zurew

Yeah i understand why you want to "attack" this existential problem this way. But at some point you have to experiment with it, thats the only way to make sure i am not bullshitting. Good luck experimenting, and have a great day!

The experience is not even a good word for it, because that even applies that something having an experience(assuming there is a distinction between you and an experience), but thats not the case, you become an infinite experience(if we want to frame it that way). I would recommend you to think about this from the infinite consciousness pov a little bit. Do you think that just because you can question an experience / realisation with your ego, that automatically means that its not true? At the end of the day we are expecting something that can't be questioned? -> can that also be questioned ? - of course it can, so we end up going nowhere. All these stuff only make sense if you realise it yourself. Further talk won't be productive, because it will be about an ego trying to make sense an infinitely complex thing(You). Judging from the lower will end up being a never ending questioning and doubting and a finite model building. Of course you can say that thats begging the question which is upper/lower, but then again if what i am saying is true, the only rational thing you can do, if you have a direct experience of it. If what I say is true, that means you can't make sense of it well with using your ego and your finite logic. Because you want to make sense of it using a finite structure, you end up seeing a lot of paradoxes and you will be confused forever. The only thing you can do now is that you do a real experiment and see it for yourself. You have to see it for yourself, thats the only way to check if what i am saying is true or false. Remember if you are truly stage yellow, you have to put yourself into the other person's perspective, so you can make sense of it more well. That practically means you have to use something like 5meo DMT to be able to kill your ego instantly and see it for yourself whats being talked about.

Thats a good advice, if you are not sure about the positive side, check the negatives and if you find nothing, then experiment with it.

Thats going to be more than enough for the theory part. After you watched those videos, you can start dating and getting your direct experience . Just start meeting with woman, and talking to woman.

Why wouldn't a man date a woman who has a higher degree compare to him, i seriously don't understand. Again, this is only true for some man. Not everyone should have families this is again a gross generalization, not everyone is suited to have families, not everyone have a goal to have a familiy. The world cannot support to everyone have families. You want to attach a complex problem (people not wanting to have children) to only one trait, the world is much more complex than that. More abundance is somewhat related for people not wanting to have more children or only one children. But then whats the argument, you are going to force society to consume less goods and services or pay them less money or what? Do you understand how economics works? I could list a bunch more stuff because we could get into a lot more other fields that can be related for people not wanting to have more children. And again just because the avaliable man they can date decreases, that does not mean, that they can't find any man. I am saying this again, there are man out there who is more attracted to woman who is higher in social status compared to them. So even those woman who have phd-s can find their man and start a family . Its like you try to suggest that woman who has phd-s don't have or can't have a family, its obviously not true. Also, Woman who has a phd is only a very very very small portion of woman. So this argument that it destroys society doesn't really make any sense to me ,sorry. I don't think man give that much fuck about woman having a degree or not, maybe for some man its a + in the bag if a woman has a degree. But to say that a man won't date a woman because she has a higher degree is ridiculous in my opinion. You have to be super insecure in yourself because you think all your value lies in your degree, so if someone has a 'better' one all your self-confidence and self-esteem goes out the window. You try to connect your values and self-esteem to material things, so you are going end up being super insecure about everything, because if your lose your material stuff you think you are worthless. This again is not true. You are viewing these things very simplisticly as if you could generalise everything and view the world through a lense that you constructed, its much more nuanced, but you will ignore every other part, just to make a simplistic model of reality. There always were feminine man, there always were gay man, and there always were woman who had more masculine traits compared to some man. You gotta update your models about reality, man . You stuck in the 19-20th century. Adaptation is key for self-development. How many woman have you dated so far? How much experience do you have with woman? How much statistics have you gathered on your own to verify the claims of redpill? Bringing up religion is not a very good point, because you are indoctrinated with beliefs that you need to take for granted and you can't question them because you get punished if you do. Where do you draw the exact line between femininity and masculinity? Do you think you only have masculine traits? Do you think there is woman out there who is much more masculine compared to you? Where does femininity and masculinity exactly coming from and what decides how much masculinity and how much feminine traits you are going to have? Again these things doesn't fit your model, and you can't make sense of them you just label them as: 'exceptions to the rule' there are a few million exceptions to the rule then.

