BlueOak

Yes but the last bit is our job . Don't put conditions on it, just love yourself. Say you love yourself over and over in your room until you cry. Get comfortable with it, find reasons why you love yourself, dwell on them, feel them. I'll give you one, you were brave enough to come on a forum in front of strangers and bare your soul, and be vulnerable. That's something to love about yourself. I've failed many times because I didn't know myself and the patterns I was in. I am not shy, I am too loud and still failed. Some guys like shy girls. Some girls like loud or forward guys, some don't. I used to go into relationships wanting to be the person who supported the other, that was my pattern I would be there for them, want to help them out, almost act as their therapist and when they were really comfortable, and things were going great I didn't feel needed or useful. I share this because you might have a pattern in you where it ends up putting distance between you and them, if its repeating a lot. Maybe detail how the break-up happens if you are feeling brave, even just to yourself, try and find common ground between the different breakups rather than just feeling hopeless. Sorry I was a bit harsh there, even when I read it to myself after I typed it. I understand why you would feel you lost. You did. You are irreplaceable to any relationship you are in. It can't work without you. It doesn't exist without you. You can never reach into someone and put yourself there. Its going to be what you are together, and what you build or do together. The relating and connecting the two of you have, that's what people fall in love with, what you share together.

Ask where a lot of spiritual communities are living. You'll at least be hitting turquoise for some of the individuals in the area (for some areas of their lives). I used to like to ask where is the most spiritual city or area that you are aware of is, to people on spiritual forums. The pitfall is you might get directed to a purple consciousness or something mimicking it. Just put yourself around a lot of spiritual groups, attend a few of them and see if you find a match. I found some of the most caring beautiful people in these groups and reflecting that back was beautiful in itself. Never regretted a single hour spent. You'll certainly make some connections and find ideas about where conscious communities live.

Seek it and don't give up. No matter how many difficult trials and experiences you have to go through. No matter how many deaths of the ego or parts of yourself that are required. If you have that much will, the answers will find you :D, whether you'll accept them will determine how awake you become. You are seeing/feeling/experiencing yourself every day. Used to be this question I would not answer, because it will bias you, and the second I did that it limits you. You are infinity how you remember who/what you are, will be entirely for you to find. All we can do is give you our experience.

Do you love yourself? If people are not loving you, it could be a direct reflection of you not loving yourself. Can't you do both? You are thinking of it like one needs to lose for the other to gain, this is limited way of looking at the time you spend together as a couple. Life can be many things at once. Even just using the word value, I would not pick that. It sounds like an exchange, rather than the meaningful relationship part of you is seeking, almost like you have two principles in conflict. If you want people to love you, don't put a value on yourself. Don't think in those limiting terms. Really learn to love yourself, who you are with and both you of you together as a couple. Think of the word us, rather than you and him. You didn't suffer a loss, your relationship did, both of you together.

How much we focus on conclusions rather than experience shapes it as either a T2 or T1 discussion. It's also worth remembering that when someone is angry at something they see on an ongoing basis, let's say you see someone repeatedly hating on JP or Trump for a particular issue, it is often part of themselves they are experiencing. Experience, unless it's something you experienced with them, is very difficult and unhelpful to question. You can point people at it but beyond that it's not going to help much. While conclusions and their formed beliefs can always be looked at.

Yes these are people that not only lack the understanding of humidity's relationship with temperature but also lack the ability to press play on this link for example: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/decadaltemp.php We can't expect news readers to understand the mechanics of it all but we can't expect them to understand the above, and also things like tipping points as talking points for the news. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/climate-tipping-points-earth/ Because these things can be studied in 5 minutes. It literally takes less than that for a child to click the first link and see the temperature rising.

Its easier to vote for the wildcard or the different candidate when there is a high level of dissatisfaction, however that dissatisfaction comes about, whether its internal or external factors isn't my point. You need to be grounded enough in yourself and your understanding of life not to react like that, especially when you are angry with the current circumstances and looking to express that. We obviously had Boris Johnson who despite acting the fool often enough was educated, but he used the characterization of a joker, or wildcard etc at first to get that dissatisfied vote. Its also helpful in dismissing some mistakes, because people expect a person playing the joker or even just 'one of the lads' to make mistakes. Its probably why he thought he was above the rules. Joe Rogan also uses the everyday man identity to allow for a lot of leeway. What Trump's opponents in both parties can do is play the we are not Trump Role :D. They can say they are serious, not a joker or wildcard, they are proven or established in their roles, or they mean business. Which I think is contrast enough to win out this time, but it's close enough that I wouldn't call it yet. Elections are all about image for the crowd and behind that pleasing the billionaires anyway. I am no big Trump fan obviously but Peterson didn't say too much here that I take issue with, apart from the stupidity on Trump's anti-war stance, which the world almost had a major war from the assassination incident, but believe it or not Russia flew around every country to settle it down. Also his continued ham-fisted way he describes the left is always amusing, there are so many different viewpoints on the left, that any time a right-winger sums them up it shows how little they understand their political opponents. That said skeptical of big yes, a perfectly put point. He's 100% right that democrats bought into culture war fully, at the expense of everything else. I also see almost all politicians as being liars by the necessity for their careers, I don't think less of Trump for that than any of them.

