zurew

Yeah this is a good suggestion imo. Also i would add that there could be more transparency and honesty. For example, if you didn't do much research on that particular topic, or if you are not sure that the information that you are sharing is 100% true, then you should mention it. That way people can be more sure, and do their own research and there would be less misleading topics. Also this way the emotionally charged topics can be reduced and more intellectual conversations can be achieved imo.

100% agree.

Okay, so how do you explain gay people, and trans people in society, if it mostly or only comes from culture, and society and not from biology? Btw just to mention your argument will hurt gay people here. Most stage blue people use the same argument that gayness is just comes from society and thats why they need to be banned, beacuse they will destroy culture and society and people will stop procreating. If you use the biology argument, that it comes from biology, then you are arguing in favor of gay people.

Maybe it can be transcended, but i haven't seen any people that could do that, that does not mean it isn't possible. You don't need to feel sad for those people because there are solutions to this problem even if we assume that it can't be fully transcended.

I think mostly yes, but i can only talk about myself. I don't know what other people are attracted to, i am obviously assuming here and projecting my own situation out.

Thats a deep question, and i think none of us knows the answer for that one, but we can make arguments and assumptions on both sides. I write you down my argument about pedohiles, which is about why i don't think attraction mostly comes from culture, but more from biology: But at the end of the day none of us knows how attraction works and where it comes from. My belief is that it mostly comes from biology

Yes,i do. I wanted to talk about pedohiles too, to bring up a point about this discussion. Think about it, if pedophilia would be mostly or only influenced by culture, conditioning .. Then why there are pedohiles at all, especially nowadays, where pedohiles considered the worst of the worst in society. All pedophiles are fearing for their lifes when they are caught because of societal pressure, and because what will come towards them when they go to jail. All society coding into everyone do not be pedohiles, and pedhilia is gross and wrong and evil. So why would there be then so many pedohiles then if it is only or mostly comes from culture and society?

Also you have this assumption baked into your argument that people the reason why people are attracted to certain traits and things is because of societal and cultural examples. I don't agree with that. I think that attraction comes from the combination of societal things and also from biology. I would put more weight on the biology part. Thats why i don't think you can change what you are attracted to.

I don't think its discriminatory if i am not attracted towards certain people. If i am straight is it discriminatory that i am not attracted to men? If we want to use the word 'discriminatory' that vague then it will lose its meaning. Again you are conflating being attracted to gender and being attracted to biological traits. For me if there was a man who had a vagina and big female boobs and no facial hair no dick etc but a female body i would be attracted to it. I don't care about the gender part in this case, because i am attracted to biological traits. And also to be clear, just because you are a woman, that does not mean that i will be attracted towards you. Everyone has their own biases, kinks, traits that are attracted to

Or you are not attracted to gender But biological traits. I think its fair to assume, that most people are attracted to biological traits and to personality and not towards gender. If you have a dick, and i am attracted to vagina, then i am not discriminating you or hating you, i am just not attracted to you.

I know, that was my point. Imagine you are in the same situation you have 2 companies you have 100 mill, if you split your 100mill the probablity that your companies will fail is very high. So if he would have been only focused on the wealth aspect, it would have been a really dumb and risky move on his part. A lot of people are saying to not follow his example, because it is really risky and the probability that you suceed this way is really low. Is he making an idol of himself or media and other people making an idol about him? I agree with you, but having economical incentives are not inherently bad or necessarily related to only stage orange. Taxes are essential in todays world for sure. My question would be how is he avoiding his taxes?

What is 'saving the world' has anything to do with paying taxes? Do you think that he made Tesla because he knew beforehand, that he can create a market for electric cars and earn a lot of money (without thinking about the implications how well it can affect humanity in general)? Because it was a really big risks imo, not to mention that he had to run not just 1 company but two. Why wouldn't he put more money into SpaceX if its just for the money and fame? I think that if we would be to do a risk analysis on that, almost no one would suggest to do such a big risk. Of course big risk --> potential big reward, but still he could have just invested all his 100million dollars into SpaceX. His companies are so far helping humanity and not destroying it imo. Is it a coincidence, or he was intentionally planning and thinking about the impilcations of his actions? If he would be that hardly just stage orange, he would just go for the lowest hanging fruit without thinking about the implications, how it can effect people and humanity. I am not saying that he is purely for saving the world and he doesn't care about fame and money. That would be really naive to assume. But i don't think either that he is that hardly stage orange as you try to paint him to be.

