Israfil

This just increases the overall sexual obsession that fills our culture. Why are you teaching someone sexually immature about sex? Why don't we spend that energy to create the other socialization foundations that will lead to healthy exploration and discovery of sex and sexual identity when the time is due? If children do not feel sexual desire, why the need to discuss sexual preference? These things should be taught during puberty.

I didn't feel negativity at all. My question was genuine curiosity.

This is troublesome. Why are we focusing so much on the gender and sexual orientation of children? Why can't we let these questions naturally arise and deal with them as they do, instead of focusing so much on the different categories you can fit into? There comes a time when we naturally define our sexual identity and we seek the knowledge to handle this problem. I see no reason to constantly expose pre-pubescent children to so much unnecessary sexual information. Sexual education for children should be focused on abuse prevention. Sexual identity is a very delicate part of one's personality. It shouldn't be influenced like that.

Bunny can't fathom that those two views can coexist in someone's perspective.

Do you feel pleasure or fulfillment from this work?

This is some insight I needed. Been struggling with alcohol for some time. It's starting to affect my larger goals. Thank you for sharing

Parallax is an optical phenomenon in which due to the difference in the 2D images captured by each of your eyes, you're able to construct a 3D model of the world. The brain captures two different images and by their similarities and differences, constructs the 3D equivalent of it. It's our depth construction mechanism. Cognitive parallax is applying that to worldviews. Essentially, this is a rough summary of cognitive parallax. This goes beyond justification for an academic endeavor. Every justification is a construction that posits your actions and ethically grounds your action (why should you pursue this over any other interest). But, this is also a by-product of understanding cultural and linguistic limitations that constricts the imposed views you acquire through socialization. The rejection of the establishment of a method seen in Heidegger's Being and Time is an example of this. It is the acknowledgment of the essential myopia of every point of view.

Don't follow this. You will end up addicted to heroin.

Cognitive parallax is also present in Post-Modernist thinkers. I don't understand your distinction here.

It's not that simple, actually. Russia and Ukraine share a lot of cultural and historic backgrounds. The whole point is that countries must have the right to self-determination and sovereignty. The West in general frequently stifles the development of many countries by interfering with processes that lead to it. Ukraine hesitated to join the EU because its population is comprised of many Russian people and Ukranians with Russian families and economic partners. The request of cutting ties with Russia doesn't simply mean "don't buy or sell to Russia", it means not interacting with people very close to them. Life's aspects are closely intertwined and the interests of Europe and the US shouldn't supersede Ukranian ones if you're talking about their politics, their economics, and their lives. This whole pressure to give "freedom and democracy" to Ukraine just led to a lot of foreign intervention and blood on the ground. As Alan Watts once said, the US goes around the world saying "You better be democratic, or we'll shoot you!".

This is the summary of every Elon Musk venture.

The chaos of the fly is the order of the spyder.

This line of argumentation can be applied to every single state of mind you experience. What if you're just deceiving yourself while in a state you call "sober" or "normal"?

Is that a joke or a genuine question? Not sure how to respond to this hahahahahaha

I'm not justifying atrocities of war, but the west provoked this conflict to make Russia bleed resources. And the cost was a few billions and the lives of Ukranian innocents.

You conveniently stopped your research before the corrupt govern of Ukraine bent their knees to the EU due to western influence, which was particularly unpopular amongst the Russo-Ukranian population. Do you have an agenda?

Intelligence is a feminine noun in Portuguese. Grammar slip.

Nato crossed every line it said it wouldn't cross as it was created. The US destabilized Ukranian politics for over 20 years and pressured it into taking measures that would provoke a Russian reaction. 30% of Ukraine's population is Russian and many of them were disregarded as consequence of that influence. Putin is a motherfucking devil, but so is the US. The red on both flags comes from the blood of the countries that are caught in this domination war.

You have made a logical mistake here. What determines what strategy maximizes long term wood collection is not the speed of which you acquire wood, but how you manage the size of the forest. It's about the balance between acquiring the resource and recovering the resource that matters. Short term strategies do not care about recovery of the resource, and therefore beat every long term strategy in the short run. Long term strategies will eventually wield more resources, but they require the management of exploitation in scales that, in many cases, exceed human lifetimes. Transcendence of time and survival is a must to these models work. It is not a technical problem it is a consciousness and identity transcendence problem.

