Letho

I go out of my way to reduce the money tag these days. Guys you just gotta go deeper. Not into understanding female/male dynamics, that comes after you understand yourself. Women offer me money as a traveler, rides, places to sleep, etc even though I don't need these things. It's the intersection between cultural conditioning and true being, guys (and women too) in the west really struggle to differentiate between the two and make it so much about themselves or the other, helping bring clarity to these topics as opposed to feeding any false dichotomy helps both sexes onto the right path. The truth is in either finding a well-educated mate in the west or going elsewhere, as men, if you're intelligent there are truly so many great women in the east, you'll be too overloaded with options and women, there are also too many gentlemen here in the east if you're savvy that haven't been brainwashed by Andrew Tate, related. And @MsNobody you're so right about Latina's, although there's many cultural difficulties right now in South America, Colombia the true heart of their essence is really in the words you've expressed regarding their warm, loving nature, although there's a few women there's one particular woman that there's a chance that if our paths align (there's at least a 50% chance they won't: and its like that for many great potential mates) I may even wed in the future because of those very qualities, or to put more accurately because she has the qualities I'm looking for for someone I'd love to start a family with. My instinct is that if both sexes realised that the primitive consciousness of either is basically cashing in on the brainwashing the other has experienced to the highest possible levels of manipulation while at the same time there is a genuine desire for spiritual growth, a mature person would be able to strike a line in the middle regarding their evaluation of the character of the potential mate they're facing regarding where they truly are relative to whether they're ready for a more meaningful relationship, especially one involving family.

@Consept Simple question, where is there disrespect? That's where there's proportional distance. You have to be the one though who decides how much distance that is emotionally (how much are they in your heart), psychologically (how much time do they take up) and physically though. If they're sometimes 'dragging you into...' that means there are issues when it comes to enforcing your boundaries because in the past you haven't been decisive on the distance and because of that, its eroded your boundaries where now you're no longer sure of where to make clear cut decisions emotionally, psychologically and physically with respect to how they take up your space. The best way to approach this is to CONSCIOUSLY which means denying impulses to the contrary begin to INSTALL BOUNDARIES relative to genuine misbehaviour you're uncomfortable with, something you could even test by simply starting a conversation with them at a genuine authentic level rather than trying to bait them into the boundary as that isn't going to do anything healthy for the way you appraise said guilt you experience, To the level they show disrespect then you've got to be the one that goes inward to decide on those three levels how that practically corresponds to how you will in return as a man respond to the situation while holding your own authority. I deal with things head on, so I don't really like the grey rock thing I like to be straight up with people and literally just tell them "Hey I think you're an x" can we have a discussion about it and if they can't be mature about it then its just the installation of boundaries accordingly in a nuanced stage by stage non-dramatic way in the ideal scenario, because think about it, unless you're doing with kids that you also have authority over towards installing the right maturity in them why are you wasting time trying to speak to them about their own immaturity whatever category of immaturity that is? The more nuance you can approach the situation with, the more in integrity with your self you're going to feel, the situation and the other person / people involved wherever that may be the case. Otherwise you're doing great.

@Emerald God I'm so sorry you went through that. @Princess Arabia Value differentiation = Internal Cultural value / Maturity = positive correlation with measurably real external survival value. In conversation I think that's what we mean when we're on a spirituality forum, if we were on a toxic reddit forum our underlying assumptions about what we deemed mature in this context would probably be different. For me just to broach this conversation more generally a high value woman = Long term marriage & family material (LTMFM) ). That's only in the last 12 months or so though. Many say marriage is over and I completely agree, as most people are too immature for it because of our decaying cultural standards, hence why to get any maturity these days we have to much more strive for an internal culture over an external one. Inside or outside wanting or deciding to/not have children, following this metric is still going to make a woman high value in my eyes. If you're a woman or man and you want marriage and children, don't mess around. 80% plus of the population are no good for it even if on paper it looks like they're passing. Get your shit together, stick to your plan and don't fall in love fall in alignment across several categories of consciousness: health, intelligence, heart, future desires. People believe that we're meant to fall in love through what is clinical delusion when in reality, it meant to be in connection across several areas of sanity. Three simple questions are needed to make the determination, "do you like one another and will this stay the same in 5 years what would change this result and are you both capable of simulating through this intelligently?", "could you raise children genuinely well together in the future?" and "what changes would either of you need to make in order to bring a positive resolve for both question two relative to any weaknesses you noticed?" Most relationships have such fragile ego boundaries that they'd completely collapse in deep discussion of the first question as it brings to surface hidden things they never bothered to face head on together about and for the second question, it really highlights the present dynamics of the relationship and whether that would fit in a family context, for example perhaps one of the spouses is particularly self-absorbed, selfish and just, not in reality but the other one is codependent, so then the codependent starts to either realise they'd be doing most of the work or they imagine a fantasy scenario whereby the selfish one is going to magically change, which won't happen, and that the kids will adapt normally as things progress through the changes the partner makes, which they won't. And lastly for question three, you should never begin a relationship based on how your partner is going to be good/better in the future otherwise, why are you with them in the present? Uncomfortable truths are quickly faced and ideally evolved from there. Most of us will fail in our relationships, statistically, so we need to be mature about how we approach our understandings here and really mould our approach to reflecting who we truly want to be and are deep on the inside. For me, a woman I want to marry has slightly less to a woman I want to have children with, and I'd say right now that's where my transition is. I don't make any of this stuff a priority though, I know I'll easily find the right woman when I'm ready to. Finding a woman to start a successful family with is arguably much easier than finding the right woman to marry, however if I can sort out family, marriage kinda sorts itself out as it means I've already vetted relative to more objective measurements anyway if that's what I'm prioritising. So 'high/low' value can also shift and have nuance to it relative to our personal existential context and changing the mirror upon which we view that, helps our decision making, like staying away from toxic reddit threads.

