Gesundheit2

The 4 wives limit in Islam is not a recommendation from Mohammed. It's a Quranic line that you are not allowed to cross, probably for logistic reasons. Keep in mind that in those days, they used to reproduce a lot. So it's not merely about managing the wives, but also the children. Plus, they were allowed to own any number of women from battles, so this example doesn't exactly help your point. Furthermore, before Mohammed, there was no limit on the number of wives. A man was allowed to marry any number of women he wanted to. And the more the better, because more wives equals more political relations between the tribes, which practically translates into more power to his tribe. I've studied the history of Mohammed's life thoroughly and never heard of his issues with his wives. The conclusion here sounds more like an assumption on your part.

Yes, there are certain challenges in polygamy. But we are not talking about that here. We are not even talking about polygamy in the first place. It seems you're thinking about something else entirely when you're presenting your opinions. We are talking about male's authentic sexual desire, which is called polyamory. Polyamory is the essence of and a prerequisite for polygamy, but it's not the same. Polyamory is simply the desire for a variety of sexual partners, regardless of relationship. And it is a real instinctual thing that is prior to ideology, insecurities, and all rationalizations. I've been wrecking my head around it for years without being able to crack its code. And I'm a spiritual dude. It's mysterious and inexplicable. Unless you're judging open relationships, explain why they exist if they're such a nightmare.

@flowboy What sound logic are you talking about when you're even strawmanning yourself?! You're arguing against a claim that no one has made except you in the last post. No one said that 100% of men will cheat given the opportunity. That's a strawman you made. Strawman argument = logical fallacy = poor logic. So, that's one. As for two... The real premise here is that most men (70%-90%) will choose polyamory inevitably given the opportunity (or they will "cheat"), and even a greater percentage will find it hard to resist. Your counterexample is silly because you don't know how well you will hold yourself the next time an opportunity presents itself to you. You barely did it only once and now you're generalizing it as the truth that all men should follow or otherwise they're lazy or weak or whatever. But you can't even guarantee yourself probabilistically speaking. In other words, you don't have enough exposure to make such conclusions. Your logic is as silly as saying that all women are bitches because your first girlfriend screwed you over. Overgeneralization = logical fallacy = poor logic. Please do not speak of sound logic again unless you know what you're saying. You're insulting philosophy and everyone who practices it with these posts.

In the 1970s, my parents used to hear that the earth will run out of natural oil in 50 years. 50 years later, and we still have the same 50 years expectancy.

@flowboy You can't conclude something like that based on one rare edge case. You're obviously biased and just trying to comfort the women in here, which may be a good thing, but ultimately you're still lying to yourself and others.

@integral It probably goes without saying, but control yourself

Yeah, I know, it's my everyday experience too. But, I've also experienced states where that distinction collapsed. From what I've gleaned so far, this is how it works: You imagine that pain and pleasure are different. (Conditioning/belief). You can't imagine that pain and pleasure are the same. (Not enough open-mindedness). You want to imagine that they are different. (Survival/Self-bias). You don't want to imagine that they are the same. (Comfort zone/resistance to change). So, not only you can't imagine that possibility, but also deep down, you don't have the desire to accept it in the first place. Because for you to imagine that possibility, you'd have to imagine a different possibility than the one you currently know and identify with, which is the whole problem in a nutshell. Reality is made of differences. You survive as a self by emphasizing the differences that survive you the most, and by ignoring the differences that don't really affect you, at least at face value. Take a look at the image below: If you're a computer, you will know that no two pixels inside that image are the same. Every pixel has its own coordinates and properties. But to you as a human, and since it doesn't make much of a difference to your survival, you will say it's just a black image. At the same time, to a computer, all of what I'm writing here is just zeros and ones (transistor pulses). I could type anything, and it won't make a difference to a computer. When to you, there's a meaning to every letter to the point where I can possibly hurt your emotions with these innocent characters if I decide to arrange them in a certain way.

Exactly! You believe, therefore that's your reality. If you believe otherwise, it will be otherwise. Difference is imaginary, and you are the one imagining it. It's not likely that you will stop imagining it at a normal state of consciousness, because you're biased towards survival/life. But at a radically high (or radically low) state, when you forget yourself, you won't distinguish between anything.

Because 20 years of past present moments is more than just 1 present moment.

"True" is a mental/logical construct, it basically means that a certain thought is in alignment with a certain perception. "False", same thing but the thought is not in alignment with the perception. And, there's no true or false outside of language/logic/mind.

It's harder than I thought it would be. Just collecting ideas for now, will see what happens next. It's particularly hard because I have an empty mind due to my hardcore meditation practice. There's apparently a trade-off between losing the monkey-mind and the ability to produce high quality thoughts. You need the monkey-mind to produce throughs, and you need meditation to have clarity and be able to filter out low quality thoughts. Too much monkey mind is problematic, and so is too much meditation. Too much here, by definition, means not much there. Plus, articulating those ideas is also hard. I have already collected a number of ideas, and they're supposed to be threads that should lead to the bigger ideas that I want to be presenting. However, my ability to polymer and articulate various thoughts together seems to break down very quickly. I have a perfectly clear understanding of what I want to share, since I have contemplated it all so deeply, and yet I don't seem to be able to share it without struggle. Maybe I'm just not destined to communicate these ideas.