This is again a generalization. Not all woman will want to get a phd, just because they can get phd. And then even if they want to get a phd, that does not mean, that they don't want to start a family before they finish their phd-s. There are carrier woman out there, and there are some conservative woman as well. Just because you have a choice to eat everything that does not mean, that you will eat everything that you can, it just means you have more choice. I know there is a study on this, that suggests that if a woman don't have a family after x age then she is much more unhappier compared to other ones. But again we have to be careful how these statistics are structured, because you can use statistics to sell any narrative , if you only focus on certain aspects and ignore the others. Even if that particular statistic is right (about having children = more happiness for woman), Feminism does not cause directly unhappiness to a woman, because again feminism and not having children is not directly related. I have seen it in my own life aswell, when a "bigger" status woman dated a "lower" status guy, and now you can say that is exception to the rule again. There is a very blurry line between man and woman. Why? because you can clearly see in our modern society, that masculinity does not only related to man, and femininity does not directly relates only to woman. You can see more and more masculine woman, and more and more feminine man. Yes i am not denying that redpill has some truth in it. But has some toxicity and generalizations as well. Again, most of the time if you want to create a model and you want to force a narrative you will end up with a lot of 'exceptions to the rule' because your model won't fit reality. Red pill is not reality, redpill is a model to make sense of dynamics in reality, so it will be only partially true.

You are watching too much fresh&fit and redpill. They are generalizing a lot, trying to sell their narrative by ignoring the nuance in these situations, using cherrypicked statistics as if i couldn't bring other statistics that could prove the opposite what they are talking about. There is a lot of difference between woman to woman in values depending on a lot of stuff. f&f only focusing mostly on Miami woman. There is a very specific dynamic and a lot of money hungry woman there, but thats not mean that every woman is that way. You need to look for nuance, because you can get trapped into these ideologies. Anytime anyone shows you an example that not fits your way of thinking you can say that 'that is an exception to the rule' or you could think about making your model more nuanced. What about sugarmommies? Are they dating up or down, i suppose they are dating down, and there are more and more sugarmommas out there. Btw equality between genders not necessarily mean, that all the dynamics between sexes will just suddenly change and that everyone will treat the opposite sex just as they treat their own sex. When woman talk about equality they are mostly talking about rights and opportunities, not that now they won't date up or down. The point of not toxic feminism is to make as many opportunities for woman as for man, and the end of the day to have the same rights. Its a net benefit for society, especially if we are talking about economic growth, if more woman can get educated, and more people (in this case woman) can find their own way in life, the more positions can be occupied. You might not like that change, that more woman can earn a lot of money, because you can't use your money that easily at the dating market, so you need to build yourself up, and show why you are a special compared to the others. I think this dynamic change in the dating market is beneficial, because you really need to put some stuff on the table, and you won't just be able to get woman with your money. This dating stuff is all about understanding yourself ,your values and knowing with what type of person you can go well along with. If you like woman with x values, then you need to work yourself to be adequate for the dynamic that the x type of woman will bring. Its all about adapting to the situation and person. If there is a more feminine guy, who wants to be leaded by a masculine woman because he is that way, you can say that he needs to work on his masculinity or he don't have to strive to be an alpha, and then he will find a woman, who likes him that way, and attracted to him that way. If this particular guy attracted to more to masculine woman and his partner like that she can be the leader, then whats wrong with that? I think we really have to be careful with trying to put everyone in a box, so we can make sense of the world in a more easier and reductionistic way. Its too reductionistic and sometimes there is a lot of nuances that being missed on.

Hmm this is an interesting one, not necessarily agreeing with the cult part, but Leo often says that everyone should focus on his work and not on him. Then he start talking about how he achieved this state and that state and that no one has ever been there yet, except him. So yeah putting himself on a pedestal can distract some of his viewers about his work, ironically.