Clear communication and intent is a huge part of any relationship with anyone. If a woman is able to do that before they even know who I am, that's a big plus.

People in states of pure love still stray into judgment, then they become the judgment or reflection. It is the path to enlightenment but its got great big potholes in it. You essentially attract all unloved parts of yourself like a magnet that is impossible to ignore. Good luck its a noble and beautiful pursuit. I will watch that video when I am in the right frame of mind, not right now (too much judgment being reflected elsewhere )

For people to better understand the relationship of humidity to temperature https://i1.wp.com/gardendrum.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/HeatIndex.jpg Annually we average around 70-90% Humidity in the UK. So at the low end of 70 we can take 36 degrees C, 96 F on the high end 32 C and 89 F before suffering extremely dangerous weather. So all I can say is thankfully the humidity was never dangerous for long, because this was air from Africa, only as the cloud came back over did it become significantly more dangerous for a time. At least for those not working or moving around in direct sunlight, or the weak/elderly, which of course 40 degrees needs some precautions for regardless. https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/United-Kingdom/humidity-annual.php Here are the effects and relationship explained in even more depth. https://www.weather.gov/arx/heat_index This is also why people mock england's temperatures both in summer and winter, then get here and realise its colder/hotter than they expect, as the usual moisture content of the air makes a big difference. Then they realise why english people speak about the weather a lot even if it only changes a small amount of degrees here or there because the effects are more pronounced.

Very much so. That was the flaw of the 2000 era thinking. People don't believe that as a majority in the west anymore, despite what certain groups still think. It also means: As you conclude, the only way to reform Iraq is by its local populations and their immediate neighbors doing so in a way that works for them. The reaction to western interference in Iraq is incredibly hostile, and with good reason, so I wouldn't expect (want or hope) for any foreign savior. China might, but then you'd have an entirely different set of problems, because you are Iraq, not China or the US. That doesn't cut off foreign aid, investment etc, once you define what type you are looking for, and if it exists. As you say countries only tend to assist others that share common values with them, or at the very least are unfriendly to their rivals.

We hit 40 where I was. Which in a humid country like the UK could have been very high, the only saving grace was we'd had a drought so the air wasn't as heavy/humid as it usually is. The downside to that was a lot of fires. *Oh and for anyone wondering barely anyone here has AC, and the houses keep heat in, so add a few degrees more for humidity, and having poor ventilation in our houses. So sitting in 45+ at its worst I would say is a fair comparison for a country that is usually dry. I closed all windows, drew all the curtains/blinds to keep the hot air out as long as possible, I didn't leave the house, and overworked the large fan by my side in small bursts so it didn't overheat, but by using it in short bursts I kept cooling off quick when I was sweating. Stocked up on bottled water for the fridge and a lot of ice to cool down if I needed it, I didn't in the end, but as i'd never been in that temperature I wasn't sure what was required. I opened the windows only when the outside was cooler than the inside. Ate light foods, Tried to do my cooking and errands in the mornings. Got everything in the fridge I could so it didn't spoil. Cold or Mild showers, 2 on the second day, and 3 on the hottest day. I used it as an opportunity to make a case for AC in the UK, and to hit a few climate deniers with some basic facts. A week from now the world will forget so you have to strike while its fresh in people's memories. I don't know if the short campaign that was run on TV here did anything to shift the needle on climate change but I was thankful the mainstream were running it at least. Thankfully where I sleep is a few degrees colder than the rest of where I live. Never worked out why, its a pain in winter but in a heatwave its glorious. I've also seen it said that hanging a wet towel in front of a fan is good to cool off, putting your pillow in the freezer/fridge or using a cold towel over yourself at night if its too much. I didn't need that and got through it better than I expected, strange to say but thank goodness it had been a drought first, otherwise it would have been much worse. @kray

One thing I brought up in another topic elsewhere was, that no other template exists for how countries that do industralize, or go through rapid economic growth, can do that without following the same path we did. Which means buying fossil fuels and burning them. I've never even seen this point discussed in any debate, and to me it seems paramount as it's trying to tackle a future problem before it happens, which has to be easier than shifting the status quo once its established.