Such a high and developed mind would reflect what so many people who are also working on themselves have to say about the way you express yourself. You clearly have a skewed view towards women and have the constant necessity of placing yourself in a "higher" position than everyone else. Your interpretation of the development of other people based on internet posts shows the inability of seeing through the limitations of language and concise communication to handle complex discourse. Most of the themes discussed here could be spoken about 6 hours and we wouldn't scratch the surface of the problem. Don't mistake brevity for a lack of insight. Many people here have other things to do and can't write a dissertation to show you how arrogant you are to dismiss other people's spiritual experiences just because they couldn't convey them properly to you. 90% of my awakenings had so many ineffable elements to them that every written account of them would be limited. I assume the same for others and recommend you do too. Similarly, your view on women you had one-night stands with doesn't really samples every woman in the world. You're from Europe, in a specially materialistic country, meeting girls in an environment where casual sex is the norm, not the exception. It speaks nothing about the whole set of women who are not into that culture and wouldn't look for more than 2 seconds at a person only interested in having casual sex. Your sample is as biased as you are, but your illusions of grandeur stop you from listening to sound criticism of your point of view of the size of an eye of a needle. Develop multi-perspectival thinking and you'll have an epistemic awakening.

Reality is constantly showing you, me, and everyone else that we have the capabilities, but not the incentives for creating the long-term systems that will ensure our generational survival. Because the whole point of a short-term strategy is that you sacrifice sustainability for maximizing gains. If I kill the whole forest, I might not have wood in 20 years, but I have plenty of wood now. The point of our productive system is maximizing profit and capital accumulation. You can only be sustainable in this environment if competition is regulated. Otherwise, people that are willing to sacrifice everything to rise to the top of a specific industry will do so, simply because they will have more short-term resources that will smother your more sustainable, but less flexible. This is basic temporal preference theory. Contemporary democracy and capitalism simply do not allow long-term plans and investments to flourish as the most prevalent incentives are to maximize short-term gain. You won't face the consequences of a bad government as a president, so you can take decisions that will give you short-term popularity costing long-term stability. Go see US' Debt/GDP ratio and you have an example of no incentive for being long-term orientated. Same with business. As for the private sector, the rate of natural resources exploration, construction sand, and Silicon (the second most abundant element in the earth's crust) are both absurd examples of how much we are incentivized to disregard our long-term survival in favor of competitivity. We literally are running out of sand for construction. We had a silicon crisis for computer chips back in 2020. If Nvidea doesn't explore like this, Intel will, and they will kill Nvidea`s business and keep exploring Earth anyway. So System B societies can only flourish if they have a huge network of support to do so. And there is a heavy incentive for corrupt System A nations to not lose their position, because in those systems, social mobility is more limited and there are bigger privileges for being on top. I hope I made clear that my objection is not dogmatic, but based on the interaction between rational agents. I always recommend the classic Meditation on Moloch. A nice little summary of Game Theory.

I'd love to hit some alienussy.

I'm sorry, but this is too much wishful thinking. Of course, if there's a more effective system, people would migrate to it. The point is that effectiveness is deeply correlated with your goals. If your goal is to multiply capital, no system is more effective than the one we're currently living in. Only changing the goal we can change the game.

That's how deep the multipolar trap is. You can be System B in a System A world, but that would drastically reduce your competitiveness in a System A world. As long as people value having a harem and 33 bugattis over the well-being of mankind and the environment, we will live in this system. Humanity as a whole has to see that true happiness and fulfillment doesn't come from stage blue/orange goals, we won't dismantle the structures that stop us to develop into system B. We already have the tech to globally cooperate, educate, and develop people, but if our incentives are not facing that direction, we won't get there. Unfortunately, we will suffer from our collective ignorance until we're forced to evolve beyond our current paradigm. I will work to educate and develop people as best as I can, and that's what I would recommend you to do too. That's the best we can currently do. Until then, we have to hedge ourselves the best we can to avoid assured mutual destruction and reduce international tensions the best we can. At the end of the day, if you take this issue seriously, instead of promoting a whole systematic change, do your best to promote the development of those people. Can you help your close family and friends to develop? Can you show people that are blind or myopic that there are different ways of seeing? I think that's the most positive change we can do. Don't worry about the large scale. Shit's always gonna happen before evolution kicks in.

This article explains a lot about this problem: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ This is great too: