zurew

Thats a fake scam channel. The "live" you see was a past recording. They wrote shit like this in the comment section:

Even though you often talk about that everything is relative, you don't live up to that nihilistic notion, because you would be already dead . In order for you to survive, you have to have a hierarchical valuesystem, where your survival is somewhat up there alongside with other things. Having meaning and values in your life is an essential and a core part of your survival. So, yes, you do follow certain set of rules and values and yes you will necessarily follow something that is up at the highest level is your valuesystem and you can't and won't espace that. You don't just do random shit to achieve what you want to achieve, you do a specific set of practices to get there and you have beliefs about which ones are more effective and which ones are not. This is the thing you guys always forget with the constant "I don't have rules and beliefs" is that you will necessarily follow some patterns and practices regardless if you acknowledge it or realise it or not; and you will act accordingly. The problem is that if you don't have a religion you will have to reinvent the wheel (all the elements that religion gives - that are part and necessary elements of your survival) in an often times unconcious manner and chaotic way. The maximum you can say is that your system is somewhat dynamic (you will excluide and include certain things in your system), but even that dynamic element has some patterns to it and you don't just use randomness when it comes to exclusion and inclusion. In the relative world its not all relative, and we can use empirical data and science to massively help your realize which path will fit you better. You can set a up a system (that can be dynamic and forever evolving) that can help you with the choosing process accordingly all the known stuff and empirical data at that particular time. Yes doing this algorithmic process is limited, but as I said you will follow your own algorithmic process anyway, that will be often times unconscious and chaotic asf, filled with a bunch of assumptions. Your example is also not necessarily applicaple this time, because what we are talking about is much more essential and necessary than just education. Its like if you would say "there are people who need water and there are people who don't" - no, people do need water in order to survive. With the integration of statistics and science we could literally demonstrate which values will lead to a more fulfilling life and which ones will lead you to suicide and depression and to other bad stuff. Pretending that all values will lead to an equally happy, effective, and fulfilling life or to God, would be ignorant ( so this "everthing is relative" bullshit needs to fly out the window in the context of this conversation). If you would have a system where only your feelings would dictate everything , you would probably be dead or in prison right now. You can have a system, where your feelings are integrated and have a very special place and a specific purpose. Thats where the integration of science and empirical data comes in. You can set up a constantly evolving dynamic system and track what the most common dynamics, practices are, that are often times necessary for Awakening. There are general patterns to everything, and first trying those general practices (that statiscally lead most people to Awakening) is much better than you being forced to do and try all shit on your own, with your limited time and money. When you make a critique, you automatically have to recognise whats the alternative that you argue for --> Doing shit randomly or what? If we recognize that God is the highest value, then we have to make it somewhat tangible (and btw we all do this, including Leo, because looking at all the fucking threads made about awakening, he clearly made distinctions between awakening to God and other types of awakening) - so we might as well do the "making of the highest value tangible" in a collective, conscious way. So here is a process. 1) Recognition/acceptance of a common highest value 2) Defining that highest common value in a tangible way, in order to be able to measure if you are moving towards or moving away from that value. You will do both of these steps regardless if you have religion or not. You will define a highest value for your own self, and you will try to make it tangible, because you will want to measure if you are going towards it or going away from it. Now, once both of those things are established, we can start the measuring process and the exclusion process (excluding things that doesn't lead to that highest value)

He is on house arrest, and the investigation is still not over, so at the end of this whole process he can still be charged with anything.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/120oq1x/i_asked_gpt4_to_write_a_book_the_result_echoes_of/

I thought she was just informing him about how she prefers to be refered to, but regardless, if that was your thought process, then I can see how you got to your conclusion.

They are heavily linked, but they are also separate things. Regarding the context of this thread, the OP very much liked her energy and her appearance, because if he wouldn't have , he wouldn't have had sex with her, and he wouldn't have said, that they had a good time. She identitfied as non-binary from the start (even during the times when they had fun), so regardless of her non-binary identity, they had fun and they enjoyed their time with each other. You would maybe have a point, if she would have identified herself in one way from the start and would have changed her identity during the relationship.

I know, thats why I pointed out that polarity won't necessarily change just because of gender (in this case how his girlfriend views herself). Energy/polarity as a variable can be separated from gender.

He made a good point when he separated energy (masculine and the feminine) from gender, because regardless of your gender (whether you see yourself as a man or a women), you can be masculine or feminine as well.

