Letho

@Revolutionary Think Damn. You didn’t just change jobs you flipped the whole script on life going from "I deserve this" to "fuck screw it, I’m gonna do what actually feels real" is solid evo. And I love how the LAX job wasn’t even about the job it was about seeing proof that all those years of rejection weren’t about you. You’re out of the matrix, so yeah, what’s next? Like, you’re clearly in explorer mode, a lot of folk on the forum can learn from that.... Singapore, driving random streets just because, unplugging from all the BS. But is there something pulling you now? Not in a “chase success” way, but in a "I actually want to build this thing just for me" way? Detaching from society’s expectations is step one. Step two is figuring out what you actually want to create now that you’re free. A lot of people die mad at the world because they never get this kind of clarity man. You did. Keep building.

@MsNobody this isn't obviously just about dating aye, you’re asking about trust in a polarized world to me. When politics or any ideological finger print on our vision of reality becomes a moral shorthand, we stop seeing people and start seeing symbols in the same way people justify war, in this case your exclusion is analogous to the inclusion of what to aim at from a firing squad. The real challenge isn’t just finding someone who agrees with you, but learning to filter for the values that actually matter, keeping things centred and in alignment with your core self hun rather than as a reaction to the world. Thus, kindly, just a few considerations: Are you rejecting individuals, or rejecting what they represent in your mind? Do you want alignment (same views) or intellectual friction (someone who challenges you in a way that sharpens you)? If you keep seeing only "toxic masculinity" vs. "soy boys," are you looking in the right places? Instead of filtering by labels, try filtering by actual traits. emotional depth, self-awareness, integrity. That way, you stay true to your values without closing doors on people who might surprise you. So maybe the real question isn’t, “Should I date a Trump supporter?” but rather “How do I filter for the deepest kind of compatibility, beyond just political labels?” Thoughts? Would love to hear how others navigate this; can turn this into a discussion that others can benefit more from through deeper introspection.

@Breakingthewallwell said. Manipulation isn’t just corrosive to others it’s corrosive to the self and not because of some moral rule but because it forces a person to play a smaller game than what reality actually allows, moreover, neuroplastically that gets wired over and over and like I said by that time, fuck, its seemingly impossible to unravel those tangled threads into straight lines that can be made sense of when someone wants to change especially as they get older. Seeing this so transparently has been a reminder that's now forced me to unravel my own folded clothing on humanity to iron out a few creases I underestimated before including on my own ability to spot deception. History has shown me I'm pretty damn good, however its also shown me that I have some areas of improvement there as well. @Butters, you’ve constructed a worldview where superiority is measured by control over others. But let’s be real if you need deception to win, then you were never truly superior to begin with. Real dominance isn’t about control it’s about not needing it, its the natural path of meta-ascendence, and maybe you'll learn how to align yourself slowly there. If I have anything else, one more question to ponder... If you lost the ability to manipulate, that is, if people saw through you instantly what would be left of you? Would you still be standing, or would you be nothing without the game? Because if the game is your identity in it as @Breakingthewall noted, then you don’t own power. Power owns you. So what then aye?

A Reality Check for OP & the Forum... as usual this thread is a mess of knee-jerk reactions, legal speculation, and moral grandstanding. But the truth is somewhere in the middle, so for everyone, contemplate before responding use it as an opportunity for your own personal growth and an understanding on the intersection between self, universe, society and the people among us that create it. @Shodburrito, let’s strip everything down to what actually matters mate: The law doesn’t care about your emotions it cares about actions and proportionality. Your story has inconsistencies that make people doubt your version of events. Even if you beat the case, your reputation and relationships will take a hit unless you show responsibility. So let’s be brutally honest, you may not be guilty of a crime but you are responsible for what happened. 1. The Legal Reality You Need to Stop Focusing on is Whether This is "Fair"! The charges against you exist for a reason. Whether you believe they are justified or not, the key issue is, did your actions go beyond reasonable self-defense? If the dog bit you, where is the proof? (Bite marks, medical reports, torn clothing?) If it didn’t bite you, then why did you keep attacking it? Did the dog lunge aggressively, or did you misread its body language? This is what the court will focus on. And right now, the charges suggest law enforcement thinks you went too far. 2. Why People Don’t Believe You And Why That Matters Let’s call it like it is. Your story doesn’t fully add up, and the forum reaction proves it. People are skeptical because: You claim to fear big dogs but chose to approach one. You mistook a Golden Retriever for a Pitbull, which is hard to believe unless fear distorted your perception. Your first post made it sound like the dog died, then hours later, you said it didn’t. That looks like backtracking. You didn’t retreat; you kept fighting until the dog “stopped moving.” That’s what’s getting you in trouble. Even if your fear was real bud, your reaction was extreme. That’s why the legal system, regardless as to its flaws, and the people now experienced by it, despite our potential for mismeasurements, are pushing back. 3. Accountability – What You Need to Accept Let’s cut the excuses. This happened because of your choices. You made the choice to approach the dog despite your fear. You overreacted in a way that escalated the situation. You are now responsible for the consequences that are legal, social, and personal. This isn’t just about whether you broke the law. It’s about whether you can own your actions and learn from them. 4. What You Need to Do Next – The Only Way Forward Legal Steps: Follow your lawyer’s advice. Reflect deeply before sharing follow-ups on the court case here if you do. Gather all possible evidence. If you have injuries, document them. If you don’t, be prepared for the argument that you overreacted. Consider mediation with your neighbors. A sincere attempt to make amends might reduce the charges. Personal Growth: Set a good example for everyone here, its a very controversial situation so the better you handle this the more that you taking up our time to respond to you will actually be a benefit for the forum in the right direction. Own your mistake, stop making excuses. Whether legally guilty or not, you misjudged the situation. That’s on you. Get professional help for your fight-or-flight response. If fear can push you into a violent overreaction, that’s a problem that needs solving. Reflect on how you want to handle fear and conflict moving forward. Because this won’t be the last time you feel threatened in life. 5. Final Thought. Who Do You Want to Be? This moment will define you, not just in court, but in who you become from it. You can: Keep making excuses and let this incident define you as reckless and impulsive. Take responsibility, learn from it, and show that you can grow from a mistake. That choice is yours. But make no mistake, this is a turning point. How you respond to this will determine whether this is just an unfortunate incident… or a warning sign for a deeper problem. What are you going to do. right now that is.... to ensure this never happens again? Across all areas here.

