ryoko

- Joscha Bach

I don't understand what you mean by sex vs truth. Looks like it's just regret from giving energy to people you shouldn't even have met in the first place. And that had made you more diluted instead of integrated. That "false" energy exchange just makes you do more work to build back what you lost. A lot of absolutely unnecessary work. Don't be too hard on yourself Leo. Culture hijacks everyone. Know that all of it had it's upsides as well, which are often taken for granted. Ironically. I remember quitting Leo's channel for like 5 years after I heard him mention stuff like, "Have sex with as many people as you can in your college days". Video titled advice for young people or something.

Quite the opposite. What makes you think you'll get selected for the training, being undisciplined as you are. It's not like army is running a rehab camp for everyone. There's deeper issues to address if you feel like you're not living upto your full potential. And it's totally viable to pursue something which is more physically oriented. But if you're going to be in the army, you intuitively know you'll regret that position you'll be in, as you evolve. A career change is the right action, but don't context lock yourself into "I'm joining the army". Be bold, it's totally fine to switch careers, you don't need to pick something which everyone around you agrees upon. Heck, even pick a career which everyone disagrees with. I'm being biased, because you're here, in this forum.

Depending on your needs, switching to a living space cheaper than your current one, out in the countryside, could be an ideal variation of this, if you need this only for a few years. Fully commiting to the original plan is perfect for those who want to master living off the grid, and doesn't have too much technical constraints. There's instances of climbers living near camps, this is akin to that.

Hey @Leo Gura, how are you? Been a while since I last logged in. Recently I rewatched some of your older videos related to society and wage slavery. And this time I'm finding holes in your logic. I was considering a scenario where you've found out what you wanna do and it is not likely not meant for the current generation. We can take Van Gogh for example. Or for current times, let's take graphics programming. I'm not a graphics programmer but this is the perfect example to explore this scenario. Graphics Programming in general is super hard and takes a long time to learn. What I love about this person is, they started learning programming in their late 20s and took the time to learn it and it's been nearly 8 years since. He can make money with his current skills, but he got his priorities straight, he's working on his own big project. There's always something new to learn, you can keep mastering multiple disciplines surrounding it. And this is so exciting. While the cost being, you are forced to stay poor for a very long time, if you truly wanna just master it and do your own thing. This notion of mastering something simply for the love of it, it's so rare, and unnecessarily difficult because now they have to worry about stuff they don't wanna worry about, working gigs just to afford living, all of these are basically distractions for their long term project. What would be the best way to pursue a life of mastery, assuming you're not gonna monetize one bit of it. I am appalled at how money comes into this conversation at all, when it shouldn't. Coming back to Van Gogh. He died a poor man. A genius the world couldn't fathom during his lifetime. And he had his values straight as well, and I'd argue that very feature which made him reject society's silly games is what made him the genius he is. We have a very few geniuses who refused to take part in society and economy, simply because it made no sense to them. I'm brainstorming ways to sustain such a lifestyle to the most extremes. Learning something difficult for 30 years straight, without any distractions.

Okay, I've brainstormed this further. First step, buy land in a fairly isolated area, likely near the woods, even a small patch of land will do. Ensure you'll get water, electricity, internet with ease. Build a small outpost, comfortable enough to keep living there, but frugal. Remember, this is a house for one man. So, keeping it minimal is fine. Get a dog, even 2. Befriend the neighbors. You'll usually find simple people as neighbours, be humble. Be part of their little community, those yearly meetups, festivals, or weekly campfires. Practice basic martial arts, learn to wield a knife, workout everyday, build strength, blend in. Farm veggies, start small. Once you've done that you've basically built yourself a very frugal living space where you can live comfortably for as long as you need to. There are definitely risks and mental costs which comes with this, but that's to be expected. It all depends on your goals, temperament, priorities in life. Remember, we're all human, embrace your mortality. Doing this you'll find out more about yourself. Trust your instincts. It's not for everyone.

@jimwell Good point. You had given a better example. Thanks.

@Someone here Nothing justifies you being part of something which is fundamentally built to promote this weird concept called Nation. Join it if you want. Don't come asking such foolish questions in this forum.

@Majed Life purpose is not about making money. It's about doing what you care about without worry about money. And yes, beginnings are hard. Do whatever it takes.