@r0ckyreed Pretty damn easy bro. That's why we use probability, "X is repeatedly here therefore....". The likelihood that I am typing this comment right now is 99.99% true. That .1% leaves room for the possibility that I am actually Caesar from Planet of The Apes, at least analogously.

@Basman f no. I've never had therapy but I basically have an advanced+ degree in self-awareness, etc. If you don't have that, do both. I mean, just go and see a very good therapist to help with your journaling it'll only cost you a few hundred bucks and you'll be journaling 10X better than you otherwise would have. Do research and use your intuition on who's likely to help you on your path here. Your path here obviously isn't meant to be go and see a therapist, its obviously to learn from a therapist as well as anything else you can do on how to develop your self-awareness so you don't need them anymore. So do that. Don't mess around with it, get it done. You also have Meta-AI for example, just use that, then feedback loop your learning experience with an ACTUAL therapist and you'll NATURALLY continually grow from there. Don't think you're all crash hot and get overconfident, its so incredibly valuable to have feedback from extremely good insightful people/therapists, even if they're sometimes a little off, you use the feedback to grow regardless.

@Dana1 and then women would complain that 'He can't speak for women as he's NOT a woman!' or perhaps a transexual will come and say 'Well what about US!' But just to add my 2 cents to the whole attraction thing, if a woman likes you she'll just suck your dick right then and there with you barely having to say a thing. I'm being purposefully direct but it's true. Usually I go on about theory but seriously, if any man reading this reverse engineers how that's even possible beyond a man's physical appearance you'll (1) understand how female attraction works (2) understand why your dick isn't being sucked just off on a whim. Your goal should never be to get your dick sucked off the cuff and mine never is, that's utterly absurd and honestly disgraceful intentionality. However I'm at the same time a super open minded guy exploring every consciousness possibility in the moment as much as my hearts content so if it feels right then these things unfold by themselves, I am just interested in ascending my consciousness. I'm not at all a player and would never become one however I (1) love genuinely talking to, connecting with and understanding people when things feel right and it feels like there's good vibration there and (2) love as I said exploring energy, energetic possibilities and explorations and that would just come off on me I'm guessing. This isn't all the time though, right now I'm pretty introverted as I like to spend my time integrating my past experiences, however if you subtract either 1 or 2, now all of a sudden I need to learn 'game' in an artificial way simply because I have a sex drive and I'm looking to get a high off of it rather than it just being a natural part of genuinely wanting to learn, understand and grow from human interactions. 'Game' is just a business model that takes advantage of the memetic stupidity that's surfaced in the last few decades (sometimes to good end, and sometimes its purposefully used to rope in the brainwashed so you can feed them wholesome stuff), you've gotta escape the matrix and just be an f'ing human and remember the other person is an f'ing human as well and not be so f'ing self-absorbed so you can empathise and if the other person doesn't get that either well the vibe shouldn't be there and from that point on you should be asking your intelligence why the f you haven't moved on yet to continue growing from life as you're wasting your time now. And I totally know what that's like by the way, I'm not some supreme super intelligence here, its taken me time to see through all the noise and establish that signal as a life path to move continuously forward with as a foundation for developing and being grounded by the maturity that comes from that ongoing feedback loop of experiencing, integrating, growing and doing the whole thing all over again until I'm ready to say my last words on my tombstone, "We did it, so did trillions of others. Do it better."

@Javfly33 really sorry to hear that.

