Bobby_2021

What will the understanding of reality of a higher life form would look like? Will such life forms experience less suffering than humans on a day to day basis? Will their baseline level of consciousness be higher and will their understanding accompany their higher understanding?

I can't comment further on this post now since my thoughts on this are still evolving. 1. Can you improve your understanding with imagination? 2. Can understanding relieve you of suffering? 3. Why does understanding bring immediate joy to you? 4. Why does understanding enrich perception, although the perception itself is not changing. What exactly is changing? These are the questions I am contemplating on. Feel free to chime in and answer.

I appreciate that? Nah men and women usually, in a society, share the same or slightly unequal amount of suffering. It's impossible to gauge who has it worse. Especially in complex scenarios of western world. Do you think a man would agree with your statement in these days? Impossible. As far as non Western world is concerned, people concentrate disproportionate attention to the issues and sufferings of women. Not that women suffer disproportionately in reality. That's simply the case. It's not about less or more people. It's about having a healthy population distribution where there are people of all kinds. Too many old people with too few young people means there will be disproportionate strain and economic burden on the young people to care for the old people, work at a job, and take care of their children as well. Even today it's gen z and millennials that contribute to social security with no hopes of getting such privileges themselves while being economically squeezed due to laws passed by boomer politicians. The real estate and housing crisis faced by the young people of today is purely artificial. Because boomers own most real estate and they are also higher in numbers so that you can't do anything to reverse the policy because there are fewer young people. It's gets really bad. Democracy favours the bigger demographic, due to how democracy works. This will only lead to young people, who are lesser in numbers further squeezed out. If you need a real world example, look at China where they took population control seriously. Now they are begging couples to have more children. They had to go 180° from the one child policy. The population problem is caused exclusively due to the birth of baby boomers. Once they get old and die, this will be a thing of the past. Also, with the exception of the current young demographic, life was substantially better for the offspring than the parents and it would only get better. These are all reasons to have more kids. And these are realistic grounded reasons. Not based in morality or feelings good. And of course you can feel good about having kids as well. This is not a virtue. Good quality of life comes with some destruction and exploitation to the environment. The poor people are not going to stay poor their whole life. Once economic development happens in these places they are going to consume a shit ton of fossil fuels. And western politicians will still blame them for their "carbon footprint", like they blame China nowadays.

The key is to get that "forgetting". That always messes things up. So I am wondering, Am I awake when I sleep ?

I think it's loosely connected with your memory capacity. This is the only way you have experience. Experience is just memory stuck up in your body.

Western world isn't a patriarchy either so you shouldn't have any problems with oppression. Listen, I don't want to rob you off your moral high ground, but there is no substance to this line of reasoning. Everywhere except India and China are sparsely populated and the countries having replacement level birth rate is Africa. If you have a sliver of realism then a population crunch is a much more realistic challenge for the western world, which could be offset only by immigration. Western world should be having more children. Realistically If you want to make any real impact you should urge poor people to not have children. They are the ones who are having disproportionate number of children and destroying the environment. (That's of course if you assume that having children is destroying the environment)

Lol why would you recommend it to your friends. I have to watch Actualized in hiding. ?

And please don't bring this oppressed female narrative into this. People and society together are doing what they need to survive. The female child may not go to school, but the male child may have to clean sewers full of human excrement in order to make a living, if you are talking about some old traditional patriarchal ways of living. Life is so harsh that most of you won't survive a month in such situations so keep your opinions of such people to yourself. Modern life is heaven compared to this and you need to make a couple of strategic decisions to have just another child, if you truly want them. If you adore comfort too much, then don't bother.

Bringing a child into the world is the most complex thing. You will only run in circles if you "think" about it. If you can give your child some basic life privileges, lifestyle and comfort, I say go for it. I don't know where any of you people are from although my initial judgement is that you are from the west from what you are saying. I don't have experience with the societal structure and I cannot think for you. It's not that I don't know about any of these. I just can't give opinions unless I know the specifics. 1. Children has to grow up with a strong bond. Incompatibility issues are non sense. No one will stay by you like your brother/sister despite compatibility issues. You have to build trust with your siblings. That has immense value but it takes work to develop it. You need to base your bond on principles and hold it strong. 2. Social circle is ephemeral. That will not give you anything long lasting. Only family is what lasts. That too if you put some work to make it last. 3. I am not saying to offload entire parental responsibilities to second child. But they could take up 10% of the duties and that means a lot. Having other people to take care of forces you to mature fast. But that won't have to rob you off your child like wonder of life. I myself have to take care of my younger cousins and I love to invest in them and watch them grow. I don't take any grudge in having such responsibilities. Maybe it's a cultural thing where we take such responsibilities because we don't have much choice anyway. At the end of the day, it's only my opinion. It's your call. I totally get why people say to not have children. But there are also reasons to have children, if you are being strategic enough.

