variables, though they can be messy, if it's managed in the right way can give a more holistic way at looking at science. The later way of doing science studies variables as one with an interconnected system rather than taking it to the side and studying it independently. The later way is more in alignment with oneness. I found these videos on Leo's blog when he was talking about linear binary logic to nonlinear vision logic. I think it can also be a metaphor for taking one variable into account at a time vs studying many variables at once. This type of multivariable thinking I suppose is more difficult for the hard sciences to implement. As someone who had to conduct studies in the social sciences, I can tell you that systemically, multivariable thinking is easier to implement when it comes to things like sociological observation, participant observation, and conducting surveys with people. In these fields, personally I found the importance of being aware of self bias since that can impact what you see and the way you see it when it comes to observation. I think more of that needs to be taken into consideration in other fields of study as well. And now, I'm going to end with capitalism What studies are conducted are dependent on the constrains of what society deems valuable in the moment. This I realized after talking to one of my friends about if we could study or research anything, what would we be studying. My friend was talking about how she would look into human sexuality more along with studying paranormal activity. Then we started laughing because we were like "imagine what kind of case we would have to make and what kind of hoops we would have to jump over in order to get grant money for those kinds of studies." We would look insane. This was a light hearted conversation of how we have niche interests and how to articulate them to normies but after the conversation I couldn't help but wonder. How many things do we not study because society doesn't see it as valuable? How much knowledge goes undiscovered simply because it doesn't serve the self agenda of the larger system? In my opinion, the best way to do research and science is to fuck around and find out without having some type of agenda. Putting too many constraints on what you can study can stop people from making new discoveries even thought those constraints are there to protect against wasting time and getting into dead ends. But wasting time is inevitable, even if you do have constraints. Also, if we prioritize profits and funding when it comes to what we research, it is very possible that monetary gain can mess with the methodology or results of a study because that degree of self interest and self preservation can yield to propagating misinformation due to wanting to appeal to the people funding the research. I wouldn't be surprised that the reason why we don't look into Eastern or natural plant medicine is because it isn't profitable for pharmaceutical companies and because there is a western bias where we don't see the validity of anything outside of the European rationalist paradigm. There is a tendency to view Eastern and indigenous wisdom as irrational or invalid because the west as an epistemological bias where they see the traditions and the ways of knowing of other cultures as less than. The system has its biases. The ones that stick out to me the most is the patriarchy and capitalism. I have personal experience when it comes to research bias against women. A few months back I was diagnosed with PCOS which is a disorder that only effects women. It isn't rare or new but it is something that doctors aren't really familiar with treating. No one knows what causes PCOS and treating PCOS is basically a trial and error game that the patient has to do themselves. Women's health issues in general doesn't get as much research money and therefore isn't well researched. Another example of this is how women typically display different symptoms in the even of a stroke. But most people don't know and instead most people are only familiar with the symptoms that men display in a stroke. This can cause people to overlook strokes in women. Finally, women are more likely to deal with side effects for vaccines. This can especially seen with the COVID vaccine where women tend to fall ill right afterwards in higher rates compared to men. This is because most test trials test on men over women therefore vaccines often take the male biology into account more. The reason for this research bias is this sociological concept that is along the lines of whatever group is dominant in society, that's the group that is normalized and seen as the default. In society, men have more power than women. In research men's issues are prioritized while women's issues are dismissed. In test trials, men's bodies are seen as the default while women's bodies are seen as the anomaly because of things like hormones. To me that's ridiculous because how can half of the world's population be seen as an anatomical anomaly? The only answer is self bias. Self bias is inevitable when what studies are conducted are dependent on the constrains of what society deems valuable in the moment. How we define what is valuable and worthwhile is relative to the time and place. And currently we live in a time an place where materialism, men, capitalism, and whiteness are prioritized over truth, discovery, and exploration. I really liked this quote from this article that talks about why women are more likely to have side effects from the COVID vaccine: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/04/10/covid-vaccine-women-report-more-side-effects-than-men-heres-why/7139366002/

@Raptorsin7 sounds like what someone who needs self love and who needs to connect with their emotions would say

I love this idea. I know I said that in the other thread but I wanted to include that sentiment of support here as well.

