Letho

@Reciprocality it’s vital that you read my response to Carl Richard, heh I'll link it down the bottom, take in the whole but particularly focus on my exploration of intelligence as both the illuminator and the boundary, the paradox of creation and perception. This mirrors your universal pursuit but also challenges it. You perceive universals as static relational truths, while I argue intelligence reshapes them actively, not by addition, but through collapsing boundaries of perception into realization. The moment of insight isn’t a mere “exhaustion” of the domain but the quantum shift where perception and mind’s capacity fold into one. The universal is not an end; it’s a dynamic mirror reflecting the act of chasing itself. You seem reluctant to admit how deeply your engagement relies on what you dismiss, so social interplay, synthetic judgment, the “messy particulars.” Your participation here offsets tension, but that tension is the process of intelligence redefining the universal in real time. Is it possible your focus on "formalization" locks you in the false duality I described to Carl, aka the chase as definition, not freedom? Freedom by the way, is the true meaning behind my surname, it's very sacred to my lineage including mastering the philosophizing of freedom itself. If truth, intelligence, and the absolute are mirrors, as I argue, then your methods risk polishing one so intently that the others dim. Universals are only useful insofar as they remain malleable to the tension of particulars. I ask you this: is your self-referential focus revealing truths or enclosing them? Are you defining intelligence’s capacity, or allowing it to define you? Let this response ignite friction, not as critique, but as the very tension that compels you forward. It's clear you enjoy a challenge that opens and refines. Anyhow take it easy (or not heh it's just a cultural expression in my country) and all the best, I'll be back late December for any future responses.

@Carl-Richard The absolute is a thoughtless unity, intelligence divides, but it is itself the boundary of understanding, thereby other than the absolute intelligence intrinsically in and of itself, is the only other absolute that exists; perception of this is made and broken in a quantum formation to collapse, we have two states at the same time that are also the same. Solipsism albeit an interesting thought experiment I've learned a lot from is an illusion as far as our intellect attempts to carve out edges oblivious to how it's imprisoning itself inside the duality of its self-justification between perceived boundaries. The mind creates, yet intelligence alone illuminates the truth we chase. Truth : intelligence : absolute they all mean the same thing and the only other mirror that binds them is the attempt at unifying them which simultaneously places us into a false duality in as much we unknowingly become defined by the limits of the chase rather than living through its process. Carl, just some considerations. Does for example intelligence reshape the boundaries of your experience, or merely reveal what lies beneath them? What defines the moment of realization, is it a break in perception or a shift in the mind's capacity? Can the Absolute exist without intelligence to witness it, or does intelligence become the creator by merely perceiving it?

You chase your own shadow, @Reciprocality. In your endless return to the self, there is no rest, no closure, at least from the outside looking in that's how my observational awareness experiences you. Let me continue in answering my own questions towards you above and you can correct my own brief analysis. Each abstraction is experienced as unfoldment and contractive folding towards truth process but not a end in itself. It's light for lights sake and therefore self justifying but ultimately circling back into itself, with no true conclusion. It’s not about progression, is it? Not about becoming something more which gives me a different angle by which I can expand my own consciousness at least vicariously, but about being in the moment, the moment where thought loses itself in thought, where questions only give rise to more questions yes? Or is there a more nuanced perceptual action to experience to observation to creation you can give more nuance to in your subjective experience of life? It’s not a means to an end, as there's self-excitation like purposeless joy in music and it's creation but music with no resolve other than to find the next verse with an irreconcilable chorus with an identity that never stays completely the same and certainly never completely solid, it's solidarity in the motions of consciousness not in its concrete immovability outside rigour in process. The tree doesn't care for the sun’s arrival, it simply receives it. Your inquiries are like that, that is they're without purpose beyond the unfolding itself. You are the process, not the result. Growth? It’s a byproduct, not a goal. It’s just how the system works when it’s in motion. The sun will rise tomorrow, but you won’t be any different for it just of it, and "Whatever the fuck with it" is your voice in knowing you will just continue on with the same process. It’s easy to mistake this for the absence of meaning, but people would be shortsighted to do so. The meaning is in the pattern, in the experience of transformation of the pattern rather than being a permanent parking place in an eventually outdated carpark oce you've gone now to something akin to an advanced UFO not as a goal but as a process of simply rising in the morning with the sun and experiencing the right process with the sun. You’re not running from something, you’re choosing to remain in motion. So, I ask you this: If the endless pursuit is the only thing you value, then why bother looking for meaning beyond that if this is rivjt? Your chase is its own reward, is it not? But perhaps I’m missing something. What do you think?