But it wasn't designed to be a platform for long meaningful complex conversations. It was designed for popular people , so they can inform and reach most people quickly about situations and about themselves. Also there is this thing existing "tweetlonger" and also you could basically just share some links in your tweets that can direct people to sources that are longer. Also i think that trying to have really deep and meaningful convos via writing is seriously limited and difficult. Also it could be argued, that by limiting the tweets its forceing people to be more exact , to ramble a lot less, and to have messages that are high in signal and a lot less in noise (At least it would be if people would be well developed). So i don't necessarily think that limiting tweets is that big of a problem, but the people that are on there are just toxic. If tweets were not limited toxic people, maybe they could express their toxicity even more and in a longer format. I think Leo is right about the moderation. Twitter can become a good quality platform if the necessary regulations are implemented. Of course no one knows exactly how those regualtions should look like in practice, but we will see. We can only figure this out by experience and fail and try.

This is a really funny and good way to put it. Yeah totally, the only thing i would add more is that we tend to build this big picture so large and so forward in the future, that most normal people can't really relate to it, because it is so unnecessarily future-forward built. So putting much more emphasis putting your ideas in a way where people can relate to you and to your ideas is one of the most important things imo one can do. Also we could say that these models and systems and thinking is much more focusing on the top and on the end rather than on the base and the beginning. For instance: Going forward 50 years in vision is great, but going forward 500 years into the future with ideas is just entertainment and mostly mental masturbation. We could spend that mental masturbatory time on thinking about the baby steps that needs to be taken. Daniel Schmachtenberger said in one video, that im paraphrasing: "Can we find an example of a society who didn't hurt bugs? Yes we can (Buddhism and Jainism). " This is great, because he found a real world example of an idea, but we still lack how that can be put into a larger system where society don't have the same structure as the buddhists did. So we have a concrete idea from a larger system and we want to put that little part into a different larger system and just assume that it will work fine. Also i don't want to take it too much out of context, because he said that example to show that it is possible, but regardless that example with the buddhists in an of itself is way too unrealistic. In my opinion, after we can find a very extreme example the next step should be cooling it down and putting that cooled down example into our larger system. Knowing the structure and our values and where we want to go is super important, but once we have our solid meta vision where we want to go,we need to find concrete, real world examples and think about how those examples can be put into our larger system, and how well those examples will work once they are part of that larger system. So: Find a concrete applicable example or create one Think how that will correlate with other pieces of the large picture and the whole

Destiny's opinion: We'll see how no regulation works in practice.

This is really true. Being highly fixated on being meta cause inaction,being indifferent to the situation, being really fluid about taking positions, not being able to provide concrete, tangible, pragmatic solutions. Sometimes i catch myself doing this too. I think part of the reason for this, is having a more philosophical mind. Which is better? Going from meta to concrete Starting from different concrete positions and going more and more meta This is a really good source, article.

But most of them don't need to be leeched though. Especially if they are wealthy they have the opportunity to move anywhere they want, unless they are nationalistic.

Inception Mr nobody (this is a better promo for it than the trailer) Arrival Prometheus Interstellar Dracula Untold Escape room (2019) Split Chronicle (2012)

I don't think that lack of maps or lack of path the biggest reason for the small number of enlightened people. Most people nowadays are not ready to even start spiritual work. We need to put more focus on developing our population up to a level where they are ready and open for spiritual work. Creating maps in not a new thing. Leo creating his own path some can resonate with it others can't. Regarding finding the 'new way' won't be totally new, it will be the integration of the known paths. If you have any awakening experience chances are, that you can already find a map where you can point to your experience is really high. I might even disagree with the notion of trying to create one ultimate path, that everyone can use. I think that there is a lot of nuance to it, and everyone will find the path what he/she can resonate with the most. What you could do is creating a system that can guide people to the already existing path that they can resonate with the most likely (based on personality type, biases, values, ego development, openness, based on methods that are working for them better compared to other methods, based on their strength in intelligence etc etc etc) Or if you really want to create a totally new thing, firstly you will need to contemplate a lot about how enlightenment works what could be the variables that are responsible for most people's enlightenment and how you could create a model where you can boost those variables the most effective way for most people (assuming you don't want to create another niche system, but a system that is the most applicable for most people)