@cjoseph90 So many years back perhaps he even removed it. A good overlap: Nothing Exists But You | Solipsism | Actualized.org/Leo Gura. It was really thought provoking for me when I listened to this years ago in the car. Even though I don't agree with the philosophy or determinism outside of a deeper unification. Life is more about learning to have perspectivism while always trying to tune our consciousness radio stations to truth, which tends to lead us to some creative overlap between ideas and therefore one another as opposed to todays 'democra-right' that we see spreading more than the maturation of our views on democracy and the subsequent greater freeing of our creative intelligence. The way we cooperate ideationally can be a measurement then of how we do so socially. This thought experiment he does is such a great reflection of how valuable it is to engineer the imagination to master "Scenario-Simulation Artistry".

@Reciprocality yeah ur discomfort with recursion in objectivity is apt, as it implies intent's self-concealment kind of like a Mobius strip of awareness folding back onto itself. The hidden layers of intent can be understood only when the observer steps outside the immediate self, but even then, objectivity itself becomes a paradox. As you suggested, vulnerability often shields intent from full recognition, which speaks to the fractal nature of consciousness, to this end we should watch any impulse that attempts to constrain intent to mere mechanical logisticism, it likely has something more beautiful, perhaps sometimes spiraling nature to it, especially inclusive and exclusive to this possibility when we examine the deeper sometimes untouchable nature of intuition; logic albeit still applying, regular logical discourse undoubtedly misses the mark. Each intent has its own hidden architecture, reflecting deeper layers of identity that resist simplification. The self cannot fully objectify its impulses without collapsing into an ever-expanding web of reflective meta-awareness. Perhaps the objectivity you're seeking must embrace this subjectivity, have I encapsulated what you have attempted to relay accurately enough to facilitate your deeper discernment? Your insight into intent concealing itself reminds me of Godel’s incompleteness in that the self cannot fully grasp its entirety from within, just a thought. Objectivity here acts like a hall of mirrors where each reflection slightly distorts what it reveals, though there is a constancy that the power of awareness always provides hence the singularity and originality that agency is. True objectivity, then, might not simply be knowing every impulse but understanding the fractal nature of consciousness. Each layer of intent refracts through personal experience, limiting the self's ability to know itself entirely. Perhaps it’s in these veiled reflections that the deeper truth of intent resides, aka where some abstract category of objectivity and subjectivity that forces their collision must exist. I would call that simply, awareness.

@Leo Gura I completely agree with you. But we still have free will. It's proportional to our level of awareness and there's no logical argument to refute that. There's scales of awareness across the animal kingdom (comparing the awareness of an ant to a border collie) and too, our human population (average awareness of a human compared to the highest, especially when the highest train their minds on meditation techniques that facilitate such). Determinism is so convincing, if we're not aware enough to be aware of how we're being convinced, then yes, its absolutely predetermined relative to the lack of pressure awareness has on that unfoldment of causality, or what becomes meta-causality in light of the reality of awareness mediating the truth or non-truth of free will. All in all though, if I were you standing back and looking at the animal kingdom inclusive of the human population from sitting on the moon say, it would be totally understandable why you'd reach the conclusion that humans have no control. Peace brother. @Will1125 Leo's video where he introduces this subject of our lack of control is extremely good and deserves contemplation. I recommend re-watching some of his best videos on the subject. The more you contemplate his work from his unique position the more you will benefit from the insight he has worked to relay to you.

This "if not also to see thereby the purpose that intent has in the whole mind-structure, objectively?" is very insightful @Reciprocality, pattern recognition on the scale of possible observers relative to our present position in consciousness. Whfat else might you expand on here to generate further creativity? "identifying the impulse of intent itself", and to you what is the objectivity of the intent that claims objectivity? What overlaps with deeper origins are you able to fathom from this relative position? "how would the self-identity maintain itself if all the impulses that gives rise to it are known objectively", again what does the thing become once it is aware of itself as itself other than just another variation of itself even if this thing is also deeper more 'meta'? Does this share any relationship with the previous question?

@Kokorec Hey there, I am really not skilled enough yet to answer at this level when I don't know someone well enough. At present I am not accepting personal messages either as I am working on my own personal development for the next few months. Feel free to ask questions out in the open here thought. Let's take the hypothetical scenario that I had to invent something that was my best idea relative to my prediction on their circumstances from a very surface understanding. Outside of the obvious and standard advice: 1. Imagine your soul has been totally sucked from this reality and into the office of God where he's asking you to observe yourself now from the perspective of where the physical self is still in the former reality, where all of your memories hold all of your instinctual programmings of beliefs and subsequent biases that'll be triggered if there's the right environmental stimuli, as well as asking you to write down all of your truest beliefs and values based on your objective analysis of your true soul self not your physical self that has all those chemical memories while imagining a new physical self in an alternate simulation starting from the same previous position you left from that lives out those structures in this new reality while comparing what happens with the old physical manifestation. 2. Project out the differences 5 days from now, 5 years from now and 50 years from now. What kind of different lives did they lead? What did they learn? Now let's bring this back down to earth for a moment, I appreciate your question as you've enabled me to generate a useful thought experiment for both myself and others but I am choosing not to have PM for a reason for the next few months as I myself of course am working on my personal development. I'm not yet completely a stage and what 'yet' means for the future, is undetermined as it is the job of my future creativity not my present creativity heh. I hope that helps. Let me know if you have anymore questions. Lastly, feel free to take the thought experiment or anything else I have stated in any direction you wish, I have complete universal openness to creative infinity.

