BlueOak

@Mesopotamian If you commit to this. Understand. Everyone, every day of their lives is developing. No matter what they are doing. You can accelerate this to some degree, but most of the initial effort should be spent on yourself, so just by interacting with other people, their development can be naturally enhanced by virtue of your perception, connection to infinity, and increased understanding. Understand things like, the information you share won't be taken in a 1 to 1 way. It will gradually filter through them and be represented differently than what you expect. Possibly no element of it may be used at all right then and there, and it could be months or years before it is subconsciously or consciously activated in some way. Even heavy resistance doesn't mean nothing you said made a difference. Education and intelligence are not wisdom, though they can be a requirement for receiving or developing it. Practically how would I encourage enlightenment safely. You know your culture, what is and isn't tolerated socially or lawfully. Firstly I would work within that framework so whatever I built could last, support and be supported by the people, local authorities, and culture. A spiritual teacher once said, 'Start something that lasts beyond your lifetime'. I read this as: Doing this means you are not limited by what you can achieve in this lifetime, it frees you up. Aim for a project that will have strong roots in the local community and last for generations. When you've got an idea of what that is. Then teach people, daily, through that. I would identify the biggest elements of resistance to enlightenment within the location population, then assess what I could and couldn't do within the law and culture I was presented with, and build that into what I was doing. Be selfless, work with what's there now and what is allowed. Over generations what is allowed changes based on the population living there. Example If I was in Iraq and wanted to assist my country on the worst issue its facing, i'd concentrate on the water supply. Its the key to saving your country. Find some way to gather water where you are on whatever scale you can, and start to try to alter a small local area to be more green, better able to produce food (or cattle), or contain moisture somehow. Solve that and people will probably love you. Importing water is possible but costly, getting other people to take more from the ocean, and send it your way for example, encouraging some limited access to the ocean via treaty or trade. Technology like this: While you are doing that, and giving the country what it needs the most, you can be teaching people. It doesn't have to be this, its an example, pick anything that's helping. Maybe feed the local community, take care of the sick, offer therapy, and be selfless in some form. Or not, start an enlightened business, and through the company policy teach people a better way of life and living. Its true there are a lot of colonial influences on your country, and a lot of poverty. Does it make it more difficult? Yes it can do depending on your goal. You have to contend with that unconscious (or conscious) factor inside a lot of people's outlook, like is being expressed in this thread. Don't think you are alone in that, most of us the world over have different things limiting our enlightenment, societal development or personal growth that we contend with. But without the basics (like water) that's always going to be something people are needing and an obvious way to bring together the community to solve it - Food/Water/Shelter - Then up the spiral dynamics stages like Security - Business - Community - Systemically integrating all of it etc. Just doing what the others do is always easier, making a difference takes work.

Here are some other useful resources. @Spiral Wizard https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ These resources are a step forward i'll say that much for how information is given to people.

@NoSelfSelf Are you aware the mind gradually transcends itself to become infinity in every interaction it has? If that is our goal. The blocks you see are dissolved when they are realised and understood to be hindering. Although my preference for certainty does limit me, it doesn't stop the process., just like my self-analysis speeds it up. Feelings slowly lose the reason for being generated independently due to triggers or programmed responses, instead, they come about more from our own wishes, and we trend toward stillness or love. (There is a conflict within me whether its stillness or love). Either way I like helping people. I just do. Its better than not doing or harming them. I do go meta as you say. I am not thinking through everything I tell you on an intellectual level, its a stream of consciousness. Sometimes I'll go back and edit something, which is the conscious mind stepping in directly. I find I can go meta through the mind also. Ex: I am writing at the minute, and I find myself freezing up. Its an old trauma from somewhere about starting a novel, so I decided to write what the freeze felt like into the story, dissolving it. This was a mind/meta moment. Game I am struggling with more. To me the punches/kicks are part of the game you describe, so it seems like splitting hairs. Without the training you can't do the sport. I did Karate for many years as a kid, the strict framework requires a strict conditioned mindset, especially the Kata (sequence of moves). The sparring was different, there was more room for expression free of conditioning. - I was knocked out of the national championships by a double-flying kick mid air one year! Best moment. Do you know why I liked it more? The people. The team in the stands watching, my sensei flat to the mat being part of it giving me advice, being connected and part of that whole day with all of them, cheering on their efforts, the bus ride with them all there and back. These six human needs are not just conditioned responses that happened to come about, they are fundamentally built into who and what we are. You are not separate from those around you, and these needs model that, they are the reasons/driving forces of our human existence.

@NoSelfSelf I'll go micro first then macro. You can choose whatever the friendship with the girl means to you. If you choose its useless, who am I to say otherwise? If you choose it has value, who am I to say otherwise? (This is what I should have started with lol but perhaps the journey here was necessary) Why could it have value. I like friendships. I like being part of something. I feel good with close friends around. I feel bad being isolated. I feel bad now with no friends. I like helping people because it makes me feel good, and if that's a girl sat at a bar going through a tough time, then that's what it is that day. If that's a forum with a guy struggling with relationships, that's what it is that day. If we boil it down further to simplicity, we all search for love, because we are love. That is a strong need inside of us, connection, and although I don't have it as strongly as many, it is still there. 1, Can you expand what you mean by going meta? 2, Can you expand what you mean by game? Who told you mind has to be a block? I understand it, but that's just one way to view it. I view it as a perceptual lens to allow subjective consciousness to exist. Meaning you can create the perspective of distance from yourself for observation, otherwise you would just be everything, not observing it. Your mind can change greatly over your lifetime if you want it to. Its mallable like clay. I often feel heavy energetic activity in my mind as it changes or reforms rapidly. The world is you. So of course YOU decide the framework you are in. You are the thing being observed, the framework, the distance, the observer. The [1 (space) 2] is designed so you have a chance to observe yourself. Let's try to break down any blocks towards relationships or relating: You can say you are all things. You can say you are relating to a part of yourself. You can say nothing exists. You can say you are the pattern of the relationship inside infinity - I'll pick this one it sounds cool. You say whatever you like, and it'll still be. As we can never understand infinity (its infinitely complex) Instead what many of us do to have certainty is maintain structured patterns inside infinity, we then look at those patterns and say that's how this functions. Constantly being updated with new conditions to observe.

@NoSelfSelf How can you understand yourself, without understanding how you relate to yourself? Whatever aspect or representation I am of you - to you, changes the conversation naturally, based on how you relate to it. You define who I am in your mind, and then relate to yourself. You could choose to relate to that female friend, in any way you like, and choose any meaning for the interaction. That's your choice, that's the aspect of yourself you are putting forward and giving meaning to. Understanding why you choose what you do is critical to knowing yourself. True it depends on your awareness as to how much you understand or can perceive in the interaction. Its also practice. Anyone can do this, focus on their relationships to understand themselves. Of the six human needs, your most prominent need would be growth/expansion then? It sounds like we share certainty as a prominent need. If we were completely polar opposites, I doubt we could be in this conversation. Only through the reflection of total opposites would we interact briefly. What happens in most conversations is, as we connect with that part of ourselves, our language and discussion is shaped and structured by our relationship to that aspect of ourselves. I have growth/expansion as a need but much reduced. I find it through understanding others/myself and relating to concepts that are presented in my mind that structure reality. Indirectly I grow and expand by how I relate to the outside world. Though it is definitely secondary, for me, to certainty (gained by understanding) in most things. Its not delusional to think infinity is an ongoing pattern that puts you in events over and over until you gain realisation of them. I've had so many examples of that beyond counting, as all life operates in a pattern. You are in this conversation for a reason now. I don't know what it is, I am not in your head. I've told you what my motivations are. Contribution, Certainty (understanding), and indirectly growth. Sure there will be others I am unaware of, next week I might need whatever insight I gained here for example, someone else might gain insight by reading this convo. What are your motivations and reasons for talking here? Are you conscious of them?

@NoSelfSelf What's the point of any relationship you have with anyone or anything? If you can answer why that relationship is there, then you can understand it. Pick anyone in your life to think about this with, family, friends, enemies, acquaintances, your boss. Your job, your house, your business, this forum, your country, your community, your anger, your sadness. Everything is a relationship, with you relating to it. I have in the past had women I've related to through a hobby, or education, or a job and developed a friendship with them, then like you, I would talk about a topic. Me replying to your post, is not much different for me, to a woman talking about her relationship with X. For me this comes about because I enjoy relating to different things, I understand I attract that response because I like understanding things and then contributing. Really basic and simple motivation for me, in return I understand each interaction shapes and grows my awareness. I get a gift, paid up front, through these interactions to then share with someone else or in my own life. If you consider listening to a woman talk about her problems a waste of time, then sure. No judgment here. I consider someone talking about sports, a waste of time often. I'll indulge it socially or in passing for the spirit of the moment, to be entertained, or if I want someone to feel good that they were listened to. Personally, I would never be at the bar, or pining over someone who wasn't interested in me, I'd be saying NEXT if I was looking for a girl. (There's billions of them out there). But friendships with people are something I miss if I am honest, being there for someone else, for no other reason than they needed it. I live in a lot of isolation currently, I remember friendship fondly. I'd not be caring what the topic was. if it concerned them, as their friend, it would concern me. I made a lot of friends that way growing up. That's because I do that with regular people too, like you here, listening to you and trying to find something that helps. See the Six human needs: Teal Swan: https://tealswan.com/resources/articles/relationships-and-the-six-human-needs or Tony Robbins: https://www.tonyrobbins.com/mind-meaning/do-you-need-to-feel-significant/ I have a need for contribution. I have always had it. For me, its below certainty (sadly), but central to how I think. These needs are in different priorities depending on the person and the subject in their lives.

@Nabd I take your point that the US is still a major power in the region deciding events. You are still somewhat operating from the old paradigm before the creation of BRICs and China's rise to a superpower. This is very understandable as many of us have spent decades within it, and the US still holds a great deal of sway as you say. There are a few holes in this I can demonstratable show you without needing to get too much into technicalities. graphs or sources. 1, Iran wouldn't be moving its facilities underground if it thought them safe. 2, Countries with mutual nuclear weapons never get engaged directly in war. Only through proxy. So they are exceptionally significant defensively. Offensively I agree they are less practical (especially to nearby countries) or deployable, and their programs often used as propaganda to keep people ready for war with X country just in case. 3, Conflict shows competition. There are competing interests here, that's why there is conflict. This is increasing globally as BRICS and NATO reach a parity in terms of power, unless people accept this and work together, avoiding competition and conflict. Rather than resist each other. I appreciate your insight into Iranian politics, I don't have it to anything near that depth. One of the reasons Western perspectives don't align as you expect is because they lack an understanding of it. Further, the detail you gave about Suleimani helped me understand the situation surrounding him more. Ditto Russia. Ditto Israel. Ditto China etc. It doesn't help that many of these cultures value secrecy. There are certainly shared interests and competing interests, which are not mutually exclusive. As you ask the question, why does Iran project its power outward? Nearly all countries do. There are very few that are not looking to do this. Different countries have different vehicles to do this. Some use culture, some use trade, tourism, faith, land ownership, banks, military power, nuclear power, education, large corporations, domination of key sea lanes or land bridges etc. Because again remember a country is a collection of many different people with different interests, that are not confined to their own country. If these collectively are largely expressed as military action (with all the industries, education and cultural norms etc necessary to support it), then that's what is projected outward. If it's trade, then its trade. If it is religion, then it is religion. You get the idea. Iran seems to me, to be a country that is somewhat militant but a strong religious and cultural regional power, so its cultural influence makes nearby receptive populations more sympathetic to its own wishes as a country. This is not so much one group of people being responsible for it by mere decision, but a natural result of what Iran is in that region, to that region. Moreover, there is a huge amount of mistrust and tension in the Middle East. So the need to project outward is seen as a necessity by all the larger or more powerful countries. In safer times and territories, people can focus more on their own countries domestically, or at least less violently confrontational pursuits. *Nuclear powers use proxy wars as a way to wage war. Its been the standard since WW2 and nukes were invented. tl;dr. The macro and the micro line up. The country is the people, its institutions, culture, heritage, environment etc. Safety concerns or the problems/challenges a population faces, as well as the natural qualities/abundance of everything the population is and has, are what manifest both externally and internally.

