Gesundheit2

There is no consciousness without survival. So there is no consciousness without morality.

Animals are low consciousness and they seem to fit this criterion.

@Someone here Hope you enjoyed it

I like this. Yet he was an asshole and treated the dude poorly. So in this case, it was about just that and not really about seeing through relative notions. If he saw through them he would have acted differently. But he didn't act differently, so he didn't see through anything.

Yes, otherwise your fear is nonsensical and you're insane and all your thinking is pointless and flawed because of this fact. You don't fear the boogeyman under your bed. You fear the death by that boogeyman. Who are you kidding? Get rid of this absolute and relative nonsense. It's not your original thought. You took it from Leo without questioning. Don't use this terminology until you've understood it and more importantly that it's made up in the first place. All of this is monkey mind. It's just noise, really.

She is right for feeling that way. How would you feel if after you got married your wife got fat and stopped taking care of herself? That's not the one you married, and you certainly won't be able to love her the same. It takes two to make a marriage work.

Your fear of it.

@LSD-Rumi I understand that. But life goes on. You will forget what happened and become stronger if you believe in yourself. Give yourself some time to process what happened. You will be fine.

@Roy Totally, haha! I've found that in social interactions it's always better to go along and let people's imagination to roam freely without interrupting it with the truth. And it's not like you necessarily have to lie. People always default to self-deception as long as you don't destroy it with the truth. It's even more exciting if you don't directly define your stance, whether it's the truth or not. And in this specific case, women appreciate that you care and that you're trying even though they understand it's not possible for you to make them the center of your life. Some women desire affection more than others. It's just good food for their imagination. But most women are not comfortable being the center of a man's life. And for a good reason, because it's not a very healthy dynamic.

@Lila9 What's attractive? The assertiveness and strong boundaries? Or the vulnerability? I'm asking because the title and content of the video seem different to me. He titled it "vulnerability", but the message was mostly about healthy boundaries.

Develop a thick skin and don't take it personally. It's generally better to have a thick skin, and wiser to not take anything personally. Most of the times, people express who they are rather than the truth, so what they say is rarely true anyway.

Death is the thought that there will be no future. It's that and something more. The emotions you experience are that something more. If you dig deep in them, you will find a bunch of thoughts that are causing you to stress. Monkey mind thoughts.

@Danioover9000 I can beat your ass in human anatomy, so stop trolling?

@Leo Gura

50% divorces and 90% of them initiated by women. I don't think that this "compulsion" is the main driver in all divorces, maybe a small 10% of the 90%. Regardless, I blame both men and feminism for these rates. I don't think the majority of women are very unreasonable with their demands. In fact, I think they can be under-reasonable sometimes. But with feminism, a minor issue can get amplified in their mind and turn into a deal breaker. Again, I think that's still a minority, even with feminism. But I don't know, not being racist here, but maybe a lot of women in the west are entitled Karens. Maybe power corrupts all people equally, even women. Then don't betray them. The video about romance makes sense. But I don't understand how it is relevant to this discussion. If you're implying that the heartless rich person always wins against the mediocre romantic guy, then you're wrong. The mere fact that marriage exists shows how wrong that statement is. Most men get married even though they are not kings. Truth is, it depends on the woman. While the majority of women find money appealing, they still have to consider the lack of heart. And while probably all women find romance appealing, some of them still go with the rich guy. There are four different archetypes for men. And all of them are attractive. There is the warrior archetype, the king archetype, the lover archetype, and the magician archetype. Any one of them will work, and the more the merrier. But none of them at all is a very long shot.

@Danioover9000 Zen Devils have conscious, yet malicious manipulative intents. He doesn't seem that way.

Absolute inceldom currently, but I've been in a couple of relationships before and I've achieved non-virginity before 25 years old in a third world conservative country. That flame is a luxury. Most women don't leave a family they've spent years on for that. This is ridiculous. It's the noise I was pointing out. Obviously being a complete simp is not good, but there's some element of simping that is good as long as it's coming from masculine energy. Like you are not simping because you're needy, but rather because you genuinely appreciate her. She's not the focal point of your life, but she has importance and value for you over other stuff/people.