@Reciprocality Personally I like the way you express yourself. For me, while writing the measurement is on (1) fluidity (2) differentiation (3) solidarity (4) freedom (5) connection (6) integration of feedback on everything in relation to the Self. So with respect to @Carl-Richard's share of the list there, I'd be at least 25% of the way there as there are solid pointers there. All of the pointers in that list serve number (5), however in as much as it compromises my personal freedom, I would rather trade the connection with a demographic that’s suited for my developmental context, aka going to higher levels of creativity and meta-understanding. Personal intentionality and self-awareness (i.e. around those principles I mentioned) are much more important to think about for me while writing than concrete guidelines that may obscure one's true voice. Moreover, context is doubly important. Who am I writing to? Creative intellectuals? Societal muppets? Societal muppets in creative intellectual clothing? There’s a lot of the latter like Sam Harris pushing there’s no free will for example, and too Robert Sapolsky even though we clearly do its just purely proportional to awareness and there’s zero rational, informed, logical and or intelligent argument that can be made against that. I used to love Sapolsky, however his intelligence has obviously become so institutionally corrupted by his environmental contrast bias, making comparisons between people and free will in the context of where there's clear examples of their lack of free will through the lens of their lack of awareness while making very little effort to do so through the microscope of differentiating free will under increasingly higher levels of awareness. In our situation here for example, on the simple analysis of adapting socially or not relative to a change in writing style inclusive of at least three persons here simultaneously aware of the object of said possible change, the unique conditions of freedom and will here as it concerns leveraging this moment towards our self-actualisation are entirely dependent on our level of awareness and the conditions that are supportive of therein. For me, I would never read Steven Pinker's work outside of going another extra meta level that he avoided as he didn't want to 'isolate' his reader. As he knows after-all, the more isolated a reader feels the less profit there is and the more their ego is activated and therefore the less they'll likely share their ideas with others. In short, he bores the hell outta me. Most writers do. Simply stated, they're shite and they'll never get true respect unless you take conformity as the kind of respect that should be sought after as I briefly talk about here what some of the dangers are there: Now returning to free will, does someone like me truly have no objective free will on whether I can control that tendency? Really? I have no awareness to mediate my reactions, really? That's truly what's being said here? It reflects so much ignorance in our scientists these days in the field, too much ignorance to not question them on a potential ulterior motive that may be present, and that's out of respect for their intelligence more than anything else. No more respect than what makes me also simultaneously impartial to caring about the reasons so much anymore. Returning to adapting our writing to a certain said of stringent standards then in the context of free will, we all have the maturity of our awareness to empathise with the reader/s and the social environment to understand the balance between contextual connection and moving closer to our demographic. Creating writing standards as Carl has suggested is a really great idea all in all regardless Reciprocality, something that serves the best of both worlds so I'm going to go ahead and do it, for if a part of our developmental goals is reaching the heights of our consciousness then we need standards that both serve our truest expression and truest connecting point with our selective social environment. And key word there is 'selective', if I learn that I deterred others that are not going to understand me because I didn't conform to the mediocre thinking standards of the general populace hence why we're failing across our many intellectual communities like universities, that makes me happy. I know what its like to waste a lot of time conforming to the mind of another out of empathy where they were not nearly capable of expressing the same empathy, and in a lot of ways that's what it would feel like for me if I were to do that as a part of a professional writing or speaking career, because even as a general statement Sapolsky and Harris are right that most people technically don't really have free will, they're employed as scientists and so they need to be scrutinised not as social engineers that they have no right to really try and be but based on their claims as scientists where they learn to take in all the evidence. Doing this usually requires tedious differentiation and sometimes the spark of divergent generality to bridge interconnective insight to that most people can't deal with in the same way they avoided eating certain vegetables as kids. That's not handling reality though. That's looking after toddlers. And that right there is the crux for me concerning adaptation, again, who are we writing for? Toddlers or people that are looking towards higher consciousness, maturity, growth, etc, etc all that good vegetable stuff? The shortest version: Knowing how to write for your true soul connection in life is just as important as knowing how to deter your fake soul connection in life that'll be there for as long as you're conforming to a set of acceptable memes that don't startle their ego too much. @1337 Now, let's get right to solving your issue with a simple solution that barely any know about. Ask any questions but my comment is already long enough right now, its better for me to under-elaborate so I can get what you don't understand and gauge your interest more easily. Solution: Get better at the 'meta-mechanics' of mathematical thought. Stage (1) Train on the right material. Stage (2) repeat stage 1 and advance it. The following is my own idea, an elaboration on the original template shared below. DO NOT TAKE THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION LIGHTLY. JUST DON'T COMPLAIN AND IMPLEMENT IT. IT'S MY CREATIVE SOLUTION WHICH MEANS ITS A BULLET-PROOF SOLUTION. IF IT DOESN'T WORK, CALL ME OUT ON IT. BUT I STAKE MY LIFE ON IT. Now off you go, you should be excited to become one of the best in your class. Get on it, at least two months 1 hour a day to achieve said! Step 1: Open Meta-AI in Messenger on Facebook Step 2: Put the following into Meta-AI while asking the engine to replicate these kinds of questions as creatively as possible at increasingly greater levels of difficulty. What is the ABSTRACT POSITION? RAZOR will be North of TOWN PLATES will be South of RAZOR TOY will be South of PLATES CARDIGAN will be Below and North of TOY VEGETABLE was Above and South-West of CARDIGAN Is the last statement reflecting the conclusion correct based on the previous premises? TOWN will be South-West of VEGETABLE APRICOT is after HAND LION is after APRICOT WINTER is opposite of (LION to APRICOT) to WALLET CLOUD is before HAND WINTER is opposite of (CLOUD to HAND) to LION Is the last statement reflecting the conclusion correct based on the previous premises? LION is before HAND GOVERNOR is after LONDON SALT is after LIPS LIPS is same as (SALT to LIPS) to GOVERNOR HOTEL is after SALT LONDON is same as (HOTEL to SALT) to COW Is the last statement reflecting the conclusion correct based on the previous premises? LIPS is before HOTEL BELT is Below and South-East of TUNNEL HEART was Below and North-East of BELT CAT will be Below and North-East of HEART DOCTOR was Above of CAT SHOWER will be Above and South of DOCTOR Is the last statement reflecting the conclusion correct based on the previous premises? TUNNEL is Below and East of SHOWER All BISCUIT is SOUP No SOUP is SOCKS Some BRUSH is SOCKS Some DENTIST is not SOCKS All MOUSE is SOUP Is the last statement reflecting the conclusion correct based on the previous premises? Some MOUSE is not SOCKS STEM is before CREDENZA PHONE is before VILLAGE STAR is same as (PHONE to VILLAGE) to BERMUDAS CREDENZA is before PHONE STEM is opposite of (CREDENZA to PHONE) to BERMUDAS Is the last statement reflecting the conclusion correct based on the previous premises? Step 3: Answer variations of the above questions but instead of doing so as they purely are instead convert the CAPTIAL words (i.e. BISCUIT/SOUP/STEM) into an imaginary object. This way you're training relational, associational and differentiation simultaneously all of which are pivotal ingredients to the larger encompassment of intelligence as I've personally coined it, "Temporal Pattern Compression". If I had the time to dedicate myself to training, I'd jump at it but I don't. There's no point keeping my knowledge to myself out fear of someone stealing my knowledge as I have previously expressed that is so incredibly primitive relative to the level of consciousness I am working to grow to, I've just helped a philosophy student friend recently by sharing this knowledge in more elaborated form that if you want more details on again, patiently ask questions that are truly relevant to you and what you truly care about and I'll share accordingly. He will now go on to perform with a much greater sense of self-pride and self-respect now that he'll be able to achieve a much higher standard in his philosophy classes. There's no amount of money in the world that is worth more than deepening a genuine bond with a friend by being able to help him and have said help be genuinely valued and well-received. Moreover, we live in a sick society that is unaligned with truth so any amount of money or praise that anyone receives from the masses automatically comes with a heavy cost concerning the distortion of our own reality for a brief dopaminergic hit that takes twice as long to develop a clearer sense of reality beyond once we see through the illusion. Best Light. Honestly, please report back here to everyone here in two months time to everyone on your success or lack thereof in light of my aforementioned predictions to empower those that are looking to make the same progress in their lives for the betterment of greater consciousness and the lifeblood of those around them. No BS. If you're really ready to nip this in the bud, treat this challenge like you would treat jumping into the pool for the first time from a high diving board. Brace yourself and jump as soon as possible, then learn to swim, slowly learning to without the life guard, in this case me if you have any further questions, to go off and create your own tricks off the diving board and techniques in the water.