@Reciprocality our disconnection of identity from the object is precisely the crux of the illusion, an illusion that arises from assuming separation in perception. But consider, what if the very act of perception is the meeting point of self and Other, not their divorce? The ‘identity’ does not dwell in the object, nor in the subject, it is of course, a process. To claim that we are disconnected from universal curiosity because we mistakenly tether identity to objects is to ignore the deeper truth. That perception itself is a universal process, an ongoing merging of self and Other. The real question is not how we perceive identity but how we transcend the fragmentation that our mind insists upon. @Adrian colby you speak of beauty as a principle universalized yet individuated by preference. But what if beauty, like identity, is neither universal nor individual? It is both, that is, an emergent property of the relational dynamic between subject and object, not a fixed characteristic of either. To separate them is to misunderstand beauty as an end instead of an ongoing relation. Similarly, enlightenment is not the mastery of dualities but the dissolution of them. It is when both the observer and the observed collapse into the same, indivisible flow. Again though Reciprocality, I am curious as to your motivations on these subjects, are you looking to model everything you're working on personally and share it formally or is it the way you enjoy to socialise or merely achieve self understanding? Mixture?

@Reciprocality you're circling something vital. Ego isn’t a singular dissolution, it’s a recalibration. Constructs don’t vanish; they realign. The 'competition' you flagged in ego is just noise from intent misfiring, aka Reciprocality going back to the wheels analogy, immature alignment. Once intent stabilizes, those constructs transcend their infantile grasping and become tools for universal attunement. Like beauty, truth, dualities, they aren't abstractions; they're reflections of perfected coherence. Self-reference? Sure, perception folds onto itself, but it's dynamic, not static, a fractal reframing with every alignment. Your non-linear trajectory tracks, ego unravels at the pace of disciplined sincerity, each step sharpening curiosity for what exists outside and through us. Schopenhauer’s ‘Platonic universals’? I'd call them ontological fulcrums mate, anchoring our shifts. As the ego’s grip loosens, intent finds resonance in those universals, aligning perception with purpose. And yes, seeing others conditioning mirrors our own, it's so weirdz, a recursive feedback loop of maturity. This isn’t just enlightenment; it's ego reassembled into functional resonance, no longer competing but harmonizing with the universal unarticulable ‘vibe'; everything is able to be articlated with language though, we just have to transcend our present use to something better and then voila. So it's evolution through surrender to intent's arrow, aimed not just at truth, but the coherence that lets truth shine. What you call the 'footprint of existence'? I’d say it’s less 'eternal repeat' and more a spiral, if we turn my wheel analogy into that, a spiral that is the same, yet never the same. What are you truly trying to achieve in your awareness? Where have you succeeded since our last conversing? What new designs genuinely make something for your wisdom?

I'll entertain your remarks out of politeness though @Reciprocality for out of very few others I appreciate your willingness to engage deeply into a subject. Okay so your hypothesis offers a compelling conditional framework linking natural maturity to enlightenment. Let me refine my earlier response to clarify my perspective and address the critiques you've raised. Firstly, my metaphor of spinning wheels was not intended to ‘smuggle in’ a definition of enlightenment or ego voidness but to illustrate a dynamic interplay of qualities (X), contextualized within varying degrees of alignment (Y) as one approaches a paradigmatic shift (Z). This was an attempt to conceptualize maturity as a process of alignment, where competing constructs dissolve over time, revealing an emergent clarity. However, I acknowledge that my metaphor may have oversimplified your nuanced phenomenological model, and I appreciate your critique as an opportunity to refine it. Regarding cultural and sociopolitical influences, my intent was to suggest that these factors serve as external variables affecting the maturation process. While your argument implies that enlightenment remains independent of such influences, my position is that the interplay between internal maturation and external pressures cannot be entirely disentangled. Could it be that natural maturity operates in a probabilistic domain where external conditions either accelerate or hinder the ego’s dissolution? Finally, your suggestion that my perspective on the ‘unenlightened masses’ might reflect a projection of latent biases is insightful. Self-referential loops of perception are indeed a limitation of any phenomenological model, including the one I proposed. This invites a meta-question: to what extent does the observer’s maturity affect their ability to conceptualize enlightenment, and can such conceptualizations ever be free of the ego they aim to transcend? I propose we explore a synthesis: if natural maturity is the basis of enlightenment, might the trajectory be nonlinear, with feedback loops between internal growth (ego dissolution) and external factors (cultural constructs)? How does this affect the compound you describe? I look forward to your insights. May my more prudent response here provide you with the clarification you were perhaps seeking.