This is not even about what the OP presented here. His girl wasn't even agressive about how she wants him to call her, she even asked him whether it is a problem for him or not, so I don't know from that how you get to the points that you made in this thread. The problem presented by OP is equivalent to this: Your girl calls you daddy and then you tell her that you don't like that and you would rather be referred to as babe. Thats the seriousness of the problem we are talking about right now. Without making a 100 different other assumptions about the girl, this problem's seriousness is laughable.

An interesting question is where is the limit to red lines? If I tell you I have 20 different red lines, and if you cross any of those lines I am going to do x,y,z should I always abide by your rules without limits and let you dictate all the steps I can take, all the things I can do outside your border or should there be a limit to it and if there should be a limit to it, where do you draw the line?

Why?

You don't get consciousness in a vacuum, you have to place it in the context of humanity and then in the context of a human. To increase your consciousness you need to do certain kind of practices and methods. If you accept and acknowledge that practices are happening in the context of your human life and in the context of a society, then you shouldn't have a problem with a consciously constructed system (religion 2.0) that helps you in a holistic way (where your human needs are acknowledged and not ignored) If you don't approach consciousness in a holistic and organised way (where your humans needs are actually taken care of and appreciated), then you will have a disorganised and chaotic development and you will unnecessarily slow down your process. But you do probably care about how effective certain methods are and how efficiently those could lead you or anyone to enlgihtenment. If you care about the effectivesness, then we can move on to argue about the next part which is this: What do you think is more effective? 1)Having to collect, try, all the different kind of practices alone and then try to create a model in your head about which one is probably more effective and better than the other one OR 2) Being part of a spiritual community, where science is integrated, a place where you can find all the information about spiritual practices and methods in one place (the effectiveness of methods are ranked by using the help of statistics and science not by dogma [unironically you can find a lot of dogmas in every spiritual community regarding the methods and practices - for example notice Leo's bias towards psychedelics]). Because science is integrated, we are talking about a dynamic and a constantly developing system and not about a rigid, dogmatic, unchanging one; and because science is integrated and human limitations and needs are not ignored, this place can help you not just with enlightenment, but to prepare you for enlightenment. The preparation for enlightenment is incredibly important (this is ignored or very poorly taken into account in every current spiritual community - because they don't approach it in a holistic way), because doing certain practices when you are not healed or developed enough will make doing certain methods or practices either futile or ineffective or even counterproductive and dangerous.

There is a statistic that shows that some of these interrogations are so fucking "effective" , that even if you didn't commit the crime, you will be gaslighted and persuaded so much and manipulated so much, that you will say that you did commit the crime. These tactics are not really good tactics (and arguably are not even ethical), because there are so many fucking false positive confessions.

@StarStruck Nice . Anyone who will get triggered by your memes, is not awake .

Change "Godz & shiii" to "Aliens & shiii" and you are good. Or please make a meme about people arguing who is more conscious.

Thats not the question, because no one here is denying that you can awaken without any religion. The question is that whats more effective? Having an organized system where you can find all the teachings and methods and all the pitfalls and everything in an organised way with the combination of all the good parts of science to maximize the effectiveness or a world where people who want to awaken have to do all the investigative work alone by exploring many different kind of cults and by all that maximizing their chances of getting caught up in one and getting mislead by one? Its almost the same as if we were talking about learning in a high conscious university (where all the knowledge is organised, and where many different kind of highly educated people are at your disposal in one place vs you having a big need for collecting and trying out and testing all the selfhelp books alone and wasting a lot of time and money by doing so) I haven't said that that is the highest value, I just used it as an example to make a point. The other thing that is relevant here is that people on this forum are very fast with saying "everything is relative, and nothing has inherent value , and no value is higher than any other value" which btw isn't necessarily true, especially if you guys agree with Leo that Reality is Love,- but regardless of that - this is fine on a theoretical level, however no one here is living up to that nihilistic notion and the very fact that you guys are alive, proves that no one here lives up to it. If we know that survival necessitates a hierarchy of values, then we might as well consciously construct a moral and a valuesystem that we could all collectively live up to. You made an argument about how dogmas are necessarily bad (I disagree, because you can't escape certain dogmas and dogmas can have a very specific purpose - namely for example to make you take action), however, on this site we have dogmas as well, but these are harder to recognise. The very purpose of a dogma is to not question it, and I brought up an example of a dogma: "You can experience awakening/the Absolute if you do x methods, and you don't have to believe me, just try it for yourself!", if I question that dogma, then I can't start doing the work, but if I don't question it and I buy into it and use it as a method, then I can start doing the exploration/seeking/doing the work. A person who wants to explore the absolute, first and foremost have to have a belief that it can be explored (prior to any other action). The very same way we could have a religion as I described above ,where you could find all the necessary tools, frameworks and methods in one place and all the best people that are in the field, that could help you to lead you to the explore absolute or to help you awaken.