I've always felt this in the back of my mind that Spiral Dynamics is deeply flawed. I feel, this is a model with deep stage Orange bias, it feeds the lower stages' cravings, which is a feature not a bug, but at the cost of truth/accuracy. Also when I see people on this forum demonize stages red or green or orange, it begs the question, is this a structural problem. To a huge extent, it is. When we associate one stage as higher than other it comes with all the perversions which arise with it. I've fallen into it, I see everyone else doing it at some point. In a sense, I feel Spiral Dynamics makes it difficult to see people as they are. We have this tendency to put a label on everyone. At best, Spiral Dynamics is a genius system which helps us rise to yellow, beyond that it's really nothing. It's at best useful for personal development. I don't think we should use SD as a base for working with people. My greatest insight on SD have been: don't use SD as an excuse to demonize or label people, and don't overlook the qualities of each stage. Enter Integral Theory by Ken Wilber. He's brought in more depth to SD. But here again, the same problem arises. The design of these models are inherently perfectionist. Also, the model itself has the goal of categorizing people, this one have more of that tendency. This is not recommended, it will cause a lot of cognitive dissonance. People are infinitely complex. This theory makes everything idealistic.. And if you take these theories seriously you'll find it extremely difficult to work with Tier one stages, and even keep you blind about true Tier 2 stages. Critiques are welcome. I won't be defending or fighting SD, the purpose of this post was to bring back humility and encourage observation without judgements. P.S - instead of just saying one thing is bad, let's introduce some more humane ways of sense making - Cynefin is one such way - it belongs to the domain of Complexity Thinking, and not Systems Thinking. You can explore that one from Dave Snowden Here are some critiques against Spiral Dynamics, he talks about it briefly. Highly recommended.

Language has its limits.

@Elliott The problem is structural. The structure of SD is very bad. It's evident by how certain traits are put on a pedestal while viewing some as primitive. This is one of those models which makes you look for evidences which supports your assumption.

Yes, and no. There's a lot of demonization going on towards Trump, Andrew Tate, and telling them, "hey, you need to move up the spiral and integrate" is not gonna help them. Also this lens of seeing things is only ever gonna help people who are willing to learn, and is well off. In other words, there are many hidden coefficients which needs to be in place. Also the complexity and chaos of humans are not something we can account for, by using SD.

9 stages of ego development have this Western bias more strongly.

Ask CHATGPT for it's chain-of-thought, it'll deny you outright. This is where deepseek shines. Best way to use deepseek is locally, using ollama and open-webUI. You need a GPU, for faster responses, it's not worth it to run on CPU. Also, deepseek have less flexibility compared to ChatGPT, in the sense that ChatGPT can quickly change topics, but deepseek can't. It is good in some sense, but not always. It's actually an accurate name, deep-seek. The model can easily hit the depth, but have trouble jumping around into different topics.

This recommendation came up after filtering the prompt many times. This is supposed to be a Tier 2 movie, but in an unconventional, non textbook style.

While noticing the dynamics of many families, and how seemingly consumed they are in this made up purpose, some cultures much more than the other. I often feel bad for them. It's not that having children is bad, it's how most people use the family to fill a void which cannot be filled. And how it feeds into the "what everybody else is doing around us" or survival. You worrying about your little children's survival is secondary, you having children was part of your survival; survival of what you think you are, this is what gives meaning. Children have given you an occupation; to take care of them. In other words, you're indebted to them. About the loneliness aspect. A teacher once asked why do you think people have children, the students had many answers, then the teacher went on to say, couples get bored of seeing each other's face very soon. New face is new task, in this game.

These are simply language games, not interpretation, notice each word have a certain meaning , a certain "way you're supposed to feel" attached to it. This can corrupt the interpretation, but here, it's used deliberately to point to a folly. For example, good and bad, there's no inherent meaning to these on this context, but humans are gullible enough to assume meaning. Same with the word selfish, easy to assume the quote is about a person or yourself, while forgetting the collective self: God, which is everything, and all creation and destruction holds no inherent meaning.

Not really. Re read it. You have not let a single bad thing happen in the universe because you're that selfish, you love it so much. So, there's no bad thing happening in the world? I'd say this question does not belong in this context. The context of the quote is different.

This question is like, is solipsism True in the sense that only the observer is True, or is the observed also True? The mistake we often make in solipsism is over simplification and assumptions. It's fine to not know stuff. And best to admit it. My little experience says, the observer and the observed is one. Are we imagining the self too? Just like we imagined the world around us? So, is everyone just a figment of imagination, including oneself? If we follow down this path, we come to a point where self is imagined, so, that makes the outside world just as real as the self, or you could say only as real as the self. Imagination of your "self" and the world is not a negative thing here, this is a tool for realizing the oneness. So yeah, this solves the mystery why many get suicidal after learning about solipsism. They just believe something someone said about it and mistake it like, ah the whole world is false, I'm in a simulation, I have to escape, I'm trapped, death is the only way out, and loads of bullshit like this.

It's not Trump's fault. It doesn't matter what amusing circus is being done on a weak foundation. A collapse is inevitable. And it's the people who end up suffering, just because they're born in a certain era, in a certain region. Collective Karma; Collective Action.

"we"

What good does it do even if it's actually true? Does that make immigrants evil?

Consequences of generational racism. Just few hundred years ago, these nations have meddled with so many millions of life in inhumane ways. No, it's not nations, it's people fighting against people, until both got tired and decided to settle it with compromises on the losing side. We were dumb, much dumber than we are now. There's no point in taking sides. If one commits a crime, it's because his environment failed him, it's not because of his race, even if it's a race, it's a structural problem, not a DNA problem.

yes, to the extend of how much fantasy one have to inherit for their survival.