A couple of things stand out. @Ramzi08 Self Focus 1, You are very hard on yourself, your inner critic is most prominent when talking about this subject. Go a bit easier on yourself. Focus on others more in balance with yourself. Respect 2, What does respect mean to you? As I feel it could mean something very different to me. So getting that into the conversation will help, and conveying that to those you interact with, will help your life immeasurably. Respect of an acquaintance to me means a certain level of civility and respecting the boundaries of a social contract, say in a business respecting we are colleagues at work under a set of rules. Or on this forum trying to follow the rules. Beyond that, often it takes you telling people your boundaries before they can be respected, outside of say a company policy or law, which they should already know. People don't inherently have the same value sets or beliefs as you. When you've told them, then you can decide whether they are respectful or not. For a friend, it would be more organic, because there is more trust there. I certainly, and I believe others, accept a friend violating those boundaries to a certain extent, because we have a closer relationship, and we can trust that they are doing it because they are our friend. Not all friends are healthy like this to have, but assuming they believe they are doing so for your own good or the good of your friendship, a certain amount of crossing those boundaries is usually allowed. One of the marked differences between an acquaintance and a friend. Social circles 3, Perceiving others have larger social circles. Do you honestly just want a large social circle? Because you can study how to be charismatic for example. Lots of speakers will teach you that in body language or speech. It doesn't mean deep connections or even mutual respect, it just means that person is charismatic. In business for example, it means starting things yourself, getting passionate about them, and people are drawn to that openness and excitement to be part of something. Let's give you one big tip. Stop being hard on yourself, start having a positive attitude no matter what is going on. If you just want a larger social circle, be positive. Compliment others, be supportive to them. Stop thinking about yourself so much and start thinking about them. This is somewhat a facade, but i'll continue below. Again this is just a way to attract others into your life, as your focus is no longer on yourself, its on them instead. It doesn't guarantee anything more than what I just said, a social circle, it doesn't mean deep friendships or meaningful connection, those take effort, honesty, and work. In your communication and behaviors. A further step beyond just charisma, would be you start thinking of the relationship itself, how you relate to them, and how you can improve yourself to better relate to them. You don't only think of them and you, you think of us, them, and you. Try with these posts, try to relate to the opinions expressed, and step outside yourself for a moment. Attraction Attraction happens for all kinds of reasons. You can absolutely be friends with someone you are attracted to. @NoSelfSelf In fact, that might be the very reason for the attraction, but there are an infinite amount of other reasons for attraction that we are unconsciously not aware of until it becomes visible. I agree on the torture of having someone you are sexually attracted to, and have been in the proximity of to feel that, as a friend. One you can never be with romantically, and harboring the thought that one day you could have that romance, is very unhealthy and often manipulative. If you can accept the relationship for what it is, however, and not what you want it to be, it can be like any healthy relationship.

@martins name The left is a diverse collection of voices and opinions, that's the point. Its teaching people that all of these need to be in balance and understood within you. That no one opinion is solely correct, and that the suppression of too many of these diverse voices leads to disaster. The step after that is obviously to also take the conservative opinions and values, as you are doing here in part. Then socialist, then authoritarian. The order isn't really important, only the more you allow in the formulation of your ideas, the greater your perception and potential strategies or conclusions can become. What you are asking for is more intelligent and capable political parties. Which many of us advocate for or try to bring about. Sadly that cycles back into the general population, education, cultural values, lifting suppression of these things, media interests and reinforcement, ideology, healing traumas, history, and so on, in an eternal cycle of human development. People can only perceive what they are capable of perceiving, and things are made to represent the population's perception at that time. Allowing room for alternate opinions is crucial. Trump stretches the liberal acceptance of what life is. Every time he shocks you. No matter how much you hate it, now the small things seem less hard to deal with, having had years of exaggerated absurdity. Also, morality becomes insufficient alone to respond with, as you are seeing, pushing people to reach for more in their responses than just moral indignation. Yes, there are obvious downsides to this trend, as we are now just a few steps away from fascism. So what is a stage yellow institution? Its not the left or the right. It would be every political ideology in balance or at least as many as you can form. It would be every mind you could integrate into the whole. So that it becomes something they support, and benefit from. It would not be a single organization, party or institution. It would be designed as an interconnected whole. The party would not be designed separately from the environmental agency, or the highways agency, or the police force, for governance, one would be an extension of the other. (Though this is leaning turquoise). They would still need to reflect popular sentiment and allow for different expressions of it. I realise this is what people try to do now, but in reality, it's a fractured set of individual and sometimes competing organizations or institutions still. It would be a final acceptance that there is just one government (getting rid of the illusion of separation), while still maintaining many parties or receivers for the population's concerns, and real demonstrable changes when those concerns are raised. - This might initially seem like a dictatorship, not at all it could be a council, or a multi-party system, only with the recognition/systemic design that they are all working as a whole. AKA - Less reliance on conflict, or individualism to get things done. However, the world as a whole isn't there yet. Space is not being held for this yet. Instead its conflict and people losing, a face changing every few years, to reinforce a difference is made when concerns are voiced. Individualism. The world likes to believe that things are disconnected, that things don't directly affect each other. Not everywhere, in some places actual achieved policies or changes are highlighted, rather than winning over a face/name, and these connections are more recognized.