@Reciprocality I didn't make the assertions you say I made. Just read over. If you still believe that, just read again. Because I didn't. Peace mate, have a great one sincerely.

@Leo Gura yeah I got a multicultural Aussie perspective on this, so less investment. I see yours though as well. I'd view things at least slightly differently if they were all Australian. We each have contextual environmental limits in the ratio between personal bias vs serving what we genuinely believe the truth to be relative to the evolutionary heuristics of our present level of 'enlightenment' say. It'd be really interesting to sit each of them down and ask them the same questions across different environmental pressures in one sense, in another sense for my personal development right now in my life I'd rather just focus less on cultural narrative and more on generating my own individual personal life experiences that then are imbued with life lessons unique to me. You've got your own unique methodology for getting your life experiences and I think that's important for achieving just that, it puts us in a place where we can add a personal voice to the cultural conversation rather than running solely off second hand speech when it's not complementary to building one's own or worse third hand speech which is just the incomplete cultural narratives. The thing about cultural narratives that a lot of us sometimes forget is that they're never complete because they're always at the very least slightly changing and evolving and because we can run the risk of perceiving them as first hand voices, it becomes like a dog chasing it's frustrated tail believing that once it finally reaches it, everything will feel complete. Until the sun rises again tomorrow and now you're defending against having your dick chopped off and fed to the alien mafia that escaped area 51 while you were sleeping the night before and you have no idea why you're having to defend your constitutional rights but X speaker says this and it seems like you should start thinking that too, and so goes the tail chasing until the next day it's something different, maybe your neighbour is now allowed to break and enter your property once but not twice, the absurdity repeats, the music only ever stops to test where you've landed at th final best but not to bring you final completion so you don't have to dance to try cultural absurdity anymore with aimless vocals at Plato's shadows on the wall of his cave. Peace.

@Reciprocality Just on the spot the best way to imagine it from my perspective is X number of correlates aligning with y perception on z construct, where z here is enlightenment, y is 'ego voidness' (not necessarily what I would choose but just as an example) and X is the qualities representative of y. Imagine that for X, every quality is a part of w number of other competing qualities on a spinning wheel where each wheel goes in its own direction. Imagine that each wheel is on top of the other and is the same size (in reality though they'd be different sizes). So if we have 10 qualities we therefore have ten wheels where changes and gains result in alterations in the direction and speed of the wheel as well as an increased territory of the highest correlate on the respective wheel compared to competing 'genes'. As maturity, relative to your conceptualisation, increases, those ten wheels are like a combination lock to the doorway to enlightenment are going to align enough eventually said notion of enlightenment becomes an inevitability just as a toddler wobbles from bum to hand prints to knee jerks until they're able to stand up right. The difference with the path to enlightenment is that it's not necessarily more difficult in the practical sense but that our culture generates incredible levels of competition against those correlates to knock people off their true path in service to there sociopolitical and or economic agenda in the interests of biological to the survival interests of their egoic drives. We'd have some demographics that would never learn to walk let alone properly and many others in weird styles that don't make sense if walking had just as much competition in its path towards achievement. There's no need to idolize enlightenment in anyway, doing so will keep one from it, it's very normal, straightforward and practical and, keep staying away from the worst of Netflix/analogous and you're on the right path, all you have to do now is wait for all those spinning combination wheels to finally make their 'click' and you'll be on the homestretch to realising your next paradigm.