Where are these women? Seriously, I haven't seen one like that in my life. I know my culture is different, but come on. It really sounds like a stretch to say that relationships are fun unserious stuff for many women and that they leave looking for a more "luxurious life" (lol?). And if it's really fun unserious stuff for them, then how is that similar to a job? It's bad advice. Also, impossible to implement in practice. The flame goes dormant after a while no matter what you do. It's not like there is a special dance move that you can do on the dance floor to get her wet and loyal. It doesn't work like that. So the solution is not to continually do what attracts her to you, but rather to connect with her emotionally. It's really not much. There is some truth and validity to what he is saying, but it's full of noise. Women say exactly what they want, but nobody listens.

That's a gross oversimplification of loyalty, and it's also a caricaturization of the issue. Leaving the relationship is not the right criterion to measure loyalty. Ex: If you physically beat your wife and she leaves you, it's only fair. In fact, if she doesn't sue you and put you in prison, she's still better and more loyal than you, which is most women. Most women take a lot of abuse (not necessarily physical) in relationships and they don't report them nor do anything about them. They are softer than that. Regardless, this "video dude" is, again, suggesting the same rhetoric about women viewing men the same way men view jobs. The dude is caught up in that narrative and he is dogmatic about it. Notice how he's trying to reinforce that narrative by reiterating it through different ideas. This time it's Loyalty. The next time, I don't know what it will be. Just notice the insistence on this concept in the videos. In any case, loyalty means staying despite hardships. If you are loyal to something, then you (explicitly or implicitly) agree to stay in sickness and in health, etc. There are limits to that of course and no one can be, nor should they be perfectly loyal in the extremes. I don't think we disagree there. But you do not agree to be loyal beyond the contract when you make a job contract. So you have very little loyalty to your boss or the position you got at their company, and you can leave whenever you please as long as it's not breaking the contract. But that logic only applies when you have very little, or otherwise a hyper-pragmatic kind of loyalty in the first place, not when the meaning of loyalty is different to you than other people. This is the fallacy he's making and you're not catching. He's claiming that women are loyal, but to their emotions, and he says that that's a different way of being loyal. But then he portrays women as disloyal to men whom they are in bonding agreement with. It's a very self-serving narrative for sure. Now, if you get involved with a tyrant, then hard luck for you. There are women who are tyrants out there, so watch out. But they are a small minority, so you need not to get paranoid.

@Devin He's not talking about what loyalty means to men and women. He's talking about what loyalty means to adults and children, and then applying his male bias to that perspective.

A lot of programmers here, and you're all likely into this kind of deep philosophical questions, so this should be interesting. What's the fundamental difference between AI and humans? Is it creativity? What is creativity? If you were tasked with solving this dilemma, how would you go about doing it?

Zen Devil is a heavy/loaded term. I couldn't vibe with him from earlier way before this thread, and that's fine. He seemed too unserious to be taken seriously. But I wouldn't call him a Zen Devil. Or if I had to call him that, then I'm as much a devil as him.

@Someone here I was not attacking Leo or his views in my post. I was saying that what seems to be happening, regardless of potential value to you or me or anyone else, is ego games. Anything could be true, only one way to know. Or infinite ways, who knows?

@Someone here That's not my point. My point is that all these enlightenment disputes are about narrative control. I'm offering a meta perspective here on what's going on. When someone says this is the right way and all other ways are wrong, then this person is trying to control the narrative. They maybe aware or unaware, that doesn't matter. But however you slice it, the assertion about right and wrong remains an attempt at controlling the narrative in the mind of the seeker. Like who the fuck can confirm any of all of this except the one person who is seeking?! No scientific method can confirm anything, and so-called "enlightened people" already disagree a lot about the most basic stuff, so we can't go with consensus either. There are clearly no objective answers here. So how can anyone claim an objective answer or to know "the truth"? And then they go on to tell you how to seek, because otherwise you're doomed. I know the one right way to seek. Everyone else is deluded. That is the game. Honestly, I'm starting to think that this whole enlightenment thing is about selling confidence more than anything else. People are afraid of the unknown and they seek comfort in the confidence of their guru. This can happen on both explicit and implicit levels. Sometimes, the guru is very sneaky. They will act very confident and chill as if they know everything, without actually claiming to know anything, like Nahm for example. It's a very subtle way of controlling the narrative. For me personally, I don't care about any of this. If you like Buddhism or Islam, go join an Ashram or a Mosque. If you don't like any religion and you want to find out for yourself, go find out for yourself. It's not my game. Your awakening is your awakening. Seek however you want, and I'll seek however I want.