Ah, well, yal all know how I feel about manipulation. No surprises there. And now, I suppose, you can understand one of my expressed life imperatives a little better that I needn't disclose openly in this comment, though I tend to lean more on the environmental side of things rather than chalking it all up to genetics. Still, it’s interesting how patterns reveal themselves, and how those patterns, like a sentience, cannot see and undo its own unraveling as the 'sadism' analogously speaking, is... to move to the underworld... too tasteful. Now, to our esteemed self-proclaimed superior being, your philosophy, at the very least, is consistent bud! You enjoy manipulation, you see it as a creative force, and you believe the world is something to be sculpted in your image. Fine. That’s a coherent worldview. Ruthless, but coherent. But tell me this, what happens when the world manipulates you? Because for all this talk of control, superiority, and bending reality to your will, you’re still operating within a system of described DNA imprints (epigenetics inclusive) including the world at large analogously that doesn’t exactly care about how you see it. Power is only power until someone with more of it decides you’re in the way. And beyond that, what’s your endgame? You talk about survival, but survival for what? What happens when you get everything you want, when you’ve asserted, acquired, dominated, what then Mr sheep in wolf's clothes haha nice touch with Butters? More? Forever? Until when? Because even emperors get forgotten, and every manipulator eventually meets someone sharper. So what’s your actual play here? I'm just toying, but my attention is hierarchical, so this deserves the slightest of interest if I can create the slightest of positive effects. Readers outside, please help me ahha, but only in the most sophisticated of ways for the integrity of the forums path towards goodness. Just curious Butters, cloaking himself in naivety, in jest. You seem to like the game, so let’s see how deep you’ve really thought it through, whatchugot?

@Revolutionary Think Wow, what a journey mate seriously reading this I can feel the weight of everything you went through, reaching that clarity is a great milestone from chasing validation to trusting your own voice. Not everyone gets there and you got there young. That's huge. Think of all the kids, teenagers, young adults and even the middle aged+ right now presently totally addicted to the next like, dopamine hit from the next video, picture and 'triggertainment'. You're out of it, its not a small feat when we compare it with the amount of people stuck in it. What really stood out to me is how your airport job became this turning point for you, not just because it was a job but because it connected to something that you found genuinely real because you loved it, almost as if you find yourself in those takeoffs and landings and figuratively, in the movement and freedom of that. Many people can find resolve in your words here, a navigation point for getting out of their own Plato's Cave in this respect, solid post. All that said. Here’s what I’m wondering, if you had never gotten that job at LAX, do you think you still would’ve reached this place of self-trust? Or was that experience the thing that made everything finally click? And now that you are here, what’s the next step? Not just in work, but in life? You talk about trusting that analytical, discerning voice in your head, what’s it telling you about where to go from here? What are your new experiences of consciousness now that you think others may benefit from in their reading? It sounds like you’re no longer just reacting to life, you're in that proactive point which is the consciousness elevation point we all need to find in our own way, so what are you engineering next?

@VeganAwake Ah yes, the bold proclamation that "nothing matters", ironically delivered with the passion of someone who clearly thinks their point matters. And yet, this very mindset is why people struggling with mental health in this forum don’t receive the compassion they need. Because, after all, why bother if nothing matters? And look, I get it. This corner of the internet thrives on treating life like a parody as a replacement for real discernment, not to mention the bandwagon effect, where these beliefs spread, get reinforced, and become a self-validating loop in a space with little critical thought. But real insight isn’t found in rejecting everything, it’s in knowing what’s worth keeping. If direction is an illusion, I assume you wouldn’t mind surgeons operating blindfolded, pilots ignoring altitude, or society discarding laws entirely? But let’s be honest, you don’t live like that. No one does. The moment someone wrongs you, suddenly "right and wrong" become very real. You haven’t transcended conditioning; you’ve simply swapped one illusion for another. But hey, keep exploring. Just make sure you’re building something real, before you find yourself in the rubble, crying, "It's all an illusion!" only for firefighters, doctors, and the very people upholding society to remind you, quite practically, that it isn’t. Funny how the luxury to dismiss "good" only exists because enough people still choose to be.