Not yet, but trying to get there. I am studying Software engineering at my university right now, mostly to get the degree to be able to get jobs easier down the road. I know its not necessarily essential nowadays, but still there are places which requires a certain level of degree,depending on the positions one wants to take. Right now i am really interested in NLP (Natural Language Processing). Its became a hobby of mine to study it in my free time. Its interesting, a lot of cool stuff can be built with it if one understand it well ( I am far from understanding it deeply ). I have to study it a lot more because there is a lot of information and knowledge that can be collected there just as with almost any field. There are some good projects that can be bulilt using machine learning and NLP and some other tools. For example imagine, if you could build an AI that can recognise information and organise that information using a spiral dynamics model. It is a very hard problem and that particular AI should be trained a lot to get more and more accurate, and the other problem is that sometimes i feel like the spiral dynamics model is not too tangible (depending on the context), so it would be very hard to make it tangible for the computer. One good thing with machine learning is that you don't necessarily need to make something super tangible (for example if you make an algorithm you need to put everything in the computer mouth because we know that nothing is trivial to it), however most machine learning models are used this way: This going to be framed very simply, (but of course a lot of nuance here that i don't mention): transform your data in a numerical format organise it feed it to the machine, decide how many neurons you want to use and how many layers, and then here comes one of the hard part: making the output well, making it tangible, so the AI knows exactly what it needs to optimise for. The very cool stuff is that even if you don't know and can't necessarily see the order, if you have a lot of data(lot of input and output data), then the AI depending on how advanced it is, it will be able to recognize an order between the input and the output, and hopefully the more it is trained the better it gets at it (sometimes it produces worse results, depending on optimization functions and stuff). So in theory if i were to collect and organise a lot of data, (websites and information using the spiral dynamics model), then if i were to feed that information to a trained AI it would be able to organise those websites and information and put those into and organised structure like a spiral dynamics model with x level of accuracy.

Good luck with that! Do you want to be a frontend developer or a backend one or a full stack? Do you want to get into that field because of money or you are just interested in it? One skill that is going to be essential down the road is a good googling skill and the ability to being able to read documentation. If you can google for the right questions and if you save some sites that can help you to find answers for your bug problems it can save a lot of time. There is this thing called google-dorking. You can use google dorks to get much more specific results for whatever you want to search. For example: if you use site:actualized.org intext:love ---> google will only give you pages that are on actualized.org and all those sites will have the word love at least once in them. But basically a good rule of thumb is that whatever coding problem you will have down the road the chances are that someone already solved it or encountered with it, is very high. So if you don't have a lot of time to struggle or grapple with a problem, you can search for it. Firstly recognise the problem well and then articulate it in a google search way.(Of course there are some cases, where you need to use google just to recognise what errors or problems you have that is also powerful) One other helpful thing to solve coding problems better, could be using different kind of coding forums and asking your questions there.

You can read scientific papers, but you won't necessarily understand them well enough without proper prior knowledge. You don't have to take information for granted though. You don't need to just believe in a 100% way. If you think that you have found something strong ,then you can search for counter arguments. Try to find the most eanest people on both sides of the argument you find interesting. Then find out why they think differently. If you do it this way you will understand the problem better, and then you can decide with which one you want to go with.