I noticed something that many wise people have in common is that they mind their own business. That can manifest in different ways such as not gossiping, investing in self education, working on yourself, honing in on your craft instead of competing, avoiding drama etc. As a result, some of these people may be loners or have a loner phase but many still chill in society and try to stay mindful of the influences around them whether it be in the form of the people in their lives or the media they consume.

I REALLY love this idea. Sometimes the best way to handle a situation isn't to go out find a bunch of techniques and gain success in changing yourself so you aren't a devil or fool anymore, but it's to find a place of acceptance, self love, gentleness, and forgiveness within yourself. I think the later needs to be emphasized more here. I feel that this would also help balance things out by encouraging more I guess feminine forms of self help since the energy in this forum tends to skew pretty heavily masculine.

I found your video incredibly insightful and something that really resonated with me. Tbh it perfectly reflected a lot of the skepticisms I had with what I saw being discussed both the actualized.org forum and youtube channel. It felt like a breath of fresh air and an affirmation that I wasn't crazy in the things that I saw and thought were red flags.

I agree, No one said that Leo or Actualized.org came up with the teachings out of thin air. But there is responsibility on how those teachings are presented and who they are aimed towards. I have seen all of the videos that you mentioned on the bottom of you comment. My main thing is that YouTube Leo and forum Leo are different. Leo on YouTube is much more polished and detailed in his delivery but on the forum he sometimes uses platitudes flippantly which can be dangerous. There are also times where he contradicts himself when it comes to the topic of death. That can muddy the waters. I agree. Much of his teachings are helpful. But that doesn't meant that there isn't a huge possibility of taking things the wrong way and using those teachings to harm ones self and others. He talks about this in his most recent video. I agree, this place isn't a cult. But there are fanboys that take things too far and simply parrot whatever Leo says despite Leo telling them to find things out through their direct experience by looking at the material for themselves and spending time by contemplating and studying the subject in question. The behavior of the fanboys isn't Leo's fault by any means but it's important to look at how the collective ego behaves and teach things that meet the people where they're at. I didn't see Adeptus misrepresent anything. He never said that actualized.org was a cult. If anything he said the opposite. He mainly was saying that we shouldn't put Leo on a pedestal. I agree, spirituality isn't designed for people with mental illness who need basic help. But the way he teaches things can look like he is advocating for something even if that wasn't his intention. I agree, that is possible and Leo can't help or give resources for everyone to avoid this. But he can be mindful of the pitfalls his deepest teachings have and make them available only for those he deems ready or leave it out of YouTube entirely since there is no way to mange the thousands of people who come across his videos. I don't think this forum could have known what was going on with Sunny. In that way we are innocent. But it's important to look at the teachings and how they are presented because clearly that played a role in the worldview that caused the recent events. Also, blaming someone versus showing ways to take responsibility are very different things. We can take responsibility without wallowing in shame. If anything, wallowing in shame isn't going to be taking responsibility. All I'm saying is that there are things that we can do and be mindful on so that this instance doesn't happen again. I agree, Sunny is responsible for his actions. But the forum had an impact on the way that he saw the world which led to this decision. We need to acknowledge that if we want to move forward. We all have a role that we are playing in this situation. I'm not blaming or shaming Leo. But I will say that with his influence, it's up to him to take proper safeguards from here on out and learn from this situation. When I say he or anyone is responsible for something, I mean that they have the ability to respond constructively in the present moment. Taking proper action looks different in different circumstances. Leo has a lot of power and influence on this forum, therefore he has a huge ability to respond in a way that uplifts the community. In my opinion, given the thread Leo started and the video he let out, he is taking responsibility for this situation. Is it perfect, in my opinion no. But is he doing something about it and is that something to acknowledge, absolutely.