Not suicidal. Appreciate the pun, though. This journal will be dedicated towards deconstructing society and all of its illusions, one by one, like the pieces of a giant puzzle. Some posts might not make total sense at first or any sense at all, and some might miss crucial additions, but overall I will try to convey what I mean in the simplest and most direct ways possible, and I will try to remain as transparent and objective as possible. This is a high-consciousness journal that only a few select humans will be able to read and understand, and well not necessarily because I’m some sort of an alien genius that will write in some cryptic language that it will be hard for the reader to understand, but essentially because of how radical and shocking a lot of the information that I’m gonna put out there will be to most people (I suppose even to those who like to call themselves highly conscious). If some of my posts sound offensive, it’s because they are. I think it’s important to note here that I don’t like humans. No, sir. Not at all. And I have very good reasons for that. This is just to highlight the fact that I have an antisocial bias, and that I am fully aware of it. Therefore, anything written here will be in that light. But I'm not going to be talking about that in detail here, maybe somewhere else, or maybe certain topics will force me to talk about it briefly. I'll leave it as that for now. I don’t have any particular expectations for the topics that I’m gonna cover or how frequently I'm going to be posting or anything like that. As always, the insights will come to me naturally, and I will be expressing them effortlessly. I hope that after a period of time it will become like a book with a variety of different topics. And because I intend it to be like a book, I will try to be systemic as much as I can. And of course, this will be a work-in-progress kind of project that I’m gonna grow past quickly as I keep going deeper with my understanding, mainly through observation and deconstruction. Most of my writings will be based on my experience, and not much on philosophy or theory. Research is like my final card. I don't generally research things before contemplation. For me, the right approach to high-quality understanding is: contemplate first, and then complement your insights with a little bit of research. If I inquire and find my understanding lacking certain pieces of information, I look them up. This way, I can make sure that my insights are totally genuine. And more importantly, I can make sure that I'm not being biased towards or brainwashed by outside agencies. This should make the journal a pure expression of my wisdom, thus making me a truly free thinker. If I end up writing high quality content that is simultaneously deep and easily communicable, I might start thinking of actually turning it into a book and profit off of it. ________________ Next topic: Introduction/Fundamental Concepts & Definitions

Not to put you down or anything, but it sounds more like tier 1 thinking, to be honest. Naturally, at tier 2 you start identifying less with models in general, including the SD model itself. And also, you start taking models less and less seriously, and you start treating them less and less literally. The map is not the territory is a tier 2 saying. At Turquoise, you realize that development is infinite (infinite Spiral levels), and you realize the infinite depth and complexity of reality. And since it seems you're identified with the model and attached to the labels, I would say you're either at Blue (which I don't think is likely), or at Green (most probably). Green, especially when backed up by an enthusiastic Orange core, can treat the SD model as a video game where you win if you level up to the highest levels as quickly as possible, which gives the ego all its desired feelings of triumph and victory after finally conquering the video game (in this case SD). I don't know about your spiritual progress, but I think it has very little to do with SD. SD mainly maps the different sets of values of different societies while taking into account their overall cognitive development, but it doesn't specify or focus very much on cognitive development as it was not mainly made for that purpose, although there are definitely certain intersections. If you want a better assessment of your cognitive development, try the 9 ego stages model. It's designed for individuals and it's more accurate, imo. That's just my take, though.

Good idea, but bad approach. Whatever your environment is, your state of mind will follow. So, yes, becoming more familiar with ruthlessness by getting more in touch with it will make you ruthless. But that's the lazy, unconscious way to do it. Instead, you can learn how to influence your state of mind regardless of environment. You can learn to be ruthless in normal circumstances, and you can learn to be anything else for that matter. However, you can't force the shift. You would need to have an authentic desire for ruthlessness (or whatever you want), and then by cultivating it and allowing it to manifest through your emotions, it'll start manifesting in your life. Again, you can't just think a thought that you want to become something and then make it a reality. Authentic desire is essential.

@Windappreciator Okay, now you're being totally cryptic

I also did not understand.

This is absolutely false! Arrogance does not exist at all. It's literally impossible. The way you perceive it, though, is that since you're God, and God is the ultimate Judge, you judge others for expressing themselves as God. In other words, people aren't really arrogant or egotistical. You're just too goddamn judgemental, because that's what God is at the deepest level (infinite imagination = infinite judgement lol). God just sits there and keeps judging himself all the time, unless he doesn't have enough time to do so (i.e. in case he has more important shit to do).

Funny how all the busy-ness came together at the same time; Starting from tomorrow, I will be training for a job inside of a pharmacy and then I will start running the whole pharmacy by myself as quickly as possible. The training shouldn't take more than a week, since I have prior experience. (7-8 hours per day). On the 11th, my exams schedule starts as well. (I suck at studying. Period). My web development learning is still in progress, but should be accelerated right after I take charge of the pharmacy, because of the inherited laptop that comes with it ? (Hard to progress quickly with all the electrical limitations, I need more practice that the laptop will provide). I have this new book project that I intend to work on seriously: Societal thoughts. Perhaps I will write one article per week. But I might quit this project if I find it too stressful. Ideally, those things should take all my time, and then I would have no room for slacking and sliding back again and again into old patterns. I feel a little bit stressed already, though. I need to look into it.