Alright @ExploringReality, let's break this down with the kind of clarity that makes people rethink their entire framework for understanding reality, no pun intended mate just a bit of encouragement chin up and keep it up . First, I respect that you’re engaging in deep contemplation about the nature of morality, perception, and self-preservation. That’s a good instinct, examining the constructs of the mind is how we grow. However, every thought is a piece of engineering. If your perspective were a machine, would it actually function in the real world? Let’s stress-test it. 1. You Say Evil Is Just a Perspective. But would That Machine Run Smoothly in Reality? You propose that evil is merely an ego-driven construct, a relative term shaped by survival bias. But let’s apply this to real-world examples: Psychopaths & Malignant Narcissists. These individuals lack empathy, exploit others, and often take pleasure in harm. Are they just "acting from their own perspective of good," or do they operate in a way that makes their existence an inherent detriment to societal function? If we drop all moral judgment, does that help us deal with them more effectively, or does it actually hinder necessary self-defense? Historical Atrocities: Genocide, human trafficking, mass-scale manipulation, if evil is purely subjective, do we simply "understand" the perpetrators? Or is there an undeniable functional reality to their actions being destructive beyond personal perspective? People defensive of 'evil' actions often cite how 'anyone would do it Stanford Prison Experiment, right!', well yes, and no. It's already known that some of those people had propensities, not everyone is different, its a fallacy as you're treating it as if everyone is on an even 'moral playing field', we're not. Some people fragmented hearts, this invariably leads more to evil than it does goodness, there's not much to argue there, given in the opposite we consistently see more of the opposite corresponding behaviours. This is the tripe that's said about pedophiles for example, justifying their actions while ignoring the consequences, aka a standard trait of a psychopath and or psychopathic spectrum, also, forgetting how its already proven now scientifically how people on that corresponding spectrum have much less disgust reactions compared to the general population in the same way that psychopaths are shown to have a much weaker fear reaction. If we accept that some behaviors generate disproportionate harm, then "negative energy" is not merely a perspective, it has a proportional relationship to what we commonly call "evil energy". Meaning, something can be objectively destructive, regardless of whether the perpetrator justifies it, and even if we say 'evil is relative', granted, still the absolute correlations still apply and its an omission of rationality to ignore them rather than a reflection of 'higher spiritual logic' by trying to discount these realities, especially when it comes to gaslighting people into the totality of the relative nature to falsely discount where the evidence and contradictions in that paradigm still persist under numerous real life case studies and thought experiments of the mind. 2. Is “Survival Bias” a Flaw, or is It a Necessary Filter? You suggest that seeing something as evil is just a trick of the ego. But does that mean filtering threats to survival is an illusion? If we apply this thinking in pediatrics, would we tell a child who’s being abused that their suffering is just a matter of perspective? Or do we acknowledge that suffering is real and act accordingly? At what point does detachment become an excuse for inaction? Are you willing to carry this logic to its conclusion in situations where it actually matters? 3. The Contradiction: If Everything Is Relative, Why Should Anyone “Open Their Mind”? You end by saying, "Contemplate that without getting defensive." That implies there’s a higher truth you believe people should reach, yet, by your own argument, all perspectives are just constructs. So why prefer yours? If everything is relative, then relativism itself is just another subjective belief, no more valid than the one you're dismissing. So should we really take your insight as a fundamental realization, or is it just another perspective struggling for survival? Again @ExploringReality , even though this discussion seems very click baity mate t’s a good thing that you’re questioning the constructs of morality and perception, most people never even try so I really, really want to encourage you even though I'm pretty much past all that now outside of tightening my grip on the 'engineering of things'. The pursuit of deeper understanding is noble, but it’s also a double-edged sword. The more you explore, the more careful you have to be about mistaking the map for the territory. It’s easy to fall in love with our own conclusions, especially when they feel profound. But the true test of any insight isn’t how revolutionary it sounds, it’s how well it holds up against reality. Keep thinking. Keep questioning. But stay sharp. A mind that is too rigid breaks, and a mind too open leaks. Aim for precision, not just perspective.

@meta_male You're welcome. You've got this. And... so do they: @Schizophonia @BlueOak @ExplorerMystic @Raze @Giulio Bevilacqua @Basman @Ulax @Yimpa @k-ahmadzadeh @Princess Arabia @ZenAlex @bebotalk @TheCloud @CoolDreamThanks @thierry @Atb210201 @Michael569 @Etherial Cat @Human Mint @Yimpa @Joshe @Ero @WritingHands @M A J I @Sugarcoat This is a space for growth, which means we're all trying to find our own alignment of the straight and arrow just as you are mate, we're no better and we're no worse and obviously... Obviously we're all here when we can to put in an encouraging word for you because we all deep down have an understanding of the persevering quality of the human spirit that brought us here to begin with. So its not just a 'hang in there' bud, as we're all hanging in there right there with you and I can be damn well sure that if you ever have a bit of a scare like you've had that any one of these folk I've mentioned will be right behind you to catch your fall if you ever need to message them next time they're available. Stay strong, we know you will. Best.

@Bear632 Hey, I see you mate. This is an impossible situation bud but taking the time to reflect says a lot about you as for many they can shut down or go numb in these kinds of dysfunctional situations. Keeping a level head is the goal here. Like, what if your dad never changes? What if no combination of words, ultimatums or boundaries cracks him open even slightly? If that’s the case, what’s your move? How does that shift your approach with your brother? I ask because I’ve been there in some of my relationships in the past, spinning my wheels, trying to find the angle that might get through. And in doing that, I lost sight of the real mission which was just about protecting the people who could still be reached. It sounds like your brother is your priority, so I'd zoom in there. Right now, what does he believe about your dad? Does he think this is just “normal”? Does he feel trapped? Or has he already started seeing through the cracks? Because the version of reality your dad is feeding him will shape him of course and the best thing you can do is give him an alternate version to hold onto. How are you doing that now? How could you do it more? And for you... what’s the one thing that makes you hesitate? Like I sense so many different emotions with you. If there’s any part of you still searching for a way to reach your dad, what’s driving that? Is it a belief that everyone has some capacity for redemption? Is it fear of regret later? Or is it just that little voice that says, “If I give up completely, does that make me like him?” (because if so, I promise you, its not gonna) You’re not crazy for wanting to believe there’s some way through. But if you were standing in your brother’s shoes, what would you want an older version of him to do for you? There’s your answer. What’s your next move? It's your world trying to join the dots between these worlds, so beyond all the frustration and pain mate, where's the most grounded light from an objective standpoint? Do you have other relatives, friends you can trust who have better insight based on their knowledge of you and the situation? Feel free to share more. Best.