Dealing with My Spiritual Ego: The Dangers of the Spiritual Ego and Why People Should Be Careful Some. of. yall. bout. to. be. real. mad. at. me. but. it. must. be. said. While I do get a lot of value out of spirituality and Actualized.org, there are things that I'm very hesitant and even skeptical about. This might look like me turning on this community or not aligning with the main values of this place but I honestly don't care. The two main things that I'm really hesitant about involve the dating advice here, especially for guys who can't get laid, and the enlightenment related things there. I'm not going to talk about the first one because I already wrote about that but I am going to focus on the second one. I suppose that I'm far from having any concerns about enlightenment and transcendence. I think I'm at a place where integration and building a solid foundation to build my life on in order to ground me is much more important. I think getting on the path to enlightenment prematurely can be incredibly dangerous without proper integration. Maybe I'll get to a point where I'll care more about existential and absolute truths years down the road or maybe I won't I don't know. But I know that if I ever get on that path, I want to be able to have some type of framework and some solid foundation because diving in head first without preparation is irresponsible for me and the people around me. There are some methods of getting there that I don't particularly agree with (if you do agree with it idc, no judgement I don't know what's best for everyone) and those include things like psychedelics, fasting, and isolating yourself from your loved ones and abandoning your hobbies and interests because all of your attention should be towards enlightenment. I feel that those things are rather extreme and are things that are definitely not for the vast majority of people. Also, I'm hesitant with drugs in general. I don't care if other people uses them granted they are doing so safely, responsibly, and legally but it's not for me especially when that advice is coming from a talking head on the internet. Upon recent events, this video by Adeptus Psychonautica came out. Some people are triggered because they think it makes actualized.org look bad but I think it's incredibly beneficial for people from the outside critiquing actualized.org because being super insular usually doesn't end well for a variety of reasons whether it be because of self bias all the way to cult like tendencies. I guess I'm not particularly attached to actualized.org and spirituality in general so when people critique these things, I don't feel particularly triggered because to me it's simply a source. I think it can be easy for people to get attached to some sources and some teachers because of the benefits that one gets from their content because it does have to do with those people's survival emotionally and psychologically. Especially if you get help in a vulnerable place and even if you get out of that vulnerable place, there is an attachment that forms, almost like a baby blanket after you grow up imo. I've had something like this come up for me once personally and even though I've never got to the point of needing to defend that source I got value from, it does sting because part of you identifies with the source and teachings therefore when someone critiques that source or teaching, it's like they're critiquing you. I went ahead and watched Adeptus's livestream and I feel like most of it was valid despite what other people may think on here. At no point did I feel that there was slander or that Actualized.org was being dragged through the mud. There are also points where Adeptus talks about the positives of the way Leo is handling different issues such as the phone call he had with Connor Murphey and one of the posts he made on the thread discussing recent events( Around 1:08:00-1:17:00). They talked about how Leo or any of the mods are trying to do anything malicious or create a cult but sometimes it seems like there is one forming around Leo anyway (basically collective ego). Overall, @AdeptusPsychonautica, I loved this video and I think It's important to contemplate on the darker aspects of spirituality and self improvement rather than idealizing it. Here are somethings that I found were really valuable that I want to include in my journal.: Around the 15 minute mark: Mackenzie talks about how these teachings aren't things that were made up by the community rather they are things that were taught by ancient teachers and how back then there were teachers who had communities but since it was in person, the teacher can gage were the students are at and how much they can handle. However, this aspect gets lost when its all on YouTube and on a forum when anyone regardless of how stable they are can access it. There aren't checks and balances. I think this is a very valid critique. It's not so much a direct attack on actualized.org but it's talking about how systemically there are problems and shortcomings. At the 20-24 minute mark, I can see why some people in this community can get triggered. They are critiquing how a lot of the followers think that they are a finished product and they are so enlightened and they egg each other on in order to keep up with the master and meanwhile the master is here talking about "i've gone deeper, I've become more awakened, I encountered a new level of awakening, you can't understand where I've been." And this challenges people to do more and more and more to where it can become compulsive especially because Leo talks in these absolute terms. Adeptus talks about how this might be Leo's personal truth and how he isn't saying Leo is lying or anything like that but it's the way he goes about it. This is honestly part of the reason why I avoid parts of this forum. I personally found that this type of thing doesn't help me and how this type of thing can become very compulsive, especially when it comes to Leo's fanboys. Around the 31 minute mark: If truth realization is not your Moby Dick to where you want to sacrifice everything, go for human adulthood meaning the integration of your spiritual, emotional, relational, physical self to be your most mature self. If you don't want to sacrifice everything, point your hunger toward integration and self actualization. Then in the 37 minute mark, Mackenzie talks about her experiences with nonduality how she felt all the love and light in the moment but then she came back down to just being human again and still having all of her problems that she had before the experience and