@Rishabh R My unique perspective has informed me that its not about 'Living a wise life' and then collecting the a noble prize at the end. Instead, 'wisdom' and 'living wisely' is an example of the wisdom that exists pertaining to how we should interpret, theorize and practice the meta-language behind these ideas. Meaning to me what works best is in understanding how to implement them in a way that works best for our biology and level of development. Any wonder why so many people struggle with the idea of 'wisdom' in adolescence? Some will say they haven't lived long enough. However its an over-simplification to an understated extent far past mere blindness as what people have unknowingly conformed to is the idea that we can just casually place each other into these empty categories that on the surface are good, right and true. In reality, underneath the hood of the car all that's happening here is you've made a decision based on knowing that if you turn the key to your engine 10 times, 2-3 of those times its going to work and therefore, "anyone that says anything against not having to get the car fixed is obsolete to the fake reality that I need to maintain". This occurs because we have probabilistic memetic socialisation spaces as a context of the majority of the population's prioritisation of the lower rather than higher regions of our brain and so memetically, ideas spread that serve a 'good enough' ratio for short term survival rather than one that is truly prioritization truth. This becomes even more the case in light of how the same prioritization of these lower regions leads to their conformity, so not only are we then continually working to spread sloppy ideas from sloppy thinking, their social reinforcement now leads to us being imprisoned by them. This is why the rise and fall of civilisations is often met with war rather than over a chill cup of coffee, even if there's a subset of the population that 'thinks better' there's an even smaller subset in that population that is in control. But... Let's get to the point here regarding how to live a wise life, well, differentiation on where to apply wisdom is what I'm arguing is the most important, and that it goes much deeper than we normally think, especially when it comes to how we're taught from the Collective Social Nervous System. So, in my briefest elaboration of this idea thus far, in answer to your question directly: My experience has informed that the best way to encapsulate my best approach to date is as follows. ‘All I need is to only put my wisdom on the past and my intelligence only towards the future.’ (avoid thinking about it in a way where you get caught up in the semantics of the overlap between wisdom and intelligence, of course I already know that, many 7 year olds know that, focus more on mindset) Concerning my attentional system, I no longer put my wisdom on the future, it hasn’t happened yet and depending on your level of development so far you’ll have an ego battle with having to constrict yourself. I have a foolhardy streak in my bloodline for example that has served us but can be our achilles heel sometimes and to that end, I am working to remedy it as wisely and intelligently as possible. Moreover if its on the past it automatically means you’re appreciating your experience and that will naturally translate into the ego seeking its own self-validation. By only putting your ‘intelligence’ on the future you'll be able to also avoid ego conflicts like self judgement as your wisdom being on the past as well your ego will feel better about itself as its focusing on resourcefulness while feeling like you can act in a favourable manner from it. With this matrix, what occurs is an intersection now between wisdom and intelligence in the present moment wanting to work together rather than compete against one another for the ego rights to how you spend and judge the use of your time. There are other psychological and biological understandings that only further argue for the intelligence of this wisdom so I recommend that the reader contemplate on it to the point where they're deriving their own self-insights, perhaps an even better quote if they can do that, make sure its genuinely better though otherwise you're likely just following an ego trip rather than taking the essence of what I've stated. Remember, the ego trip is there because of the very fact that my own quote here isn't being implemented on the readers part, wisdom isn't on the past so there's no resourcing on potential past lessons and intelligence isn't on the future because there's zero prudence about the self-awareness one is generating in the present moment.