This is not a good faith way to explore and to have an inquiry about all the effects of electric car production and usage. Here is a question: Do you have a smartphone? If you do, then you are contributing to a big market, that uses child labour to produce necessary parts for your phone and thats just one bad industry from many, that could be brought up. You not owning an electric car won't change the systemic issues that are in Congo. If you really care, then we should talk about the systemic issues and not about guilt-trapping people who own electric cars (just to be clear I don't). Unfortunately people are doing this work there, because they probably don't have a better option to earn enough money, and without addressing the systemic issues there, even if hypothetically you would manage to shut these mines down, the only thing you would achieve with that, is that you would take away a money earning opportunity from these people without actually giving them an alternative or better option. We can talk about direct and indirect effects. Regarding the indirect effects: we have an interconnected ecosystem, and if you start to fuck with certain parts of that system, then the effects of that will be eventually felt everywhere, but even if we would to ignore the indirect effects, there are direct bad effects of using gasoline.

I think the best you can do is to learn about writing and at the same time learn prompt engineering (how to use prompts the best and most efficient way to get what you want from the AI). If you learn about writing more and more, you will be able to use that knowledge to ask the right questions to the AI and to specify the needs and the tasks that the AI will need to do for you, and you will automatically become a better prompt engineer as well. The more knowledge you have about a topic or a concept (in this case about writing), the deeper questions you can ask and the more you can specify what tasks the AI will need to do. Being more educated about writing will be what will set you apart from other people who are not educated but are using AI to write things for them.

if I would know a rigorous answer to that, I would probably be one of the smartest person alive. This is one question a lot of people struggle with and the concept of an antirivalrous world is about. As I said before, debating about it won't be sufficient enough, because debating is structurally limited for this, and here is why: Debating already assumes an already agreed upon goal/goalpost where we will try to move towards during our debate, unless this is not established, we will talk past each other and we won't settle/get anywhere. Debating is about using logic to get from A to B. Morals precedes logic and sometimes if we have foundationally different morals, we won't be able to agree upon the goal/goalpost, therefore we won't even be able to begin our debate and won't be able to settle our disagreement(s) by debate Therefore the argument would be , that we need to have a common set of foundational morals that we can all use and agree upon (religion) and just after that we can start talking about debating certain topics. Once that foundation is established, that will give a structure to our debates and we can then debate about how to move towards certain goals within that structure. You might say "yeaah, but there never was a universal religion that everyone agreed upon, and we still managed to survive and to move society forward" - that would be a good point, however the next part of the argument would be , that even though in the past we somewhat managed to do that (because we weren't that depended on each other and in the past we could use might to get what we want), in the 21st century where everything is interconnected and we are depended on each other, some of these disagreements (that are at foundational moral level) needs to be settled to be able to solve some of our global problems and to be able to not live in constant fear that the other party will use their might (justifiably from their perspective) to defend their morals. The weakest part of this argument is obviously about the "how". How could we get to a universal religion without war and actual fights? The answer to that question is incredibly complicated and I am not educated enough to talk on that, however, first we have to agree that there is a strong need for it, and then we can talk about the "hows" (notice that here we have to agree on the goalpost to be able to have a debate about it and to be productive).

You can now play this game with chatgpt if you want to. Give it a prompt like this: This is how it went down for me

If it is truly totally deterministic, then you and no one have any control over their feelings, therefore being worried or feeling guilty is totally automatic and not a choice.

Some religion came from experiecing certain things, then building a framework for it and then teaching about it. (the very same way how Leo has his awakenings, then try to give a set of practices and a framework for it and then teach about it). You can experience a bunch of things, but an experience's truth value will be totally determined by you. You can experience infinite love, and then say, that it was just chemicals in my brain that made me feel that way. You can always doubt or blindly accept any experience, and how much truth value you will place on them will be grounded in subjectivity. You can say, that some religion provides dogmas that you can't really test, or falsify, however being able to test something or to experience something, doesn't necessarily makes it more true than other things either. I could create a framework where I almost perfectly describe how to achieve psychosis (but put a label "ultimate truth" on it), give you a set of practices how to achieve it, and then and the end of all that say - don't believe me , try it for yourself. Just because you can achieve or experience it , that alone doesn't mean that it will be more true than any other thing or that it will be the ultimate truth. You can find certain dogmas in any spiritual community or religion . The very notion, that ultimate truth can be experienced, in and of itself is a dogma here, that no one is allowed to question or contemplate.