Shodburrito

@PenguinPablo "It's quite obvious if you interact with and observe people that there is differences in depth between people" - So you're doubling down on the exact same reductive thinking while still missing the entire point of the criticism. You really think you can measure someone's "depth" based on how they interact socially or their personality type? That's not observation - that's just judgment dressed up as insight. And then you hit me with that cliché quote about remaining silent, as if that somehow proves your point instead of just showing more intellectual superiority posturing? The irony of using that quote while continuing to demonstrate exactly the kind of superficial categorization of human consciousness we're criticizing... "But yes there are dumbass introverts as well. Plenty of them." - Oh how generous of you to acknowledge that intelligence isn't perfectly correlated with introversion after literally posting an IQ chart trying to prove introverts are smarter. You're so committed to proving you can judge people's "depth" that you can't even see how shallow that kind of thinking is. Keep talking though - you're doing a great job proving my points about reductive hierarchical thinking! 😄

@Leo Gura This might be the most magnificent meltdown from pseudo-spiritual superiority to edgy teenage threats I've ever seen. Way to completely abandon even the pretense of enlightened consciousness! The fact that you think "spiritual Satan" is somehow a scary threat rather than just embarrassingly cringe is the perfect end to this thread. Thanks for the laugh - this was honestly better comedy than I could have hoped for! Sweet dreams! 😈🙏

@PenguinPablo Did you really just drop in with a random MBTI/IQ chart to defend judging people based on introversion/extroversion? Talk about missing the entire point of this discussion. We're critiquing spiritual elitism and judgmental hierarchies, and your response is to... create another hierarchy? With an unverified MBTI chart? 😂 This is exactly the kind of thinking we're criticizing - trying to prove some people are "better" or "superior" based on arbitrary categories. Not to mention using MBTI (which has been widely criticized for lack of scientific validity) and IQ (a deeply flawed measure of intelligence) to do it. The irony of jumping into a conversation about the problems with spiritual superiority complexes by trying to prove introverts are smarter is just... chef's kiss perfect. You've accidentally provided a great example of exactly the kind of reductive, hierarchical thinking we're talking about. But hey, at least you've given us all a good laugh! 😄

@Leo Gura Thanks for Proving Every Point About Spiritual Ego "I'm done reasoning with your density" - and there it is! The final mask-off moment. When backed into a corner with your own contradictions, you resort to the classic spiritual narcissist's escape hatch: "You're just not evolved enough to understand." Your responses in this thread have been a masterclass in spiritual ego: "It's just one perspective" -> "Young people don't understand anything deeper" -> "Extroverts literally have shallower minds" -> "I'm done reasoning with your density" Each response stripped away more of the spiritual pretense until we got to the truth: you're not interested in genuine spiritual growth or understanding - you just want to feel superior to others while pretending you're beyond judgment. Not a single one of your responses engaged with the actual criticism or offered any genuine insight. Instead of self-reflection or meaningful dialogue, you just kept layering on more judgments while insisting you weren't being judgmental. It's honestly impressive how each reply managed to be even more superficial and condescending than the last. Thanks for so perfectly demonstrating everything wrong with pseudo-spiritual superiority complexes. Your "density" comment was the perfect cherry on top. 🙏 Namaste 😉

@Leo Gura Wow. You went from "that's not a judgment" to "extroverts literally have shallower minds" in the span of two sentences. That's impressive even for you, Leo. The lack of self-awareness is actually stunning. You're now just openly declaring that a fundamental personality trait makes someone's mind "shallower" - while still somehow believing you're not being judgmental? This isn't about introversion vs extroversion. Plenty of introverts enjoy meaningful social connections while still needing alone time to recharge. Plenty of extroverts are capable of profound depth and insight while energized by human connection. You're not "helping confused introverts" you're promoting a toxic mindset that confuses social anxiety and inability to connect with spiritual depth. The irony is that this kind of black-and-white thinking - "extroverts shallow, introverts deep" - is about as shallow as reasoning gets. It's the kind of superficial categorization that someone who truly understood human consciousness would see right through. But I guess nuance is too "extroverted" of a concept? Every response you make just further exposes this spiritual superiority complex. First it was "socializing is shallow," then "young people don't understand anything deeper," and now "extroverts literally have shallower minds." Want to go for a full bingo card of spiritual narcissism, or is this enough demonstration of your totally-not-judgmental evolved consciousness for one thread?