I am the younger one. So the benefits of having an older brother was immense. He was like a third parents, but much more energetic, masculine and strong. For me personally, the best configuration of siblings is Elder sister and younger brother. Most girls love to take care of their younger sibling. I have cousins who are an only child wishing to have siblings always. It's not nice being lonely. Also such kids will have an artificial kind of maturity to them since they always deal with parents who are much older than them always. That will drain the childishness from them to some degree.

Have one more child. ☺️? Me and my brother have 10 year difference. And that works fine. You can even offload some parenting duties to your daughter and she will love it. Plus your experience would mean that it would be far easier to raise another child. Go ahead. Best of luck. Edit: I don't think there is anything to regret for not having a second child. Both are totally and equally fine. I am only telling to have a second child regardless. Your daughter would love it.

Nice bump. ?

I remember trying it halfway and stopped it. What's your experience?

She didn't respond because she doesn't know. She implicitly admitted that she doesn't know. That's pretty admirable. Making up crap about death is what most people do. ____ You cannot judge people's development by their verbal responses. You should look at their behaviours, impulses, actions, world views and abilities. That's a much better scale for assessing their development. That's why I harshly judged her for feeding junk food to kids. That's much worse than believing in God. Verbal responses are at best some vague pointers. You cannot really judge much from a few answers. I have met some real animals today. This mother would look like an angel compared to them.

Trauma is not a gift. You can still love and enjoy like an animal with loads of trauma, but the best things in life will elude you because of the trauma.

To be fair to her, these responses are not that bad. You really need to see low consciousness people who live in close connection to the jungle to see how much underdeveloped they can be. This mother isn't that bad. 1. She didn't make up some bullshit about death. 2. She believed in God. That's totally fine. Feeding junk foods to kids is such a bad habit, but again she is in a culture that does that.

Yeah that's why God's have to constantly reimagine themselves in different forms to distract them from infinitude. The curse was that you would be stuck in a finite form for infinity, unless you break the curse. Watch the Telugu/Hindi Film Tumbbad, 2018.

Have you heard stories of ancient mythical Gods cursing people with immortality as a punishment? If immortality for infinity was totally fine, I would have to imagine myself as a finite being. Also the other problem is that you lose your work. You can do consciousness work, and then you will re imagine yourself to be a dog trapped inside a kennel. This shit has no end in sight.

Sensitivity is the biggest gift, but you need to selectively tame it down as necessary.

Is it recommended to hit on family members who are not blood related?

My position is that men are better in chess because, well because men win more games and tournaments compared to women. Pretty self explanatory. The entire thread has been started because op want to disprove this with debunked studies and no mathematical basis. I don't have to prove anything. If you need proof go look at the top 100 players and you will get proof of my claims.

Of course everything is not biology, you also need to have wealthy parents to afford you chess training from an early age. That's pretty much it. Biology and Wealth. Both of which is determined by pure luck. Luck is the best predictor of chess success. You should be lucky enough to have the correct biological/genetical traits and be loaded enough to be trained by your parents when you literally 7 years old.

What's depressing is that I will keep imagining this shit for infinity. Like think about it. For infinity. You will imagine yourself as a human, then as a dog, as logan paul, as a bacteria for literally infinity over and over again. This shit has no end. It's the same imagination over and over again. It's truly depressing to be God level perfect. So it makes sense that God had to come up ideas to forget entire aspects of himself and wipe it off from memory. Not having memory is crucial to keeping this imagination alive and running.

I can give you more than 5 but that's besides the point. This is so disappointingly myopic view. If I tell you the number predictor of success in chess is studying chess for long hours, you still need an article/study to believe it. --- There isn't anything new in this type of conversation. It all goes like "Women have been oppressed and suppressed for billions of years, so that explains, and only that, why they can't do better." And then there will be *some* studies which does sneaky manipulations to justify this among themselves and anyone who disagrees has to a sexist. This is an age old template and it has gotten very boring. It's amusing to me why SD green people which is a relatively high stage can mistakes and fail to see things the lower stage does not.

There is also studies which shows that your T levels spike when you are up against a stronger (higher rated) player. As I said, do more research. What I am saying is a culmination of experience, research and studies. Citing a few studies means nothing to me. And I didn't say to restrict yourself to chess specific studies. See what Testesterone does and it's benefits. And then realize that men literally have 10x the T levels than that of women. Then everything will make sense.