how that can be discouraging and therefore cause people to go on these endless seeking journeys. I feel like this is where I'm at with my views on spirituality and self realization. I do care more about integration and building a fulfilling life than simply transcending everything and joining the void. Because based on some of the interactions I've had on this forum, teachers that I have learned about in history, and interacting with Leo himself is that even if they get an enlightenment experience, there is still plenty of human shit and blind spots you'll still have. And I think to go towards actualization is to deal with that in a slow consistent way rather than dealing with nonduality and transcendence. Around the 40 minute mark: Mackenzie talks about cleaning up her nihilism she encountered from spirituality and how she started building meaning in the form of close relationships, books, etc. to slowly start rebuilding her ego to care about existing. And then she realized that that was the process that she wanted all along and because she grew up in the shadow of new age culture where ego death, nonduality, mysticism, love and light are more a part of the conversation than anything, she thought that was the way to fix herself. But for her it was more along the lines of deep psychological work, embodiment, and healing that she realized she wanted more of a complete human experience instead of transcending the human experience because that was the thing sold to her as a way to deal with being here. In order to deal with being here, you don't have to leave. You just have to be present and accept the present moment instead of constantly feeling like you have to do more and more to reach a higher and higher state of consciousness in order to be at peace with the present moment. In spiritual communities its like there is always some place else to get to. It goes back to the 27 minute mark where Mackenzie talks about how there are two levels. There is truth realization and done. Once you reach done, that's it there is no more self discovery of lets go see what else I can find. Once you're enlightened, the seeker disappears so if you're seeking more experiences, you're still seeking which can get compulsive. I love this section. While I never became nihilistic, I've had a point where I got really attached to detaching. I journaled about this before and how it relates to my relationship to actualized.org. Basically it wasn't cute. I had a friend who was like "I don't think you even know who you are anymore" because I got caught in this cycle of even detaching from the healthier forms of my ego like my personality, my hobbies and interests etc. It wasn't this enlightenment thing that people often talk about here. And from then on I took a step back from spirituality and self help in order to be more gentle with myself so I can build myself back up again. This was the post I was talking about and here is the part that I think is most applicable to this post: Around the 47 minute mark: I also like how they discuss how people turn spiral dynamics is another dick measuring contest lol. Also Adeptus talks about how it's not about the model itself rather it's about how people use it to judge others and turn it into a dogma. Then Mackenzie talks about how it's important ot just see it as a model rather than THE TRUTH that explains and solves everything because that can be the indication that this is probably a defensive ego mechanism. Reminds me of something I wrote elsewhere in this journal: Around the 1 hour 3 minute mark: Mackenzie talks about how some teachings are vague or are gatekept because the highest teachings can be dangerous. Vague teachings will only make sense when people ponder it for a while and then when the reach a certain place in their journey it will make sense. And that bread crumbing your way to truth is part of a gradual process of direct experience where you figure it out on your own, therefore if something goes wrong, you can still back track. However with psychedelics, you're kind of thrown into the truth and then you may or may not be able or ready to deal with it which can be dangerous if someone doesn't have proper integration. Granted I've never experimented with psychedelics and I don't plan to any time soon, but I do 100% agree with the need for proper integration and the importance of pacing yourself in the journey to find truth. It reminds me of Leo's video on ego backlash where if there is a sudden change, even if it's for the better it can lead to a huge backlash because individually and collectively we want to aim towards homeostasis rather than growth because homeostasis feels safe while growth is a leap into the unknown. And these backlashes, even though they may look like a step back after taking a step forward, are important so that you don't do too much too soon and throw everything off and cause chaos while aiming for growth. The bigger the growth, the bigger the backlash. To me that's important to take into consideration because to me that means taking on too much too soon can yield to a huge backlash which can be pretty detrimental. And to me, it means that it's important to take your time on the journey and pace yourself so that you don't have a backlash that is so devastating that it takes away all of your progress. It simply isn't sustainable. That's something I also learned this year as I've been trying to take a more gentle, slow approach to discipline rather than a rigorous strict way to discipline. It goes back to that feeling of always wanting to get somewhere rather than appreciating where you are now. The spiritual ego wants to be enlightened as soon as possible and if it means taking a shit ton of LSD or 5meo, it will take that route over a slower and more sustainable way like through meditation, self-inquiry, and working on yourself in general. I don't think there is anything wrong with those substances and that there is a time and place for them but when you have a spiritual ego that wants to get more and more enlightenment experiences that last longer and longer and go deeper and deeper, I can see how that can turn very dysfunctional to where someone might contemplate on ending their life so that they are in that state of bliss forever. 1:21:00: "What are things about yourself that you are trying to avoid by transcending that? That's where to start. What are you trying to transcend, why are you so fucking eager to transcend it." I just really like this part. I think a lot of people need to contemplate this tbh and I think this is a good quote to end this post at.