Leveraging your question @hyruga to plant the right seeds in myself on something that cognitively intersects. Long version: One of my weaknesses in personal development that I want to point out in my movement forward, to give a mirror to others that then may also want to address this in themselves if this was also an area they overlooked too much and needed a nudge. A simple question like this, with coordinates: self + future + possibility = simulation of self -> the ability to empathise enough to experience an existential reaction to said empathy. Overlaps with phenomenology in action, a level of self-existentiality that I quite honestly, am not good enough yet at leveraging to my advantage and one of those reasons is that I have very few to any people at all that I even know that utilise this to their strategic advantage. Understandably so though, as its not that its difficult in the same way that runnings not difficult. But just imagine you never knew that running offered any benefits to you, its a lot like this situation here, basically no one comes out saying “Hey yeah, spent an hour on x thought experiment that’s now had a fundamental impact on my personal identity because I experienced it with such psychedelic intensity without any drugs required.” If 100 people on this forum came out tomorrow for example and stated this, I guarantee you that the likelihood of anyone attempting to replicate one of the persons results would skyrocket, as we’re social creatures, I’m certainly not immune to it no matter how critical thinking I may appear. So how do we do it? Well, let’s use your question as an example. What are the ingredients to the simulation in order to perform this internal experimentation correctly? I need to: Imagine as intensely and as fluidly (as in at ease/calm) as possible I need to experience a self-mirror from the experience, that is to say, an empathic response that triggers the survivalism that dually activates both “critical curiosity” which is kind of a transcendent state of contemplative consciousness combined with an almost overly sensitive reactionary energetic/emotional biological response Generate and experience various forms of consequential thinking relating to the experiment, in this case, various ages in which I could die and the historical consequences of this One of the core lessons here is not only my visceral reactions but the prudent focus that is required not only during the exercise but arguably even more importantly, before an after the exercise where the latter relates to teaching oneself to then install the consequences of the learning that followed from the depth of the lesson itself, which could include replaying either the same self-experimentation or variations for a testing of different results Change the way I view your own consciousness, more and more, I need to get into the realisation that I am a soul in an experiment called the human brain that affords me with incredibly expansive limits of consciousness that I’ve barely scratched any true comprehension to yet and that first and foremost, awaits my own diligence in implementing these basic understandings. To that end, a comparison of deeply experiencing my own death as actually occurring: (1) yesterday (2) today (3) tomorrow And then change 1, 2, 3 to 10 years, 50 years and 500 years from now respectively. For each of those, imagining the myriad of the ways in which I could have died and the various possible circumstances surrounding it. Moreover, for the reader, what do your own choices for these timelines reveal about yourself. For example, let’s say I wanted to imagine myself dying on the top of Mt. Everest. Why did I choose this, because it bolsters my ego or maybe I’m interested in how other people will remember me? Or was it truly, because of the personal challenge outside of ego and I saw it as a way to connect as deeply as possible to nature embracing whether I was going to die or not and accepting with humility, the possible success if I did survive, to have a story for myself to learn from rather than just a story to tell outside of genuinely benefitting others. Wim Hof for example paired his climbing adventures with the releasing of a technique that made sharing his adventurous climbing stories much more impactful for people. In direct response to your question, I honestly feel like I’m going to figure out how to reach a level of agency that I’ll be able to reverse aging, so I don’t think that’s going to be my cause of death, not to mention with this timeline eventually intersecting with tech adaptations here anyway. More practically, for me it’s like what age do we want to live? I honestly feel like on the one hand life is beautiful and I want bliss and happiness for everyone, on the other hand I think its logical to question ourselves as a species and wonder what it is we’re actually doing alive together existentially rather than just aimlessly living out our lives, even though, there really isn’t an intelligent intervention here other than one that does involve an advancement upon our intelligence. However either way, its still the grandiosity of humanity that we’re saying should win out, and I’m saying then even if we do become a super intelligent species, what is the relevance to said super-intelligence universally speaking? I don’t think it equals being greater than the simple joy of living as justification, at least I’m not smart enough to have a better answer yet, but because of said answer, I also don’t yet then know what the justification for our species is then if we’re going to always at odds with other species. All in all, there is a window of possibility that our coexistence naturally only begins to harmonise the more our intelligence also naturally intersects with a greater spiritual universal intelligence, as it will, providing that it is first made done with the best positive example set for others to follow. We wouldn’t for example, want Vladimir Putin to be given free use of the Limitless pill, as the film showed, that’s when peoples unique alter-egos come alive if they’re not taught to use their intelligence to also grow their spiritual intelligence. Lastly, let’s say 500 years if I’m purely speaking from the perspective of when I think my responsibilities would have been properly served. Practically speaking however, given how imbalanced our spiritual intelligence is at this point in our human development, it’s possible I don’t at all see my first 100 years due to this reason. Not that I’m say more special than anyone else necessarily to not die from some arbitrary reason like, being attacked by Grass Fed Zombies in my sleep. To sum my intersectional point here, if my own simulations don’t equal empathic-self-remodelling that translates over into a healthy existential motivation for life seamlessly, given my other knowledge on this subject, I’m doing something wrong that I need to train better on as I know what I’m saying is accurate given my recent ‘wannabe acting’ experiences I’ve publicly shared on this forum.