@meta_male Hey mate, I feel so glad that you are still here with us, you have shown enormous strength by listening to the voice inside to last to this point. Self-understanding (all the stuff that you would have heard about already) is to self-liberation, for any greater curiosity, adventure and self-inspiration I can encourage in you towards realisations that lead to this freedom. I'd be happy to. Much love from all of us.

@AION Manipulation is for immature people. I do not approve perceptions of some of the members here. Immaturity is simply the measure of either ignorance or the amount of knowledge someone has that is not paired with their actions in the physical world. Immature people often justify their manipulation by citing examples of it or aspects of the environment that force their announcement that it must therefore be a necessity. All they are revealing is their lack of authority on their personal growth; slavery to the environment in deciding the kind of character they will have in the future. The only defence manipulative people have in this and other respects is their indoctrination into manipulation, while at the same time, they still make their own conscious decisions in either its reinforcement or negation towards greater growth. Balance.

@trenton Your subconscious wants you to assert your boundaries. It is freaking out because it can't. Because it believes it can't, it naturally releases self attacks. Your subconscious fears to assert because of the backlash. Remedy: Do so as calmly as possible to bring peace to your mind in thought of asserting them. Embrace the reaction while consolidating strength towards your sense of self while self-validating in both respects. For anything that crosses your boundaries, which you should measure as merely that which does not show respect for your preferences at this time, should be met with stronger subtler boundaries. This protects the integrity of the interactions. You've done what is only your responsibility as a mature adult and they have reacted accordingly. Continue the above remedy, expanding/contracting your boundaries incrementally in a touch and go fashion over a long time horizon based on your mature assessment of the maturity of the dynamics with your family. Approach this with awareness as your primary centre and target throughout. Slowly but surely, watch as the self-attacking gradually shifts to self-esteem as you more and more begin to find your own self-respect again, and with that, having your own voice determine the life around you, with balance. Allow your own solutions to emerge from this formula. You do not need me or anyone else, you need yourself to begin to slowly develop deeper levels of self-trust. Do not force, simply follow the formula and trust that your mind will create the solutions it needs with your own innate creativity.

One last point: @Leo Gura On "And why emotions override rationality and logic": As stated, until we find another model you must start from energy as information to begin with and information relative to consciousness as having levels of integration, where integration in our context is reflective of a triangle. The so called'primitive' emotions and feelings that are incorrectly denoted not only begin at the lowest level, however they're fundamental to the highest, differentiated only by levels of integration. I have spoken before about intelligence being reflective of in part, a 'compression algorithm' outside of my complementary insights there on 'meta-set-theory' being fundamental to intelligence at the cognitive level, however, analogously, this is operative to the performance of energy and our management of energy to emotions all the way to the full archway of their psychology back down to how that in return alters our sensory system, yes from apathy to excitement, one changes our epidemiology differently from the next, differentiated comparably in the same way by compression and their corresponding set theory. Compared to raw cognition, the difference is that energy to emotions in this case when it comes to utilizing from energy to sense to feeling to emotions to alchemy that transforms the body to our epigenetics is performative. It's an action we literally perform with consciousness, from dissmissal to the slow learning of full engagement to movement; hence recently shared notions between awareness and "ramachandran blueprint" in my journal. This is right across the nervous system, including to in the learning to regulate brainwaves and cell signalling within our very brain through conscious engineering alone through very sensitive, long winded hours of inward self-driven learning. Like a sliding scale, you can re-conceptualise levels of consciousness relative to levels of 'energetic integration' on this 'compression triangle' where energy, feeling, emotion and cognition are one in the same, where consciousness is the only differentiator, acting as the integrator that unifies, binds and raises in following its natural pattern towards 'higher' and 'growth' when directed by the intelligence of sentience, naturally, towards greater intelligence; its totally organic, its our truest path and the truest path of energy towards higher density information in this grace. So its not that “why emotions override rationality and logic” but rather it’s about exploring the why they do, and from most average standpoints from the perspective of this model, it’s because they’re being experienced at a lower informational density level, awaiting a higher level of integration; that’s the language here of explaining higher vs lower evolved sentience. ‘Primitive’ because it now inherits a lower level cultural consciousness along with its use its best to avoid it.