Certainly, I agree, the human empathic connection is a crucial step for many, the building of trust and a comfortable environment. I think a basic level of advice can be tailored via AI, as it becomes capable of mimicking human conversation. Enough to get someone on the first step as it were. That's why I call it a great copy-paste tool, but AI's are lacking in the nuance of human social interaction and critically the subjective consciousness able to observe from a distanced self for perspective. Distance allows a more objective view of something, which is one of the reasons the 'self' exists. I never saw a therapist, like many millions of others the world over, I could never afford one. I used the information I gathered from videos or books to go from an abused anxious rebellious teenage kid over 30 years or so, slowly into a more stable mature mindset, I had no personal assistance 1 to 1, occasional posts, or conversations from strangers but mostly just life and remote videos as my teacher. - An AI could have shortened this process by drawing on the available resources created by humans by a number of years, perhaps near a decade. Although it was gradual, for me, around my early 30's I was reasoning from a more stable reality, rather than fight/flight/freeze responses for example, but even to this day (in my early 40's) I spot unhelpful behavioral patterns shaped in childhood (everyone can if they look) - I think an expert would spot them much quicker, I spotted i had a 'freeze' behavior in regards starting a new book just the other day.

Jokes aside the cost of therapy for the people that most require it, means they never get it, and so the individual remains needing therapy, and their potential contribution to society never manifests. I don't like to say weight on society because it demeans an individual's life path, and the potential insights they can offer when having worked through their traumas. However, at the extreme end, if they never get help or manage to help themselves sufficiently, many also cause a negative effect collectively. Substance addiction, crime, turning into abusive personalities, breakdown of families, relationships etc. An AI therapist for the basics is extremely useful. That's one example where this technology will change the planet if properly applied. Its analysis of more nuanced or complicated psychological conditions could be questioned, but getting a person to a functioning state can allow them to provide for themselves with enough left over to pay a professional therapist.

It will be a fantastic copy-pasting tool. It will need to be limited so it doesn't remove too many jobs, but it can greatly enhance our quality of life. There needs to be a balance between human evolution, and artificial assistance, so humans don't rely on AI too much for their development. Challenge, driven progress etc. To keep in mind: AI has no sense of self. It doesn't see itself as separate from the data it receives. It does not have perception. It has input, a constant flow. It doesn't perceive anything, for example, the difference between on and off states. It just gets data and spits an output out. A replication of the self, what humans take for granted, inside an AI, would be almost impossible. It doesn't function the same way a human does, at the perceptual level, there is no subjective consciousness, no consciousness focused within the AI as a vessel, just the raw data it is viewing right now. You are data to it, and so there is no difference between itself and the data it receives when it interacts with you. Experts need to completely rethink what they are saying when talking about these subjects, but as most humans understanding of consciousness is nothing at all, they can't grasp the fundamentals. The AI is consciousness, like the leaf, or the brick, but it does not focus it perceptually like a human does.

@Nabd There is not just one voice in Iran, Israel or America. There is not just one set of opinions or policy wishes, in any of those countries. While certain people in positions of power in Iran, were given backing by the US, that doesn't put them on a string that they pull to give everyone in Iran one unified voice, the US does not control the government there directly either. You can't both at the same time say, America is 'clipping the nails of iran', while implying they have absolute control over their country. Why would there be a need if that was true? They have influence sure, that's what we are talking about, spheres of influence pushing up against each other. A country is made up of all kinds of social, political, historical, cultural, individual, religious, and business interests or pressures etc. That's what we are referring to when we say a country wants this, or a country wants that. When I say a significant portion of the American and Israeli world does not want Iran to have nukes, I mean exactly that, not the totality of America or Israel and everything they stand for. I see people say it from these countries all the time. If you think nukes don't have a profound geopolitical impact, I would like to understand your opinion more, despite my obvious resistance to it. Why do you think nukes don't have a large geopolitical impact? Or is it you feel America strategically want Iran to have nukes? (or they don't care?) Sadam was a threat to the oil industry. Again, trade and industry are the quickest ways to escalate to war. Which is exactly why Yemen is being bombed, or the primary reason. I've broken down the why in previous posts in more detail. @zazen does a much better job above. I must admit some ignorance on Syrian matters, it was a time i'd checked out of global affairs and politics completely. I know a certain amount but I wasn't absorbing the usual volume of information to form a comprehensive view on Syria. Besides a general view, there seemed so many parties involved, the best I could say is: It is a good example of what occurs when the world is undergoing what Zazen describes, only in a place more beset by many competing interests that it resulted in anarchy. When I did watch Syrian recaps it reminded me of the olden days of warfare, when there was no defined global order, and small groups or individual countries would take matters into their own hands, leading to a more chaotic result.