Questions are totally overrated though, just to level my comment with some humility. They're only relevant because I'm not a cockroach, not because I'm superior enough to ask them. Kickass life just being able to roam around without having to think. We have to exert so much effort to even like ourselves, cockroach just gets all that handed to em. Knuckle tap to cockroaches. It's not an insult to me, its a self-observation of my observation of monitoring the shifting value-hierarchy of another humans perceptual apparatus when they see the association between human and cockroach and they relationship they give it to the scale of bad vs good; though sometimes at least as I reflect on myself historically, I've definitely had in-group situational bias with respect to how I categorise the world. It's a part of our disgust sensitivity, which I self-monitor regarding my own automatism in this regard and its relationship to the biological underpinnings of morality in my nervous system outside of cultural conditionings/related, so there's an 'otherness' here that shares equivalence with our empathy while also grounding ourselves in positively reinforcing others to still seek a deeper objectivity in their comparisons to the rest of the evolutionary tree. Short version, 'Cockroaches are people too'. Even a simple sentiment like this points to so many different perceptual value-hierarchies that stretch over many varying demographics reflecting so many different variations of the same evolutionary algorithm trying to work overtime to aid the perceivers survival that it overdoes it. Another important question, how to think critically and become a more objective person where said objectivity overlaps with benefiting survival? Given the previous sentence reflective of when survivalism overcompensates when it's unable to sort its value hierarchy in a way where it sees objectivity as the highest value option in its algorithmic output.