@Leo Gura your epistemic rigidity blinds you to a fundamental truth mate, something that I haven't just spent a couple of hours or 'trips' on but over a thousand hours now in bioelectrical mastery, a completely new paradigm that I am originating with the help of intersecting sciences, and that is, that feeling-emotion is not primitive, it is a recursive, bioelectric interface between cognition and perception. The false dichotomy of ‘rational vs. feeling-emotional’ reflects an archaic hierarchy, you must meditate on this deeply, to start, imagine the universe as a completely fluid consciousness state where all its contents are simplistically denoted as 'information' where consciousness ascendence requires the integration of all its subsidiaries in a complementary not dichotomous fashion, once you practice this deeply, you'll understand that the spectrum of feeling and emotion are not only as important as thought, all three terrain have unchartered limits and abstract depth. Feeling-emotion, in its truly integrated sense in the alignment of where awareness meets perception and harmony meets the order of structured chaotic ascendence, serves as the substrate for higher-order consciousness, expanding not only neural plasticity but the fundamental cells within the limbs of our greater nervous system, refining the clogging rift over our expansive experience from metacognitive modulation to metaconsciousness ascendence. You perceive feeling-emotion as secondary when, in reality, it is the syntax through which deeper intelligence structures itself. My mastery of bioelectrical modulation has demonstrated this, each ascent in control correlates with an increased fidelity of emotional resonance, allowing cognition to integrate at scales beyond conventional neurotypical abstraction. Until you recognize this, until you cease mistaking intellectualization for comprehension, you remain bound by a truncated cognitive model; you've got to deepen your listening Leo at the feeling and emotional level, there are sensory maps here awaiting for your realisation that at a loss like a blindman that cannot see and therefore denies sight, misses out on an incredible phenomenlogical spectrum of enlightenment. For readers at large, true intelligence is not cold detachment nor reductionistic categorisations of our experiences into 'higher' or 'lower' but the precise harmonization of energetic, emotional, and logical coherence into 'higher' or 'lower' integration between all the categories of each individuals very, very unique phenomenology. Evolution is not a climb upward but an expansion outward and upward in ascendance of integration. Farewell, I'd prefer not to waste anymore time here. I thought I was understood the other day where this conversation straddled on comprehending morality by the same intersection, but still, I am not.

@Leo Gura you've made progrsss but you'll never see the forest through the trees on emotion and feeling until well, you invent a helicopter. All your present experience has informed you regarding the transcendental nature of either, is at best relating to your psychedelic experiences, however at best Leo, you'll have to concede that these experiences have not even translated into the theoretical foundation for the reconceptualisation of both through even analogy, I.e. well if I can experience a feelings and emotions through psychedelics, what does this potentially mean for the limits of phenomenological experiences therein and for I could learn to master across the rest of the potential terrain, and of what helicopter wingspan could that be? I am sorry Leo, however your position of authority on energy much less emotions and feeling is no better than that of Donald Trump understanding the myriad of inner worlds of the American population and how to mediate unity through them, much less inclusive of all the divergent natures of the Canadian, Ukrainian and Russian populations together. At best, you have scientific, sociological and cultural advisors on this presidential issue as you've been trying to conceptualise via the second hand knowledge of your research on these areas, oblivious to both the spectrum of inner complexity you're yet to reach self knowledge about and totally dismissive due to your own unique brand of anthropomorphizing of others self knowledge whether trained or untrained, innately gifted in advanced areas of its advantages or not. Sorry Leo but neither your knowledge, my knowledge or sciences present knowledge as a consequence of sciences evolving nature is out on the full gestalt of human experience. I gave you very simple to comprehend understandings before and even now, at this temporal stage, you are still yet to either refute or adequately integrate into your paradigm of universal exploration. You cannot ignore this now, despite your efforts in aligning with the science that is purely predicated on preserving the average for the average to greater reinforce the average, you're just spreading misinformation by coming up with false equivalences by drawing totally simplistic analogies like "feelings are primitive because x" where by through same notion, when viewing thoughts at the same abstract paradigm, if you were trying to teach someone on a fragmented shape of thoughts, you could get them to buy into the idea that "thoughts are primitive because they create illusions", something as you know, other people struck by variants of the woke mind virus are victims to. Leo in teaching areas around less knowledge, I must encourage you to take on more of a critical thinking stance rather than trying to teach in either the affirmative or the dismissal so you don't have to fall into either trap of either raising an idea or lowering one more than the value to do so serves the accuracy of the ethics underpinning the drive to begin with.

+1 @PurpleTree excellent example. I'll be going to Mt. Hotham and Mt. Buller this winter in Victoria, may share a few. Rock on!

@UnbornTao @Leo Gura I haven't had time for months and months. But chicks have never had a problem taking a photo with their name doing a certain hand action for me on dating websites. Best.

@Majed Yeah that's an interesting take. I think 'logic' has a multifaceted gestalt that many peoples ideas here could contribute to, equation being one; what encloses an equation though to add one neat thread to said gestalt is, 'Logic is self-referentiality'. For example, causality reflects this notion of self-referentiality, though another one is 'patterns'. For example, '544333222211111', I'm sure you see the pattern, in this sense, the action of both creating a pattern and observing a pattern have two different kinds of 'self-referential action'. I'll stop there though. Peace and hope you share with us that greater integrated gestalt later on brother!

@gambler humiliation is a healthy emotion, all emotions are healthy what matters is the degrees of balance or imbalance in which they are felt. If there is a conflict with reality, then by that stretch, it is unhealthy, including too for any stimuli, phenomena, contexts or people that lead to that feeling. And interesting concerning @Princess Arabia, both her @Whitney Edwards and @Marcel sound a lot like @Preety_India that I haven't seen for a while. For any emotion you have ever felt, write down all of its potential negative spirals to potential positive outcomes as an exercise in self-understanding the potential positive implications of the event. 'Negative emotions' operate analogous to the sensation of pain, it feels inherently 'bad' however it sends us a clear message, however imbalanced that message may be sometimes. To stop whatever we're doing. @Leo Gura "are shaped by what you need to survive and what your social group needs to survive", survival is just one level of morality, there is the moral order of the universe as one 'moral grounding', which is rooted in both the energy of 'thought' and 'emotion' beyond mere conceptual notions that entrench lower thinking into reductionistic models.

