Zion

What are examples of why morality is both a healthy & unhealthy attachment that us humans seem to cling to so heavily? What are the pros & cons of having a set of constant morals? I realize the potential danger of asking such a question, though it is important none-the-less. At what point is something no longer healthy? What makes something healthy? What makes something unhealthy? It is seemingly always personal, though exceptions always arise. What constitutes an attachment & are there attachments that are healthy? If so, what makes for a healthy attachment as appose to an unhealthy one? Why is having a set of constant morals healthy? Under what grounds is it justified? What are the alternatives? Please only answer if you genuinely feel that you have something that may help me to find a truthful answer to these questions.

Hmm, what if the truth is that there is no truth?

Why is truth important? Is truth all we have to go off of in terms of practical function of life? What is life without any truth? If there is no absolute material truth, how did we create civilizations that work off of the the idea that there are? What is the point of creating a civilization if there is no absolute material truth to practically hold it in place? It almost seems that truth is what you decide it to be, if you are in the material world. As there is seemingly no outside argument or debate that can breach one's own personal material experience of any kind of truth. What does it mean for something to be true? Why would it mean anything other than your own experience? It seems that the way truth is expressively defined by others is a means, no matter how subtle or subconscious, to get you to align closer to their idea of truth, for the sake of socialization, human connection, & an overall sense of commutative support. There seems to be no absolute truth other than that of one's own experience. And wisdom is just the knowledge of how to practically manage & personally-favorably understand your own experience with that of everyone else's in a self-fulfilling way, such that you can be how you see fit.

What is equality? How do you define equality? What is the difference between equality & balance?

This only matters if the people you want to perceive you as hot, are hot themselves. Am I wrong? If you hold that standard to others (the generalized standard of beauty) & your perception of yourself doesn't physically match that standard, you're going to go in circles. It's time to break the cycle. A new line of thinking, a new mindset is needed. Hot is a perspective. It is entirely dependent on the person, & given that you seemingly base some of your standards on society's rational, perhaps it's time to see what YOU think, not society. I said it once & I'll say it again: Liking someone's physical appearance is just as shallow as liking someone's personality, if they are to be compared in value. The only reason it is seen otherwise is because of the moral rules put in place by a given system at play. If I am to love one’s physical beauty, it compliments their personality & their entire being. If one is to love one’s personality, it compliments their physical beauty & with that; their entire being. One is not more or less important or valuable, that is just you forcing your morals onto another. I suspect it is just the people you seek out that presumably prioritize physical appearance above all else, not necessarily ALL people's standards. If that were all people's standards, we wouldn't have women's rights as there would be no need for anything but their physical beauty. All of this relies heavily on the standards you have for the people you seek out. Not every person is hot, if we were all hot, physical appearance would cease to be that valuable. Given what you've said so far, it sounds like you talk to yourself about your physical appearance in a way that you yourself don't like. Ask yourself why that is. Why do you think like this about your appearance? Is there a new feasibly replaceable mindset you'd prefer to have of yourself? If so, what can you do to implement that mentality? Don't let one or the other fool you, the seduction of physicality or personality can both be easy traps for the mind to fall into. The two are not mutually exclusive in truth.

@preventingdiabetes The topic question comes from a place of seeking comfort, not necessarily passion or inherent interest. The question is; why do you do what you do at all? What makes you feel incentivized to do or be anything in life? Either way, you'll be living in a place of endless comfort by means of living in a fantasy (the video game). You have to ask yourself if that's what you want. You'll have to ask yourself if that provides you with true fulfillment. From my perspective, having played video games non-stop for years on end in the past, I came to realize that I was using video games as a means of escaping my real-world struggles in life. Many struggles that I have now surpassed having left video games to the side; now making me more fulfilled than I was before. I came to realize that I was addicted to video games in many ways, as it provided me with a comfort I didn't know how to get otherwise. Overall, I think anything is healthy in moderation or if it is balanced well with everything else in your life, though often times that isn't the case; especially with video games; & especially seemingly in your case; as you are seeking to know why you should do anything other than play video games for the majority of the time. With any area of pursued extremism, there will be other areas that stagnate for your growth. The question is; are the benefits greater than the losses if you were to pursue playing video games? What are your guarantees that you will continually grow? Do you want to continually grow in this field? Or are you simply seeking the comfort from attaching to something you know will be practically easy? I suspect that you don't truly want to play video games all the time, but only you can know that. I'm just a spectator. Good luck

Patience young padawan

Great Example of depicting the balance of selflessness & selfishness within a collective. How do you balance selflessness & selfishness within a healthy governmental system, such that all involved are fulfilled? Within a system: How do you balance people's privacy with people's safety? To what degree is privacy unsafe? At what point does safety take precedent over privacy? Is there a point where safety takes precedent over privacy? Why? Helpful time stamps: 21:16 or 25:41-25:47

Time Stamp: 2:18 - 3:05

The only things you need to know to answer this is: "What is romance?" "What does it mean to be romantic?" & Actionable experience

Right, & from this the question becomes; In what distinct, absolutely-true ways precisely do men & women perceive reality differently? These immutable differences in perception; what are they precisely? And what makes these differences absolutely true?

This is exactly what I was asking earlier. So far from my perspective, there doesn't seem to be any insanely clear distinctions when looking at men & women's differences other than their physical biology & the way either one is raised, given their upbringing. It would imply that there are truths that you, me, & many others can see, but have deluded ourselves to invalidate/admit; as that would force us to adapt a radically new mindset which could jeopardize the current understanding & truths we personally hold men & women to in some respect. There is a potential underlying fear in those that see femininity & masculinity to be absolute, that there is no actual clear distinction between the two as it pertains to anything beyond each other's biology. Of course, I still have so much more to learn through experience. I'd love to hear more perspectives on this as well..

Patience.

@Leo Gura So why pursue a life of divine intervention if you are always stagnant in some level of fear, given the fact that we remain human in some form or another? To prove to yourself that you can escape it? To use this perspective to accept the inherent fear? What then? Why live as a human at all? For the sake of living? Logistically; I suppose it's better than living in absolute comfort, as clearly that doesn't give way to a fulfilling life. Clearly I'm missing something from a lack of experience, though at times it can look alarmingly bleak from an outside perspective. That or this is not entirely true in its absoluteness. Either way, I understand that to give something a point at all is subjective & perspectival, so I will find what is true to me. Great follow up questions to shame's reasoning in fear: - What makes one fear something, as to feel the need/want to shame it? - Is all fear encompassed by shame? If not, then what makes those otherwise fears different from the shame-encompassed ones? - Is shame one of the mind's clever excuses to justify a fear? - What must a fear have to create shame? - What is shame's opposite?

@Leo Gura From this perspective, shame is reliant on fear. The moment the fear of that which is seen to be shameful is transcended, is the moment your shame subsides. So the better question to ask is; "What do you fear & why do you fear it?"