A simple video for the layman. For anyone that invests what do you think to this conclusion, where buffet says it's likely/possible every single company on the top 20 list will be replaced over the next decades? Seems hard to believe given the power of some of these corporations, anyone can fall down, but replacing most/all of them?

Why is hate comfortable and easier? Gratitude for any answers.

Because I like to be respectful of the person I am talking to, at least to start there. If they have a name they'd rather call themselves, i'd use it.

@Leo Gura Because at face value on social or economic issues they ARE the majority. They take a popular issue that polls 50%+ and say let's change this. If you were to stop the conversation there that'd be all she wrote. Free X! or Better X! Then they have to come up with how that is funded, which is inevitably going to poll worse than the initial do you want free X poll :D, Then people are polled on what needs to be sacrificed to achieve it. Then we get all the garbage or lies to smear the issue on top of that, and the poll numbers drop further. But then progressives need to be in the minority, that's how life works, they slowly and gradually adapt the status quo to what people are asking for. When that is achieved new people coming in are going to be progressive, while the old ones become the norm. Sorry for highlighting it bluntly, you tend to hate on them a lot Leo, I don't think once I've seen a positive comment about progressives from yourself, when they are a required part of democracy. I would call the recent idealism by conservatives to also be a form of progressive politics, though both sides would skin me alive for the name I don't have a better or more respectful one. I could say reactionary but I've been stomped on for using that before because of its connotations.

Its very limiting in how much you can understand if you equate it to a flat 2D TV screen. People's spiritual side, or absolute understanding of themselves/god therefore remains a flat 2D screen in this perspective. That would depress me too, thankfully I am infinity, everything I ever see or experience! Not a flat 2d screen running a movie. I am the movie, and everything in it. I would suppose that's why most people give up and get depressed, never going into the mechanics behind why it happens or the interconnected nature of what you are seeing. The beauty of it all.

Like many addictions, drugs are often taken to fill a void, and loneliness is a common void. By reducing the stigma and social outcasting that goes on less people stay addicted to drugs. The worst thing you can do if you want someone off drugs is cut them off from human contact or label them as different, unwanted, criminals etc. With a lot less people on criminal records, so they can if they want to improve their lives. With a lot less stigma for being associated with rehab, my brother has been fired a few times for having a drug-related past, or visiting the clinic that allows him smaller doses of a blocker to keep him off drugs. Guess what that does, puts him in a place mentally that its easier to take drugs. This happened as his last job too, and he's close to 40 now so its ever present. Thankfully he bounced back fairly fast this time. There would be a small upturn in drug use, that's proven out over the countries that have legalized it. We should mention that just decriminalizing it and removing some of the stigma associated with drug taking is a great stepfoward. In not only researching them in depth for the drawbacks/benfits but also not isolating drug users. If something is honest and open that generates trust, at the moment with the lack of transparency people don't trust those telling them certain substances are bad for them, because 1) Not enough research is being done publicly, 2) All substances get tarred with the same brush and 3) Well because its 'cool' for kids to rebel against authority and 4) An entire subculture separate from society arises in drug users that are isolated from that society. - All of these would be integrated and removed if drugs were publicly researched in more detail and de-criminalized or socially more acceptable. We won't see as many people living two lives. I can tell you the worst thing about living with an addict is that they lie ALL THE TIME. Everything is in secrecy everything is considered bad/wrong so they can't talk about it. It shapes their entire persona around everything. This leads to a lot of trauma for the family, because you are constantly gaslighted in every interaction, and you can barely talk to anyone outside the family about it. Aside from them stealing or seeing your brother's head beaten in with a baseball bat because he couldn't get enough money together for example, or being present but too weak to stop your brother ending up in hospital and living with that guilt. The whole way we look at this needs to be untangled from an unhelpful knot. Drugs need to carry no criminal convictions because its the person's own body they are abusing if they do so. Those people selling heroin, meth etc need to be in jail for life, because that's what they take from others. When it comes to weed or DMT for example, its ridiculous to even put them in the same sentence, let alone line of thinking. It'd also be a hit to organized crime which is never a bad thing.