The only reason why your ego thinks/feels that it is finite and separated from every other thing is because of your 5 senses. But if we were to block all of your 5 senses at the same time, what do you think your experience would be? Your experience would be automatically infinite, because you would lose your finite self, cause you wouldn't be able to seperate yourself from anything else. But the interesting thing is, that even if you were to assume that there is an outer world separated from you, you cannot access it, and you have never accessed it. You are only interacting with your own biased image and you projecting your own ideas out to the outside world. You are experiencing your own projections of reality all the time, so you are a dreamer, and you are constantly creating your own dream. Can you think of anything that didn't happen inside your mind? (Even if you could think something like that, it would be automatically happeninng inside your mind) And here is the important part when we are talking about from your ego's perspective: That in your finite state you are constantly interacting with your own ideas of yourself. You are never interacting with you, but you are constantly creating just an image of a you, and the finite you experience your own created image of a you. So talking from your finite self's perspective, you have never interacted with anything other than your own image of yourself and your own image of reality. So what would be the best possible way to understand yourself and reality, without projecting and without bias? The solution is to become infinite and self reflect that way, because if you don't do that, you will only get a distorted image of a you. Why? Because infinity includes every possible perspectives, so you get the most accurate meta perspective of yourself and reality. Also,you have never read my message, you only read your own image created about my message. You are in my dream, i am interacting with my own biased projected image of a you (from the ego's perspective).

You subconscious mind doing that. You are on autopilot, just like when you drive you zone out and 10-20 minutes later you don't know how you got there, but you got there safely, cause your subconscious mind did everything for you without any focus required from your end. This is also one of the reasons why we can multitask.

Thats true but still. There are other countries and places, where you don't see nearly as much development in the green energy field as it could be possible if enough money would be invested in it. But regarding to the hydropower you are right.

This is why i said, that we are looping. I agree with you, that more people should have a healthier lifestyle, but lets be realistic here. This message that you should be eating healthily, you should exercise, you should have a less stressful life etcetc been given since the beggining of time. Most people don't give a damn about it, and people who give a shit about it, already doing it. And again there are people who can't afford any big change, or can't do big change because he/she don't have enough money, have addictions, have severe illnesses, being old etcetc (and i am talking about people who are the most likely to get hospitalized or be dead by the virus). So the group who is the most vulnerable for the virus would have a very serious and bad time, if we would only be using your solution. So overall the vaccine approach is still relevant and effective. Also when you say this: "If the immune system cannot create immunity to the virus after the second catch, then of course the vaccine won't be able to achieve that either, because the vaccine works on the same principle." you are doing the 'its either works 100% or not work at all' priciniple again. If you combine the vaccine with a virus catch you have a bigger immunity compared to the situation where you wouldn't have the vaccine but you would have 1 catch of the virus.

You may won't be effected by the virus in a very serious way because you are a healthy individual but you can't be sure. There were people who were high level athletes and when they got the virus they had to go to the hospital with very severe symptoms. Also keep in mind that you can catch the virus multiple times, and also there were people who had to go to the hospital multiple times, even though immunity would be assumed after the first catch. So catching the virus can significantly help you to deal with the second catch if you get it again, but it isn't bulletproof. Does it likely that you will be hospitalized by it? I don't think so, but you can't know that until you catch it. The only thing you can know, that by taking the vaccine you can lower your chance to get hospitalized by the virus significantly. Also even when doctors say nowadays that there is a really high chance that everyone will catch the virus and we can't do much about it, it does really matter, how fast everyone get infected by it. Again its an argument about hospitals not getting flooded by covid19 patients (by taking the vaccine ,you can slow down the infection rate, so you are helping health workers) There is this argument, that there shouldn't be any regulations because we should let through the virus across everyone because that way we can achieve herd immunity in a much faster way. there are some problems with that suggestion. Firstly, if we would have done that way, then our whole healthcare system would have collapsed, and hospitals would have been full with covid19 patients, and there would have been a lot more deaths. This argument would only work in a reasonable way, if we had such a covid variant which is much less severe. But then again its a difficult ethical argument, cause how many elder and weak people's death worth achieving herd immunity.