I'd say her work is geared towards a integrative approach where people are trying to integrate parts of themselves through things like shadow work rather than a transcendent approach where you're trying to transcend parts of you. Personally, I got a lot of benefit from this. Integrating the ego and making it whole makes it safer for transcendence because transcending things prematurely can lead to things like creating shadows of repression, which wouldn't be helpful in the path and can lead to a lot of dysfunction.

I'm with @Etherial Cat. I really value your contribution to this forum. I also feel a lack of empathy and proper grounding in parts of the forum. It's part of the reason why I don't go to some parts of the forum tbh. Nowadays, I mainly try to stay in my own lane in my own journals. I glossed over the threads about recent events but after reading some comments, I didn't feel comfortable with really going into it. I just said my piece and went my way. The whole thing was heart breaking and overwhelming. Not to bring spiral dynamic into this but sometimes I feel that people are so focused on stage yellow and turquoise that they don't properly integrate green and that some people who claim to be yellow don't have the best foundation of integration because they are so concerned with getting towards the highest stages as soon as possible.

I second this. I think clearing up issues with absolute truth and relative truth is an important step in making this type of work safer for people who are just getting into it. I have seen people use the absolute perspective in situations where it isn't appropriate nor constructive. I do remember there being threads and posts of people talking about how rape isn't evil. In a philosophical discussion one can make the argument that evil is a label we project on to things to ensure we keep ourselves safe, but when you use that same statement in the context of dating advice or something of that sort, it can be incredibly damaging and gaslighting for people who have dealt with things such as rape or any other form of sexual harassment. Additionally, differentiating between absolute and relative truth and knowing where to apply it is important given the context of the situation. Blanketing over an issue with platitudes of absolute truth can result in things like false equivalency which can also lead to things like zen devilry. I'll use survival as an example. In the absolute sense everything is survival but in the relative sense there are different ways to go about it ranging from healthy and conscious to dysfunctional and unconscious. While the absolute truth that everything is survival isn't false or misleading, it can mesh together healthy forms of survival and unhealthy forms of survival resulting in the false equivalency problem. Some people can look at that without knowing how to differentiate when to implement relative and absolute truths and be feel justified in dysfunctional practices. Same with things like nonduality. While I have limited experience and knowledge regarding this subject and I'm still on the journey of figuring things out on my own, I do believe that for concepts in nonduality, again, there is a time and place for it and it's important to be able to discern that especially when advice is given. This is a good place to go through a vetting process of sorts and try to determine where people are at based on the discussion they are having and meet those people where they're at. Like for instance if someone is in a toxic situation and they can't get out due to logistical issues, it's more important to empathize and validate that experience along with giving that person coping skills in the meantime instead of telling that person that this is a dream and is all in their head since that can do more harm than good. While I do see most users understanding this, sometimes I do encounter people getting so spiritual to where they forget how to behave like normal human beings. I think addressing the time and place to effectively use what we know on an absolute and relative level can work through much of these problems. That will clarify a lot of things that people misconstrue imo. Part of learning is being able to make distinctions and having accurate discernment.

@Ora I had to search up what candida is and yeah I doubt I have that lol. Don't have any of the symptoms except the sugar cravings

I don't have a habit of eating a lot of really sweet things. I never had the habit of eating dessert. But I always crave something sweet after a meal. It isn't overwhelming and I normally don't give into these cravings (mainly because I don't have anything super sweet in the house) but it is something that is rather annoying. So why does this happen and what can I do about it?