@integral If socializing feels like "acting" and following a "long list of arbitrary rules," that's not a sign of spiritual awakening - it's more likely a sign of difficulty with authentic human connection. Reducing all social interaction to "ego games" and "arbitrary rules" is an incredibly reductionistic view that misses the vast spectrum of genuine human interactions that happen every day. Real conversations between close friends, intimate moments with family, spontaneous connections with strangers - these aren't performances, they're authentic expressions of our shared humanity. Seeing every social interaction as a performance you have to "design a better ruleset" for suggests something deeper might be going on. When someone perceives all social interaction as artificial or performative, that's often a sign of social anxiety, attachment issues, or other challenges with emotional connection - not some elevated state of consciousness. Real authenticity isn't about deconstructing every social interaction into some mechanical game. It's about being present and genuine with others, something that happens naturally when we're comfortable with ourselves and our connections. Maybe if socializing always feels like acting, the issue isn't with socializing - it's with your relationship to it. Instead of trying to create new "rulesets" for human interaction, it might be worth exploring why genuine connection feels so unnatural in the first place.

@Leo Gura "That's not a judgment" - says the guy literally judging and infantilizing everyone who enjoys social connection. Do you even hear yourself? Now you're not just creating hierarchies of consciousness, you're straight up declaring that enjoying human connection means someone "doesn't understand anything deeper." The teenager comparison is especially rich. You really think elderly people socialize less because they're somehow more spiritually evolved? Not because of, you know, physical limitations, reduced mobility, loss of social circles, or any of the actual documented reasons? And have you ever actually spent time with elderly people in community? Many of them value and seek out social connection more deeply precisely because they understand its true worth. Your responses keep proving exactly what we're criticizing - you take your personal preferences and limitations, dress them up in spiritual language, and then use them to make sweeping judgments about others' level of consciousness. And the best part? You can't even recognize these statements as judgments! "That is generally the case" - according to what? Your personal theory about human consciousness? Your sample size of one? Or wait, let me guess - your deep understanding that somehow transcends the need for evidence or self-reflection? Each response just showcases more of that spiritual ego we called out in the first place. But please, tell us more about how non-judgmental you are while explaining why everyone who disagrees with you just isn't evolved enough to understand.

@Leo Gura This has nothing to do with being a monk or not being a monk. You're still completely missing the criticism. The issue isn't your personal choice for solitude - it's your judgmental assertion that people who enjoy socializing have "shallower minds" and are engaging in "petty drama." Oh, so now you're a monk? That's convenient. Funny how you constantly dunk on spiritual traditions and ideologies in your other posts, but suddenly when it suits your argument, you're all about that monk life. Real monks and yogis don't spend their time writing forum posts about how spiritually superior their lifestyle choices are compared to others. They don't need to convince everyone else that their path is more meaningful. They certainly don't create hierarchies of consciousness based on how much someone enjoys grabbing coffee with friends. You know what they typically do? Accept that different paths exist without judgment. But I guess that's too "shallow" of a concept for your evolved consciousness, huh? "I'm shocked that you're shocked by this" - Yeah, actually, I am shocked that you're casually shitting on people for enjoying basic human connection. I'm shocked that someone who claims to understand non-duality feels so comfortable ranking human consciousness based on how much someone enjoys spending time with others. I'm shocked that you don't see the irony in preaching about higher consciousness while simultaneously looking down your nose at how others find meaning and joy. And I'm especially shocked that you think this superiority complex aligns with being a monk or yogi. No one's "guilt-tripping" you about choosing solitude. I'm calling you out for: Contradicting your own spiritual teachings about non-dualism while creating artificial hierarchies (super monk-like behavior, by the way) Claiming enlightenment while displaying classic spiritual ego Dismissing other people's paths to meaning as inferior to yours Hiding behind "it's just one perspective" when challenged Conveniently adopting the 'monk' label while regularly criticizing traditional spiritual paths If you want to be a monk, be a monk. But maybe try embodying some actual monk-like qualities - like humility, acceptance of others' paths, and recognition that divine consciousness expresses itself through all forms of human experience, even the ones you personally find shallow. Or is that too much "petty drama" for your elevated state of being?