There are some good free antivirus softwares out there. Here is a list:https://www.safetydetectives.com/blog/best-really-free-antivirus-for-windows/. I am using Avira right now, the free version and it is good enough for me. Of Course you could argue, that because it is free it not nearly as good as the premium version, but thats still better than not having any antivirus software. I don't know how slow you PC is, but you can switch off your antivirus if you really need more power for specifical tasks. You can catch a virus not just through downloading files, so i think its better to have an antivirus software (you can catch a lot, just by browsing on the internet and clicking on something you shouldn't have). Its not just that it can destroy your PC, they can steal some of your passwords and then they can blackmail you ( I think the password stealing is what is one of the worst case scenarios). You won't have a headache with the registration code process, if you use a completely free version. But if you really don't want to use it, thats your choice. But overall i think it has more benefits compared to the negatives. I will write one virus story down if you are interested: There is a virus i don't specifically remember its name, but it was a virus that can change what you have in your clipboard ( when you press ctrl+c the stuff go to your clipboard, just saying if you don't familiar with it). So this virus was undetected because it was made that way ( there are some sites, where you can check if a file has any virus in it these sites check your file with the top 10-15 virus softwares, so if you don't want to download an antivirus and you think you found something skecthy then you can check those files there). So for what they can use the information that you have in your clipboard? They don't use that information, instead they change the information there, and put other information there. To be more specific, this virus was made for stealing money from people using a clipboard trick. So if you are familiar with crypto currencies, you know that bitcoin have a specific address structure. Everyone has their own specific address, and these crypto addresses lets be it bitcoin or ethereum they are built in a different but specfic way. These hackers made an algorithm that can detect if you have an information structure in your clipboard, which is kind of like a bitcoin address structure. So the virus changes that address to another one(for an alternative bitcoin address that the hacker has) , so when you want to pay some money to someone via bitcoin, you will send it to the wrong person. It is very smart from the hacker's perspective, because we are talking about cryptocurrency the hacker can't be traced back who he is(or with just very very great effort). Most of the time if you want to pay someone via using cryptocurrency you ask for their address and then you copy that because it is really long it can have numbers letters and capital letters in it as well, so it would be silly to write it down by hand ,because you can easily make some mistakes. So thats why they made the virus this way. Overall this hacker's address has more than 2 million dollars on it, and because of blockchain and because it is public, you can see the transactions there. You can only see different kind of addresses that sent him x amount of dollars. So it is crazy. Overall you have to be very careful with viruses, thats why i wrote this story down. Have a great day!

Yes thats true. However when we are talking about any polarizing issues. If we only talk about one side of the problems a lot of people will get triggered. I know you specifically wanted to talk about the woman side. However i think you can achieve more especially in a male dominated forum, if you present some male arguments also, so man can automatically see that you are not biased. That way, they can engage more with your message, rather then attacking you why you are biased and so on.

Thats fair to say. I think this problem won't be solved anytime soon. Man usually look at woman's apperance because it is kind of biologically programmed into us, to select the best female for our children. Of course in the modern society woman can suffer from that because everyone is highly objectified, some woman like it some don't. Man can be respectful if they want though, but yes, it is hard to change society.

Mostly yes, but depending on the country. I agree with the sexual objectification part, but i don't with the financial dependence on men part. You have the opportunity as a woman to get whatever job you want, so you can get financially independent. There are more and more entrepreneur woman out there as well. Modern society gave opportunity for everyone, for man and woman as well. I don't see why its easier to get financially independent as a man vs as a woman. But i can think of a privilege that a woman has but a man don't. Being able to abort a children, a woman has 100% ability to make her choice, of course she can talk with her man, but if she doesn't agree with the man's decision, then her choice will trump the man's in this specific case. I don't say that this is wrong, i just point it out.

Why do you think you are not as free as a man? Can you list some privileges that a man has that you don't?

But maybe you assume that I wish to treat everything or all perspectives the same, which I don't. Yes, i assumed that, because you were talking about how everything is just data for you, so i thought there is no perspective which has more relevance for you comapared to the other ones. So now you are somwhat agreeing that you actually play the hierarchy game (because you said that you don't treat all perspectives the same). The real problem here is you don't like to go meta enough. You don't want to apply the tools against themselves (like doubting doubting, or questioning questioning etc) because then you would realise the finite nature of those tools. Maybe it is mental masturbation, or it shows you the nondual nature of life and it shows you that doubting is just one finite tool, and using it can only get you so far. Notice that you can only think inside your language, you can't think outside of it. Its not good nor bad, it just that it has its own limitations to it , because anything that is potentially outside of the boundaries of your language you can't think about it. If we are staying consistent with the me problem (me problem is : figuring out what you actually are) ,then using finite structures like logic and language can only give you a finite model of yourself. Again, you are using finite structures and you are trying to make sense of yourself using those structures. You don't want to go outside of those structures (like letting go of doubting and letting go of using language and human logic to try to figure yourself out that way). How does it create any 'clarity' if you can doubt that clarity as well. Anything that you think make more sense down the road, you can doubt that as well, so eventually you don't get anywhere. Its like you can say that what zurew said about xyz can be doubted so he is wrong about xyz. I can doubt an infinite amount of things, but that does not necessarily give any clarity at all. i don't think it can give any clarity for the problem what we are wrestling with right now, because of the finite nature of doubting. I can doubt gravity, does that mean that gravity won't work anymore? I can doubt that the police will catch me if i steal something, does that really mean that the police won't catch me?