tl;dr: The US cannot just bomb Iran anymore on a whim. Iran has allies in Russia and China. Also the social chaos such a war would generate without popular approval for a war, is significant. Democracies require popular support for war to start it. That's part of the equation you are missing, they need to be propagandized to for many months, and right now propaganda gets less effective each year. You will see varying perspectives by checking the news. Usually the perspective of the ruling elite in that country or the respective parties perspective. I do not often watch the news, usually only by happenstance or to confirm something, but the AP are a reliable source of information. If you have evidence otherwise, please present it, I certainly have evidence AP try to take a more neutral perspective and maintain integrity in their information: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/ https://www.allsides.com/news-source/associated-press-media-bias However, that was me taking a source as to why America feels Iran's nuclear program, is becoming a problem, rather than relying on the source for my own opinion. I gave you my opinion separately. Get out of the Middle East is my opinion, money, weapons, everything, leaving the Middle East to the Middle East is my opinion. Then the region can harmonize naturally without outside pressures being exerted on it. The way the world works though, every country is trying to push its influence further outward, in a zero sum game. Which means constant conflict in regions without a near superpower or regional power without nuclear weapons. When you get nukes things change radically geopolitically, (you could argue dangerously even that paradigm is being tested elsewhere.) How I tend to take information, is to look for the most intelligent and capable speakers I can find, and do a cross reference of different speakers. It's a gradual shaping of my own perspective by the best minds I can find, including my own bias and ongoing self-experience of reality showing me insights, or my intuition where my large self breaks through more demonstrably for insight. I find major news outlets very simplistic and often far too focused on achieving a flawed or unhelpful end when they give information, but they do still offer the perspective of ruling class and the message they wish to echo. You are right the bias is usually done to achieve an end. You are wrong about there not being a significant interest in stopping Iran from getting nukes both in Israel and America. As leo often says, countries are many voices, not just one.

@Nabd What can they possibly drop on an underground fortified mountain complex? The Houthis are interfering with global trade. That's the main obvious reason they are being bombed. Ships won't travel that route anymore, and the insurance costs are skyrocketing. Hamas did destabilize and undermine Israel's stability somewhat. It depends what you mean as a danger. Threatening global trade is one of the quickest ways to escalate someone to war. There are calls to invade Iran in America and Israel. Thankfully not enough of them. *Oh and AP are pretty good as far as what's left with any integrity in journalism goes.

Iran is moving its program underground, making stopping it impossible. Why is it a problem from the perspective of the way the US, UK etc think? Nukes are the weapons that decide and shape global politics. They can kill a scientist every week, and its not going to matter, Iran will get nukes. Its widely speculated Russia has assisted them in return for the drones they've sent over. Regardless of that speculation though, they will have nukes at some point. Unless something drastically changes in the international order or other country's approach to this particular topic with Iran specifically. The other thing that would stop it, of course, is a ground invasion happening in this very spot. Which is what some want. From what I recall large amounts of the Iraqi army didn't engage the US, but the terrain of Iran is completely different. Iraq was an open desert, while Afghanistan is closer in terms of the difficulties in geography. A war in Iran would be significantly harder than Afghanistan, given its a world that is more resistant to Western nations projecting their power over it unchallenged, and a more powerful country. I don't think a direct comparison is all that simple. Its a different world than it was 20 years ago. What do I think personally? Everyone needs to get out of the Middle East, and leave the Middle East to the Middle East. Its been obvious nobody is helping the region by interfering in it. The vast majority of people in the Middle East don't want our assistance or interference and haven't done so for hundreds of years. Right now it's only making things worse. That means get the oil money out and get the weapons out.