Largely because all countries have moved to an authoritarian mindset and most of what you listed is done in lip service only. This has happened on the left and the right of your country. Your immigration policy moved authoritarian Your economic policy moved authoritarian Your separation of church/state moved authoritarian Your stance on civil rights has jumped authoritarian Your drug policy is moving gradually liberal Your stance on overseas conflict is moving liberal Barely seen any movement on the environment by anyone, just more pledges. Unions. The populists on both sides are giving unions more time because they've grown in popularity. I even saw tucker Carlson on fox giving them airtime. I've not seen politicians do more than stand beside unions and look good on camera. Happy to be proven wrong, they still have almost no power and no political support. Using the government as an agent of human welfare? Any examples as I am not sure what you mean here? Corporate funding LOL No. Let's just agree to disagree on that entirely. There are politicians that say its bad, and most of them take it anyway, a small handful doesn't. Corporate funding decides who you get to see elected, they back the candidates they want on both sides and annihilate those they don't want. Every year a few more none corporate-funded jackals get into power. Everything else is culture war that everyone loves to fight over. Gender/Race. Important sure, but what 90% of your politics revolves around. We can add the church/state balance and civil rights to that now. *Can't comment on trade, don't know your overseas trade agreements well enough. **I don't have the vocabulary or much of the nuance for your country but as I understand it, the method of governing itself, that is in relation to third parties or just keeping a single party in power in a state out of the two, has leaped authoritarian over the years.

I am genuinely sorry you are feeling this way about these posts. The shadow you are seeing is you, it's always related to you. Someone tried to tell you above and its never easy to hear. I am seeing that I use collective hysteria like JP does here and it bothers me. I've been seeing that reflected by leo three or four times as well as others. That I use exaggeration, and I do so for effect, but I needed to see it in a format where I understood how damaging it is. How my vilification of the status quo has led me to ignore its benefits. Something JP helped me to see in other forms So the conversation was useful to me, thank you. Gratitude. I hope in time you can see you are feeling emotionally triggered when others talk about JP, and that has something to do with your identity. I don't know what but hopefully with reflection when you re-read these responses you'll see it in yourself.

Perhaps he's realised people do it to him all the time, like the twitter mob and seen how effective collective hysteria and exaggeration is.

If he doesn't think progressives get stomped all the time, he's dreaming. It's a commentary on the culture war people enjoy. Outside of the culture war, there is an authoritarian lean to the status quo that is squeezing anything outside of it, that's been going on for 15 years, he sees some of the backlash. I've seen it since 2005 in more examples than I can possibly name. Status quo isn't progressive. Progressive requires change and reform. Outside of identities being integrated to be accepted so we can achieve collective acceptance, there is almost no progressive change anywhere. The integration of stage green thinking, a collective parity, means anything reforming outside of the status quo is being squashed. Which is consciousness cutting off a leg to say its whole. Eventually, we'll get past this, and we won't need to suppress alternative opinions, and instead we'll be able to handle it in a more nuanced and intelligent way. Overall though it was interesting to listen to, thank you.

@Yarco Very useful to highlight a group this big that has unelected representatives heavily influencing most of the planet, if only to raise awareness. It's very useful also to name individuals, to hold them to account, anonymity is how many of these organizations operate around the law. Because you are right Yarco without naming them, it leads people to hate the entire system rather than the people responsible. @zurew Its not uncommon for investors to get on the board of these companies, especially in larger corporations, and it's often not the owner that suggests it. Source: https://seedlegals.com/resources/should-your-investor-get-a-seat-on-the-board-seedlegals-data-has-the-answer/ Even when not on the board, for the purposes of influence, those funds still influence the percentage of the companies they have money in. Its not going to be an individual investor in the fund that has much pull, it's the collective power of the fund under a manager. 5-10% would probably get you a meeting with the owner directly if you requested it, certainly directors. I would say this man is quite naive in the second video dismissing this entirely. Investing not benefiting the company? Many executives get very nice bonuses when the stock/share prices rise. Not to mention theirs and the owner's own shares in the company will be increasing in value as well. After that I like that he tries to go into complexity, and has more nuance, I think detail is extremely important if any solutions are to ever be found. It helps stop hysteria for example, or just shouting at something being bad with no understanding of any detail of it. However the very final bit is the worst claim anyone made in either video, apart from maybe an AI wanting to take over the world, which is my pet peeve enough to fill 100 videos as to why this is absurd. That claim is, that there is anything at all wrong in any fashion with wanting to profit from your time making a video, there is no necessary conflict of interest and there is an audience that do go to reliable providers for facts rather than fiction.

Given you know his history better than I, why do you think he thinks it necessary to rabble rouse religious people into vilifying another group? Is it just to have their support to push his own agenda? The type of people he will connect with while doing this are zealous, and hard to sway from a perspective once they take it, so there is that. Do you think he's thinking in larger terms like some right-wingers, in trying to encourage a theocracy-light version of government in America? Or is it just to appeal to a new audience? It's essentially doing what, liberals and here labor, did at one time, before they became largely status quo orientated.