Do you only have an issue with the brutality of killing an animal or you are having a problem with killing an animal as well. Why don't you have a problem with killing plant life? I think we shouldn't focus on the morality part that much i think there are much more better arguments for veganism or for vegetarianism if we are talking about enviroment protection and global catashropes. The morality part is problematic, because everyone draw their line at a different place. I agree with you on the brutality of animal farming though. But that does not mean talking about morality can change animal farms, they don't give a shit about morality, they care about their own survival.So we need other arguments and other ways to change these things in the world. In my opinion, you should rather advocate for certain practices for people such as meditation, yoga and psychedelics, so they can feel much more connected to other parts of life. Of course this doesn't work on a massive scale, but when you are talking about an individual maybe its more effective to change his/her way of life this way.

Nice labeling ,so you don't have to engage with the content in it ever again. Doubting is killing itself, Doubt doubting. 'The data so far suggests that each and every thought can be doubted' doubt that one. Yes i do value doubting to some degree, i did not imply it is a 'bad' thing. However, if everything can be doubted why use it as a tool or standard? If you can apply it to anything (to every sentence, to every thought) then why you give doubting as a tool any significance whatsoever? How can it serve your self -inquiry? Being able to doubt things doesn't mean anything - it does not mean that what you doubt is not true.

When you said that 'You're assuming that the sober state is actually finite and that the psychedelic state is actually infinite. I will inform you that neither of these assumptions is true'. The 'neither of these assumptions is true' statement need to be true in order to falsify my statements about the sober mind being finite and limited. So on the hierarchy of perspectives it needs to be upper compared to my statement. So again you can't escape the hierarchy. You act like i use a whole different kind of vocabulary compared to you or anyone here. Its not the case. Just because we didn't have the same definition in our heads for God or for Truth that does not mean, that we can't find a common ground. So you are trying to give every perspective the same level of significance. Do you think that your perspective, have more significance compared to mine? if you are using the 'every perspective need to be treated like they have the same significance' ,then why do you give more significance to perspective 1 compared to perspective 2. perspective 1: Every perspective need to be treated like they have the same level of significance vs perspective 2: Not every perspective should be treated like they have the same level of significance. There following two perspectives are about knowing yourself: There is this perspective that you can know what/who You actually are. There is this other perspective that You can't know yourself because everything can be doubted. --> You are leaning towards this perspective, so you are biased towards it and you are not treating every perspective the same as you claim. Yes i am doing that, and i am aware of it, i am doing it on purpose. Then this statement in an of itself can be doubted. You assume if you can doubt something ,then you can't be sure if that thing is really true or not. Doubting things is not a special thing to do, you can doubt doubting itself, so it can be defeated in a second. Using doubting as a special method is not really a good thing if you want to treat everyhing the same. Why would you lean more towards doubting if there is a thing called not doubting. Choosing doubting over not doubting is again a hierarchy.

This is interesting. In the past i have done some tarot sessions and i think most of them became true. I can't explain either how it works, but it seems like , that it works. You can't necessarily see all the important messages first, but after some time when you look back on it, you can clearly see that more and more things became true. Of course you can get better at reading or getting the cards messages. You can argue that given infinite amount of time every event will happen. Yes it sort of true, but when we are talking about a finite amount of time a few weeks or months then it is intersting. I don't know about the mechanics of it either , but it seems to me, that when you are doing practices like tarot you are using your intuitive knowing much more effectively. Maybe because you are focusing your mind to a particular event or a person for a certain amount of time, and you open up your mind , and then you can get certain insights about events and people (because you opened your mind up to the possiblity that you can get insights about it). But it is all speculation from me, don't take my word for it. It seems like that it is 100% about your intuition. It doesn't matter what definition is used for a certain card, it didn't really matter for me either. In my opinion ,you are sort of feeling into that message, pulling cards is just a reason for the mind to open itself up and get the right insights.