@gambler and @Leo Gura Think of emotions not merely as reactions, but as signposts in our personal development. Each emotion has the potential to either guide us toward deeper awareness and growth or lead us astray into self-deception and harm; a probabilistic 'distortion wheel' that once spun can peel off into a myriad of self-deceptive directions. This concept is deeply intertwined with the idea of moral or spiritual development, which has been symbolized in many religious traditions, including stated analogies, throughout history we have used metaphor and analogy inside and outside of the arts including poetry to pay homage to our religious learnings of our absolute truth that when poorly conceptualised, leave the readers to only their lesser sometimes obvious harmful understandings. While I’m not religious in the conventional sense, I do believe that these religious symbols point toward the profound truths behind emotional experiences, I'm not arrogant enough to conclude that there is zero parallel between my own innate capacity to self-originate religious structures from morality based on an inherent compass that falls outside the scope of mere 'personal bias' and the very real ingenuous solutions already offered to me by religious and philosophical authors that for now, I don't have the time to spend reflecting on all their thoughts beyond my own practical route of bioelectrical mastery. Emotions like anger or fear can cloud judgment and pull us into negative cycles, however they're signals nonetheless, like the betrayal of a friend, we have the anger of the experience that is pointing us to its very real truth versus its spiral which can have weak evolutionary adaptations when its not weighted with the awareness to control it. While emotions like empathy or love have the potential to elevate our consciousness and lead us toward a more harmonious state of being, however again, without awareness they clearly make people more naive, gullible and non-discerning when those positive levers towards genuine absolute truth are not engineered by awareness to higher scaffoldings of life experience, understanding and life with others. Understanding and differentiating between these emotions, has to be done very sensitively, you can't paint everything with a single brushstroke when any one of us are not yet complete experts on the relationship between energy and physicality, the manifestation of mind and heart and what we then go on to conceptualise as further overlaps into thought and emotion. The very core of it, energy, at the core of our sentient experience and the overlapping domains of that experience that come together to create it, is what we're talking about here, to whisk that off as having being understood simply because we either navigate flawed societal planes or negate societal constructs with ease while finding peace in our own mind, is to limit mastery to heights of the experiences we take great delight in reducing to their miniature perspectives. It's arrogance imprisons us from ever experiencing the truth due to our lack of freedom in imagination towards higher integration, while getting away with those carefully packaged arrogant insights as truths that beguile others because they mistake negation as truth. Negation is just one side, positivism in this case in the order of understanding what absolute morality is, which I've already explained, is the next. Thousands of hours needs to be spent on both, and both start at the practical side of where bioelectrical mastery meets societal integration and exploring the limits of the imaginary boundaries of both. As for @Princess Arabia, she still has a lot to learn. Encourage all members with wisdom. We are all along the same path.

@Leo Gura Again, the awareness thought experiment. There is no need to continue this discussion if we have mutual understanding there, including our movement in resolution of translating mere thought experiment to actioned empathic maturity.

@Leo Gura While I understand the inclination to view emotions as inherently tied to survival and ego, I believe this perspective oversimplifies their role in human experience. Emotions are not merely the products of base survival instincts; they serve as critical components of our consciousness, guiding our moral decisions and helping us navigate the complexities of social interaction. Distortion occurs on the level of awareness, its level the very measurement of how distortion results as a consequence of chaos outweighing the consciousnesses capacity to create order, in this case, the moral attudinal force that aligns internal to external. Emotions, when properly understood and regulated, do not necessarily corrupt the mind, they aid in this alignment problem, they are our sensing ground and its only when this sensory relationship is not in tact, that they, like thoughts to intellect, become chaos for the mind and body. By that same calculation Leo, I can say 'thoughts' are merely about 'survival', however I'd also disagree there, they're both to be understood together as solving that alignment problem above and beyond myopically reducing them to this abstract notion of 'ego'. Emotions to senses are therefore senses to connection and connection to being, aka other beings, something that as stated forces solipsism by any stretch even though we're not talking about this here, to fall under its weight of awareness where solipsism, is therefore not a measurement of self-awareness but the direct measurement of the lack of awareness a sentience has of another. This connection deepens our sense of consciousness and allow us to relate more deeply to others and through that connection point because there is a relative connection transfer, relate more deeply to ourselves and life itself. Empathy, for instance, is rooted in our emotional capacity and is integral to any meaningful moral system. To disregard emotions in the pursuit of transcendent consciousness is to neglect a core part of the human condition. True consciousness doesn’t require the eradication of emotions but their thoughtful integration. 'Universal' is to 'Unity' at the very least, of heart, mind and gut. You're reducing yourself by arguing me rather than winning anything. As for morality, it’s easy to dismiss it as a mere byproduct of ego or unconscious emotional processes. However, as I've stated very thoroughly this neglects the fact that morality is essential for fostering cooperation and a sense of community stemmed by the inherent desire to do 'good', which is a feeling, an energy, something that I can't explain to you if you've never felt these energies before. While our moral systems are certainly influenced by emotional and ego-driven biases relative to the above described distortion, this doesn’t make them inherently flawed or invalid. In fact, the very process of refining our moral compass often involves confronting and overcoming these biases, leading to a more nuanced understanding of right and wrong. Leo, run the thought experiment of expanding the awareness of a highly sensitive being to absurd god levels, would you say that they'd solve the distortion problem described above by that point thereby rendering any 'ego bias' argument obviously invalid? I think so, this is why meditation, self-reflection and gradual maturity in these domains, works and aids exactly the areas of morality to empathy to connection with the universe to self I'm talking about; sense, whether its with spectrum of emotion to the gradient of feeling via conceptual metaphor, is the endless sensing ground for future deeper connection with the universe, the very transcendence you say you're solving by merely reducing emotions to an ego game, which in lieu of the provided transcendence through them, invalides this perspective. I disagree with the notion that morality, when rooted in emotion, will inevitably lead to corruption or self-deception by this valid argumentation. If anything, the path to true moral clarity often requires acknowledging our emotional biases, not eradicating them, something that is practiced in your teaching over and over, so I find it very interesting you've overstepped this so easily. By reflecting on our emotions and their influence on our decisions, we gain insight into our deeper motivations, which allows for growth and that same transcendent understanding, or variant of it, I've signposted. In the end, transcending ego and bias is a powerful goal, with, without, or through a more integrated approach, regardless, but it need not come at the cost of abandoning the very tools, the very sensing ground that connect us more deeply to ourselves and others, emotion and empathy, and in return, more meaningful moral reflection, and this supposed 'self-insight' is somehow diametrically opposed to, which I argue that its obviously not, in fact, its divisional. Division which is beneficial to someone that is suffering from many delusions, too divisional however for someone that is trying to navigate a more nuanced and deeper picture of truth. I believe true morality involves a synthesis of reason, emotion, and self-awareness, which together help us navigate the complexities of human life with authenticity and compassion, you've characterised very little of the scales of conscoiusness you're missing out on by not imagining and going after their synthesis and misguiding others when you do this by somehow disguising it as truth even in spite of the many pitfalls you (as well as those you've influenced) yourself have fallen into which by this point even you would admit, you cannot ignore their moral implications. Best.