@Leo Gura Classic Deflection Doesn't Address the Contradictions Saying "it's just one perspective" doesn't magically erase the problems with your post, Leo. That's such a weak defense for someone who claims to understand deeper truths. You completely ignored every substantive criticism about how your post contradicts your own spiritual teachings. "A serious issue to consider"? No - you're creating an issue where none exists by judging and labeling normal human connection as "shallow." What exactly do you want people to talk about all day, Leo? Only topics that you deem spiritually worthy? You just want everyone to be like you, sitting alone contemplating existence while looking down on normal human interaction? And who exactly gets to decide what's shallow and what's meaningful? Maybe the most profound thing about this entire existence is found in those "pointless" conversations you can't seem to enjoy. Who's to say your solitary contemplation is any deeper than two friends laughing over coffee about nothing in particular? Your response is just doubling down on the exact same superiority complex I called out. If you truly understood the non-dual awareness you preach about, you'd recognize that dividing human experience into "shallow" and "deep" is exactly the kind of dualistic thinking you claim to have transcended. But hey, maybe I get it now - it must be lonely up there on that spiritual pedestal you've built for yourself. Maybe that's why you need to convince yourself and everyone else that your isolation is somehow more meaningful than genuine human connection. That seems like a serious issue worth considering. Look, I'm only saying all this because your other posts show you're capable of genuine wisdom and insight. I want you to keep growing too - that's why I can't just let this kind of spiritual superiority slide when I see it.

It is seeming more like AI will be a democratizing force then an authoritarian,

OpenAI announced their new frontier model o3 today. It's either at the level, or better than humans in a vast array of intelligence benchmarks. Stop pushing the goalposts and recognize that this is general intelligence. Witnessing history. (Starts at 23:00)

I used to do drugs when I was a teenager and had no problems with them. As I got older I started getting anxiety from weed. Then it go really bad to the point where I couldn't do the smallest bit anymore Then I had a bad trip on shrooms. Then other drugs I started getting anxiety on/full blown panic attacks I haven't done anything in over a year, but occasionaly caffeine and getting tipsy will give me anxiety. I can still microdose on shrooms but no more than 0.3g otherwise I start getting anxious. I had a opiate a few weeks ago for a surgery, and did not have any anxiety on it besides the comeup. Is my brain chemistry changing and I am just one of the unlucky few who can't do drugs? I do not have any anxiety problems in the slightest when I am sober. I wish I could do psychedelics, but I just simply can't get myself to anymore.

I recently watched a video claiming that women's primary goal in relationships is to 'emasculate and control' men. The creator argues that women only feel genuine attraction/love for men who don't show them love back, and that being a 'good man' (loyal, loving, honest) makes women lose interest and see you as weak. He suggests that women are naturally drawn to 'bad boys' who create uncertainty and show they have other options, while they'll ultimately disrespect men who show genuine care and commitment. The video frames traditional relationship virtues (emotional availability, commitment, communication) as weaknesses that lead to losing a woman's interest. What troubles me is that I've experimented with being more emotionally distant and showing less investment - and I've noticed it actually does increase female attention and interest. When I act less available and more detached, women seem to pursue me more. This really depresses me because I don't want to be toxic or manipulative - I want to be genuine and caring. But I can't deny that showing less emotional investment often leads to more attraction. I'm struggling to find a healthy balance between maintaining strong boundaries and genuine care. How can I be authentic while still maintaining enough emotional distance to keep attraction? Is there a way to be both caring and maintain healthy challenge/mystery in relationships? I don't want to play games, but I also don't want to fall into patterns that kill attraction.

Just... wtf https://x.com/whatifalthist/status/1872408785534517379?s=46

@Staples Beautifully put.

https://x.com/ubersoy1/status/1872772398296240578?s=46 Update. Clearly has mental health issues.