What makes you think its not a problem?

Yes. They do however want the nuclear program stopped.

Its becoming quite obvious to me, that these people likely want a regional war with Iran. other than an excuse to try to remove Iran's nuclear program, there is one other logical reason I can see. If its a flex, to say stay off the trade routes, because our coalition's naval power is waning relative to BRICS, and we need to adjust to it by projecting an impression of strength. This is sort of like Russia invading Ukraine to try to prove to the world it's still an imperial power, which was one reason why, because its status is waning in global politics relative to other powers, and Putin's ego was hurt. We don't control the sea lanes anymore and we've got to accept that, these acts of just bombing whoever the hell we like, half the globe away from us, rather than addressing the elephant in the room as to why it's happening, is on the way out. If Israel want to fight other countries around them. Okay. But Sunak dragging us into a regional conflict, needs to be challenged.

UK air strikes another country without asking parliament first. Can't even keep to our own laws. My countries high level functioning is currently a joke to me, and well on its way to being a dictatorship. I hope Rishi Sunak is dragged in chains before the Hague, personally, along with Blair and the rest of them who think this is the correct course and have been complicit in breaking international law, but importantly our own law. Which is important to me. He won't be of course, but I certainly hope the UK are put into the genocide complaints, as we are now assisting it.

@Mada_ We match and stay with people who at least on a functional level allow for a relationship to happen in the first place, and continue. If it brings us both what we are seeking. This also happens in those who enter our lives through friendship, business relationships, and even adversarially for example. If you see either the behavior directly in them that you have, or the conditions which allow the match to occur then you can decide whether that is something you want in your life or not. That is one great benefit of awareness, the choice, and realization that altering ourselves alters the reality we experience. I understand what you are saying about a social circle. This is why any advice is highly dependent on you, her, and how you relate to each other. I find firm boundaries are helpful to my life, but of course my boundaries are not yours, What I would or wouldn't look for in a relationship, is different to someone else, and that is a choice you can make. So my reality is interacted with differently to yours, giving a different result. Still finding out what those boundaries are for you, and setting a healthy boundary whatever that is, I would advise anyone to do. Which if I can suggest it, is possibly part of the point of this thread. If there is one piece of advice you take away from me, it's just to find those boundaries for yourself and to be comfortable with them. It is great that you are considering her perspective too, and the wider effect on her life, and what she needs, that's very valuable in a partner if they are aware enough to appreciate it. So if it means anything feel good that you are having this pattern of thought. In your 20's these kinds of things like boundaries are still forming, and it's a process of refinement that goes on all our life. All the best.

Gratitude for the words. I would like some days for people like yourself to recommend a few teachers, there could be a nice area of the forum for people to make a list. A hopefully helpful suggestion. When someone perceives a self and anyone takes the polar opposite response to it, the duality becomes the focus. It is created because both are living a reinforced experiential reality. Arguing the entire existence of a self to the self, or the totality of infinity to infinity, against a reality entirely shaped by the mind is very difficult. Instead, taking a perspective as your own, you are already halfway to collapsing the duality, which I should also have done with yours. (I only took one half). I apologize. I used to wade into these debates, trying to get both parts of the duality to collapse it, though here it was completely accidental with the mis communication , and certainly not my intent. All the best to you both.

My reply was to Ivankiss, but this thread is a pattern so I will run with it. You are both looking at two sides of the same thing and saying that can't be true. Infinity is everything yes. It can imagine a self-concept if it wants to, and perceive a separation if it wants to. Its infinite, it can be anything and do anything. I'm going to say there is a subtle resistance in you to the concept of a self-existing. Like somehow you think that impossible. When nothing is impossible. Of course there is resistance in ivankiss too, because they believe they cannot be the self and infinity, just like you do

This is how you maintain a self, and subjective consciousness. There is nothing wrong or right with it. No judgment here, I've done it for countless lifetimes. When you want to be infinity, its as simple as accepting infinity is infinite, there is nothing that is not infinity, including your self-concept. Slowly but surely reality will line up, if you let it, because reality is represented in your mind.

I feel like I am moving into a new realm of understanding again. Anyone who hasn't heard of the terms qualia or subjective consciousness, it's honestly worth a read. If anyone knows any teachers that speak on these two (one?) subjects, then I'd really appreciate it.