@Leo Gura A Critique of your Critique of Post-Modernism, as a polite gesture. Mate, I applaud your tenacity in dissecting postmodernism as you dissect every nuance, from relativism to epistemic blind spots. Yet in your eagerness here, you neglect the fundamental truth that human beings, for better or worse, embody morality before they theorize it. You map out how cognition can spiral through modern, postmodern, and even “transhuman” stages, but you miss the primal force that propels any moral stance that has any merit beyond any potentially manipulative shadow its cloaked in, namely, empathy. Not shallow, sentimental “niceness,” but the stuff that springs from the acknowledgement of the very 'sovereignty' of an individual that you yourself expressed, something I shared as follows not long before you shared the video actually " This shift redefines heroism as an ongoing process of becoming, returning to the outlining of the limits to synchronization noted in part 3. It is not about reaching a fixed state of virtue, that's just a reflection of philosophical absurdity at its present state of pseudo-intellectualism that reflects a caricature of the human condition, instead its about continually evolving toward greater synchronization of mind, heart, and spirit with their respective higher integrated universal truths inclusive then of our greater nervous system and connection between each other towards higher and higher, more and more powerful states of being. It's all about the harmony between individuality, universe and respectful acknowledgement of their meeting ground of sovereignty and finding peace in the transformations asked of us in the process of shifting from evolving to 'being' back into 'becoming'... a "Universal". " You’re right that postmodernism uncovers hidden biases and unravels absolutist claims, the trouble is mate, you treat that unraveling as if it solves or even addresses the emotional impetus behind why people cling to certain worldviews. You note that societies weaponize science or rationality, but you ignore the raw, empathic fuel that either fosters or warps these constructs. Without acknowledging that core affect, no intellectual “meta” stance can fulfill its promise. Moralities aren’t just chess moves of power as you say; they’re also expressions of whether we’re aligned with genuine love or consumed by fear, rage, or apathy say, again, as I encapsulate in 'From Heroism to Universalism'. In this sense mate, you state 'you can't unsee construct awareness' while being oblivious to the fact that 'construct awareness' is its own 'construct' referring to the inherent confirmation bias then that would limit an individual to move beyond the bias of their own meta-understanding of the value of religions themselves, of which, all spring from the acknowledgement of the sovereignty that I am talking about. Moreover, while it’s commendable that you highlight how easily postmodernism slips into dogmatic activism or shallow identity politics, you seem to want a purely conceptual remedy, or at the very least, your critique falls short by the very fact that its limited to critique rather than a solution at the nervous system level as I have shared, which isn't to be hero's or even 'universals' but first and foremost, to align with our highest energies, not out of 'iron will' but a slow maturity analogous to the slow growing of a bone after a breakage, the fracturing of morality in the way I have described is a direct parallel. You’re championing an ever-expanding rational lens, but that lens, no matter how meta you want to go forgets the willingness to feel deeply for another being’s wellbeing, to experience the visceral cost of suffering. By treating moral systems like abstract puzzles, you sidestep the human reality that our moral sense is intimately tied to the body, to relationships, and to forms of devotion that transcend mere logical coherence. Yes, societies need frameworks; yes, geopolitics and survival matter. Yet there’s a difference between grudgingly admitting we “need” hierarchical structures and embracing a deeper impetus to care for each other. If you only fixate on intellectual mastery, you limit your own maturity and growth by those very limits because you haven't understood the very limits that constrain every perception beyond the intellect. If you change the heart, you will change your perception is the direct implication of what I have stated and shared in that piece of writing pertaining to the Star Wars analogy. Constructing truths, parrying dogmas, then the underlying empathic current, which truly animates moral life, becomes secondary to the internal alignment, the only solution, that is needed not getting lost in the 'survival need' that can blur the real compass of morality and therefore mislead observers and future critiquers like yourself. That’s precisely how an otherwise incisive critique of postmodernism can remain ungrounded, it can’t explain why love, or compassion, or mutual care might truly guide us beyond these ideological swirling's. So you've critiqued with solid justice, granted but overall you've shrugged at the emotional substrate that makes us care about any of this to begin with, why our hearts want to move all the way to the end of the video isn't to just solve some 'survival game' internally. No matter how expertly we decode biases or reframe “absolute truth,” we cannot claim any holistic meta-view while ignoring the felt dimension of moral concern. We don’t simply need a “higher vantage point”; we need to feel where moral impetus arises Leo, at that junction of heart, body, and consciousness. Without that, even the best post-rational synthesis you do collapses into a new brand of cerebral play, ironically mirroring the same shallowness that you critique. Ironically, you've fallen into the same (moral) materialistic paradigm you've claim to critique, the limitation of concept without understanding its energetic and in our case, moral underpinnings. As a thought experiment, I recommend you imagine yourself as 'a moral being' then understanding all the ways energetically, this can become distorted relative to the functionality of your being as a full nervous system apparatus, now you will understand why and how society has fallen by those particular degrees themselves and thus by the same measure, where we have balance versus going above and beyond accordingly. And by the way, Unity, predicates "Universalism", something that will never be achieved solely through the mind. This is going to take you thousands of hours to really grasp, not to mention the hundreds of hours more I feel its going to take you until you actually grasp the magnitude of what you've really missed and realign yourself accordingly, by that same measure though, I look forward to embracing my own unique psychedelic route next year, one that is only likely to more align where I already am in light of the reports I have so far heard as my morality is not 'social' it is empathic. You don't 'unleash the self' when you lose the small 's' of social and make it a big 'S' as you say, you turn it into a child Leo, and when you add an 'e' for where emotion meets empathy into a big 'E', that's when that 'free child' learns to truly become mature. I feel you've only broken into the meta, and that's fine, you're still at the beginning level. I think its fantastic you're encouraging people to explore themselves in all these wonderful ways, however right now I feel like because you're still at that beginner level, you're not sure how to wear clothes in a field in which you presently kinda look a bit naked. No offense man. Still, great job, you'll get there eventually. As for your idea that you need to be 'very awake' to understand the absolute vs relative, its also not very tricky, really, and we need to humble ourselves as humans in this regard, to me its analogous to a pigeon learning to mimic a monkey, on the absolute scale, its not a high achievement on a relative scale though, its an incredible achievement. I feel that if you learned to bring more balance between your self-referential dopaminergic 'insight loop' that feeds into your sense of 'self-validation' and personal grandiosity, you'd be able to become more level headed and appraise your progress with a more esteemed level of personal development. At the same time, to the contrary by merely having gratitude and appreciation for our own progress, its simultaneously a healthy way to self-appraise while also not being taken away by the blunder of over-aggrandising one's own progress that in return, distorts the fundamental role, purpose and connection we must maintain with the rest of our environment, group, society, country, world to act in a continued level headed way, which to come full circle, ends in 'the social game' regardless as to how much you wish to critique it or think you've successfully done so, because the social, always ends in its end full absolute scale as a mere fact of all of us being human here, as per your false notion of 'psuedo universal values', which is of course, an oxymoron predicated by a lack of understanding the biological energy that predicates one 'evil' side versus a 'good' side. Regardless as to any mental gymnastics you try Leo, eventually you're going to have to concede defeat mate, aliens or non-alien thought experiment there too there's still our own inherent self-understanding of positive versus negative, dark versus light. We need the conceptual, its the carving of our mental worlds that create the final product of our morality, but its all driven by those underpinnings mate, that in our ignorance, reduces our development by the largest possible measure as a consequence of their position relative to our consciousness of consciousness itself. Best Light.