@Julian gabriel How to improve one's intelligence? The most important question for a human to answer. The second most important, what is the ontology of being? And I only just thought of this, if anyone's been following previous words not that I'm attempting to tout my efforts as so far the most formal of my life though arguably it really just depends on one's perspective, this question is purely just an aspect to my developing work on transcendence. By this question, "ontology of being", to the level that we're unable to computationally categorise, interconnect and communicate with our experiences, God, given the level to which its memetically intertwined with the cycles of thought of the forum, is never even going to become a relevant thought we'll even have, at best it'll become an indoctrination, if we however have a truthful ontology on being that allows us to better organise our experiences through that triad, God becomes a misnomer, a misnomer that changes relative to one's graduation of a particular level in said hierarchy. For example, in my previous comment I made an observation on a dichotomy between 'cycles' and 'forces', afterwords I went on a walk and my brain started to continue to naturally rotate over in my subconscious on what I had shared in my comment where I then began to automatically associate that relationship with my engagement with everyday moment to moment experience. Aka, this thought exists 'at the end of a cycle' and the 'beginning to the force of a cycle' within a hierarchy of evolutionary development of what is possible within my biology up to this point in my development so far. 'Cycles' and 'Forces' are analogous to the kinds of categories one can think of as it concerns brainstorming on what said ontology would be, even if its just a part of a secondary and tertiary ontology that supports a deeper primary ontology you've developed, for example, both ideas would be considered as either secondary or tertiary to simply something that went to a deeper level of metaphysics. Lastly, said ontology paints the picture for the various categories of intelligence that one should develop as an answer to the first question, with particular emphasis on heart intelligence to juxtapose others automatic biases they may have towards me merely thinking intelligence equals the cognitive, preliminary resources of which again as previously shared, can be found at heartmath.com.

@Javfly33 My intuition is that you're attempting to create a world that makes sense logically from a personal safety standpoint in relation to women or a single woman even rather than only relying on understanding that helps you understand the dynamics of where there's connection versus staying away from the patterns that altogether don't facilitate what is good for the both of you in this regard. By intellectualising to the point of generality, you're overcomplicating it and forgetting that 'relationship' is just steering the ship on what helps you relate to another human being. Just because both sexes have now been a part of societies thought experiment on what would happen if we warped the ego development of many demographics, it doesn't mean that the statements that can be said about the patterns of those outcomes are now reflective of sexes in general, rather symptomatic of an environmental sickness that is continuing to spread, across new viral cultural mutations. In other words, you need to become seriously clinically self-honest about all the potential false ideas you have about both sexes, but not to berate yourself, rather to then be totally clinical about those potential relationship partners that are going to be aligned for something that is not only long term but genuinely reflective of what a truly good relationship can be come like. View your own perception of the opposite sex or even just someone you may like from the viewpoint of a scientist researching todays modern sociological patterns for greater objectivity to disentangle yourself from any potential ego backlashes you may have from this process. 90% of your work here is not going to be in analysing the opposite sex but in just examining yourself with a greater level of depth and self-honesty. Apply responsibility always to the inside, don't give your power away by blaming an entire sex when 99.99% of both men and women had no idea they were going to be born into society with a bunsen burner underneath a flask to see how different cultural mutations infect one another.

@Leo Gura Understood. But let it be fully behind us now. It only holds us both back from ourselves otherwise. You have my full positive regard for your work and progress.

@Leo Gura My brain is associational. Others brains are as well. It's other peoples choice if they want to prompt me for more or not. You can choose to do as you wish, I won't mind. I act based on integrity. And you can choose to act on yours, which in this case, includes threats that I thought we were past. I've answered honestly. If I have any request, it is to move forward based on mutual respect. If you choose not to, that is your choice but I thought we were past that.

Directionality-over-positionality.

Origins-does-not=causality-it=circumstance.

Sociology.

heartmath.com

Pseudo-educational-futurism.