From this sober state, It seems like we need to recognize certain patterns and then using those recognitions to be able to achieve different states of mind. We need to play along these causality factors to be able to alter our minds from this sober state. We are sort of trapped here in our own 'hell'. This hell has its own characteristics and features, and to be able to break out of it, you need to play along those features. Psychedelics is one tool to get there, but of course you can use other tools as well. The reason why i stress altering your mind states, because if you radically alter your mind states, you change your identity as well. Shattering your finite ego, and then realising that you are infinite. Only using an infinite mind you can recognize that you are infinite. The closest you can get to know what reality is by becoming reality. I can never know what being Nivsch is, or how it feels like using this finite state. I can use an infinite set of metrics but it will still be reductive. Only by becoming you i can truly know, what it feels like to be Nivsch. You can always make bigger models of reality and use the subject-object dynamic, but there will be always a line between you and reality. That line is making the sensemaking process impossible if we want to know reality existentially. So you can go from two places. The first place is when you assume that you can't know reality, because you are finite, so you can only make more and more complex models of reality. The second place is when you recognise, that if you want to know reality or yourself fully/existentially, then you need an infinitely big perspective to be as accurate as possible. This is the same with yourself, only using an infinite mind to make sense of yourself can be used to get as accurate image about yourself as possible. So we can go deeper and ask ourselves, how can i alter my state of consciousness so it can be as big as possible? I assume i can reach infinite conciousness, the reason why i assume that because i know, thats the only thing that can give me the clearest answers for the 'reality' and for the 'me' problem. So you eventually experiment with it using hardcore meditation or yoga practices, or using hardcore psychedelics and then you get there. Becoming infinite/realising that you are infinite and then reflecting on yourself. This is practically speaking either doing super hardcore meditation/yoga practices for a certain amount of time or taking a certain dose of 5meo DMT to be able to break this finite ego down.

The queston is what qualities the 'highest' perspective would have. What is that can include every other possible perspectives? The infinite mind does. I don't agree with this one. If your identity is infinite, it includes everything. How can you have an infinity identity with a finite mind? You seem kind of like a stage yellow guy (forgive me for trying to put you in a box, its just an observation if we are trying to use the model, it is a sudden judgement i am placeing on you, so don't put that much emphasis on this take). Trying to put a lot of emphasis on other perspectives, i respect that, especially if we are talking about every-day problems. But when it comes to this reality problem, i don't think its the best approach to have.

Only if you assume that every state has the same level of significance. Not every perspective has the same relevance. For example lets just take psychology. Lets say you have a trauma and you want to solve it. You will go around your peers and ask everyone is they have the solution and you will give every take the same relevance or you will prioritize them and make a hierarchy from them? I assume you would make a hierarchy from them, and you would put a psychologist 's take on the top or at least near the top. There are perspectives, that are more complete than others, and there are perspectives, that are including the other perspectives in them.What do you think , which perspective would include all the other perspectives? An infinite mind could do that. Who or what could make sense of an infinite mind? The infinite mind itself.

You are building your models from you sober state. Again you are putting more emphasis on this one compared on other ones.(so you are not doing what you claim to be doing - you are putting more emphasis on a certain perspective) You can build you models as much as you want. You are trying to make sense of reality from a finite state. Using logic which is another finite tool you are using. Even if you could build an infinitely big model of reality you would still need to make sense of it using your finite brain and logic. And then you can mistake your model of reality for reality. How well it will serve you? Again, this kind of phrasing only make sense if you are trying to make sense of infinite state of consciousness with your finite brain. Whats wrong with simplicity? What if your are trying to make things more complicated than the way they are? The ultimate trolling question i could ask you right now, that why you are placing more emphasis on your perspective compared to mine? Why do you want to downplay my perspective, if every perspective are the same and have the same importance?