@Leo Gura I realized that if you are not conscious enough, psychedelics will twist your worldview to give you a heightened feeling of truthfullness to validate your biases. It's tricky, and that's why I don't reccomend them to beginners. If someone wants to use them, they need to be extremely aware of how they can deceive you even further by deluding you into thinking your biases are absolute truth.

@OBEler After some more digging, on the ARC AGI benchmark, they say it fails the 2.0 version of the test with only 30% correct. It's interesting though, because at some point, we will no longer be able to create logic tests where it fails them. It is advancing at such an inredible rate I think we are in the singularity right now and we don't realize it. Next year this model will come out, and by 2026 a new frontier model will beat o3. I think the next model will truly be AGI. Already o3 is at the level or beating top mathematicians and scientists in their fields. We are only 2 years since the release of chatgpt 3. Incredible how far in 2 years we've come. A year ago video generation was barely viable: the models could barely produce videos that adhered to the prompts. Now with google's VEO 2, it is generating near-realistic videos, with some fooling me. And to think this is the worst these models will ever be. Exponential growth does not seem to be halted, if anything it just seems to be heating up. I think by the end of the decade we will have millions of fully embodied AGI robots across the globe. We are living in the most interesting point of human history. Buckle up.

You are not embodying love. You are not on a journey towards becoming a more loving person. You are not more "evolved" then the next guy. Everyone on here has this stupid idea that you can be a more loving person. This is simply false. When you say you "love" something what you are saying is that you are open and accepting of an aspect of reality (yourself) existing. The arrogance coming from this forum especially on political issues is hilarious. Most of you are liberal and think that it is more evolved and conscious to associate with those ideas because it is more loving. It's not. You are simply rejecting other aspcects of your infinite nature. You are rejecting the aspects of you that are right leaning. Like being a nationalist, fascist, racist, bigot, christian, muslim, pro-life, corruption, etc. These are all aspects which you are choosing to reject. God loves all aspects includig these ones which you don't like. If you were truly loving you would realize these other aspects are equally as valuable as expressing the one's you identify with. Of course, that's too radical for you to accept there are not better identities or belief systems to adopt. That's true love. Realizing Trump supporters are no better than Kamala supporters. They are merely different. They are different flavors of you. The fact that everyone on here hates the right so much demonstrates how unwilling you are to accept who you are. You are the thing you hate. Why not embrace it? Stop lying to yourself that you are more moral than anyone else. Morality is an illusion, a limitiaton constructed by a finite identity to maintain it's expression over other identites. Embrace the chaos. Stop resisting so much. If you were evolved you would realize this and embody it. But you don't because 99% of you on here are still at stage green. You haven't touched other levels of consciousness. Stop kidding yourself. I think Leo's blog post perfectly encapsulates this. "Trump is just a thief". And? Your point? Who cares? You're not evolved Leo. If you were, you wouldn't care. Your too biased towards your current embodied finite aspcect of your infinite nature. You're just as much as a bigot as trump, except in this case it's being a bigot towards bigotry lol. You are living in fear. Stop living in fear. You've convinced yourself that it matters if you fight for political issues. It doesn't. Your infinite nature will continue on. For every universe where Trump is defeated, there is one where he becomes dictator. In fact, there's an infinite number of universes where you experience yourself as dictator trump. TLDR: If you were truly loving and evolved you would not hate others as much as everyone on this forum does. You would realize they are you and would not have a bias towards which aspects of you get expressed.

@Majed God doesn’t need to experience anything to have wisdom about it. God imagines everything before experiencing it. Everything exists because he has no biases against any aspect of himself

@stephenkettley all jokes aside midjourney is the best

@stephenkettley https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Best+ai+image+generators

The funny thing is how y’all miss my subtle point. I’m not advocating for becoming more loving. I’m just pointing out that you’re not loving people and that fact triggers y’all. I’m making a meta point that I or you can do whatever the hell you want and it doesn’t have matter if we’re loving or not. I literally started off this post by saying it’s impossible to be more loving. Everyone on this forum proves my point that no one here has really moved past stage green levels of thinking. Every post I make on here proves that more and more

@caspex Lean into it. Stop repressing it. Become a stage red maniac