Adding slightly more seriousness @Leo Gura . More and more my goal is just in the mapping of function, where structure is purely meta-structure on pre-existing mapped function. Unless we're grounded in our most preliminary of languages from the spoken to the numerical, though even then, society has become too polluted to know which way is up vs down much less which is a higher or lower perspective. If the ego is not only able to handle relying on structure, at the base level, to be its only practical medium for operating in reality, but grow their consciousness along those limits as its not something that can be merely attained by shifting without the mastery on how to do so, then consciousness will be at far greater odds of flying freely without the constraints of at the very least, the worst of ego. When we perceive something, our function superimposes the structure that limits the freedom of functionality to roam even further. Structure, is self-imposed limits embedded into the programmable areas of function, take a social norm, it operates at the functional level of the programmed structure and to that conforming end, frees or limits consciousness expansion or intelligent convergence. This is not simply a crime of passion by a 'global elite' as you're well-aware, such programming habits spontaneously, on the fly and throughout every social system from the simple domain of a toxic to healthy relationship between a couple or even, an internet forum where you can get ideas for the next highest grossing series for the year on Netflix, particularly as it relates to being a director of the next series of Baywatch, Feng Zhang (CRISPR genius) endorsed. I never saw a "Baywatch Asia" maybe in my lifetime I will as a release of built up tan envy.