@Carl-Richard Chris is his own worst enemy given he could make so many allies of integrity if he just. Well anyone of an IQ above 120 will be able to easily workout the rest of that sentence. So that's apparently 90 IQ points to call Chris out on his ontological ostracism by privileged authoritarianism of the intellectual great ape manosphere. I have nothing against Chris, have genuinely always liked and enjoyed him. He should be a guy I spend a lot of time learning from, however his just mirroring the ivory tower bs he says prevents his status growth with ivory tower victimhood. Chris if you're reading this with your 210 IQ to monitor all the best social media feedback on behavior, just go to Cambodia and checkout their smiles through their struggles. Cancel culture gives someone with an IQ of 120 an easy out, not 210. The mice running around in mazes with heightened IQ generally figure out those roadblocks; cut the good smart guy bs in he face of struggle, heal your wounds then show people what you can do right now for others rather than sitting on your laurels hanging your hat on your theory of everything thats obviously not inclusive of a theory out of your signal to noise ratio on all of the elitist roadblocks ahead of you that are just more reflective of emotional immaturity with or without the genuine truth of elitist noise. It's the biggest roadblock for people who actually figure out they're a mouse in a maze that was pre-made for them. They don't realise enough the short weight that complaining about preprogrammed social stratification has on actually focusing on solutions. The social stratifications are about as true as our best laws of physics, but when I'm running up against the heat of the Cambodian sun or their tropical rainfall when trying to run from Ho Chi Minh to Phnom Penh I don't thump my fists against the establishment or curse 'Why God' at the sun, even though I certainly nearly had moments like this, I don't even have to figure out the next level of Calculus to make the necessary evolutionary adaptive curve to survive either the sun, rainfall or psychological fatigue. I've just got to de-escalate on my sense of entitlement which Chris is overloaded on, and begin to use the neural nostrils that give me the senses to smell my own creative brain tissue out of the juxtaposition of any analogous situation of not being able to either jump into the extreme cold or heat nor middle for survival, and begin to use my long whiskers to touch the walls blockades before hitting them and feel my way through the darkness. Sorry Chris but what you're struggling with isn't a prepaved royal magical carpet laid before you to get you out of this mess, because by the sounds of things compared to the familial Cambodian smiles through the struggles they have, you were already blessed with, what you're struggling with is narcissism, and any of its potential grandiosity is hidden behind the covert narcissism of your victim narrative. Chris, if God were to give a golden ticket out of the social experiment that is society to one of us mice it IS an IQ of 210 for Christ's sake, not a Lamborghini or even social status for so many millions of people that are encased within those mental prisons feeding them to be addicted to those what can be toxic normalisations that they're stuck in for the sheer fact that they DON'T have an IQ of 210, they're just smart enough to achieve those riches, even if it's only short term, and they're just dumb enough to stay imprisoned by the illusions that they then infect the next person with. I've learned a lot from you and I still will I'm sure some time in the future, however you must address the prisons created by your own psychology and seek a deeper internal spiritual revolution that teaches you to slowly develop a transcendent voice on the experimental prison that is modern society and it's masters. A more deeply layered internal masterhood is what you're lacking the strength of running down your own marathon path towards achieving of which is clouded by the secret need to be liked, admired and accepted by those of social status compared to the level of intrapersonal maturity that supersedes those desires in favor of interpersonal enlightenment that makes you act more interdependently and objectively, thereby allowing you to actually speak with extreme clarity on subjects like these which for now is presently your own smoke and mirrors that is a bad influence for comparably gifted people that are more naive outside of sharing your struggles minus the inspiration for your own personal breakthroughs outside of using your victim narratives as a weapon to disarm others with a shadow side that is just as authoritarian as your supposed oppressors in the face of critically thinking about you while also showing humility. Best wishes Chris, Michael And @Leo Gura you have to watch your own tendencies here as well man that have their own unique flavour, we all do. We all for those smart enough can Intuit how things haven't socially gone your way entirely either (I.e. Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Owen Cook or whoever the name is). There's no shame in that. Most of us I imagine are all here because we all genuinely like you. We don't care if you're accepted or not accepted by these other people even though we understand at the same time you'd like it if a little more went your way underneath. Be your own light, transcend it as you know you can and be prudent in your own integrity here as we already know you know you want and can do and are learning to do better in your own way. Enjoy the coming year, stay true to your north and the path ahead you know puts you stronger with your light above this other passing noise that'll be insignificant by this time next year if you stay on it. Best. No need to reply mate.

@PurpleTree With respect to the converted 'kid', underneath there's the same desire for truth as there is for you and I and so all three of us have that same switch underneath us, because its predicted on a sense of rightness and wrongness, truth over falsity. Although that may sound beautiful and great on the surface, coalesced with that is the simultaneous intersection with the ability to differentiate these things cognitively, separate it from past trauma and elucidate mature equilibriums relative to the rest of the swath of energetic, emotional, intuitive and especially social experiences that are a part of informing consciousnesses final resolve for the stage of decision making each of us three, and for that matter, the entire forum is in. If you imagine consciousness as a circle reflecting the inner core of being, while all of these other areas 'energetic, emotional, trauma, cognitive, etc' as separate bubbles that are all directing their energy towards that core, where connected to or absent from that consciousness core is an underlying conscience with only degrees of mature development, you'll understand how the guy that switched could be any one of us if you change just a few of the quantitative metrics of each of those other categories. Ironically, this is both the virtue and vice of psychopaths, where although they're not going to be the one's irrationally changing due to some arbitrary variable like a tendency towards group conformity, they're actually far more likely to be leaders at the top of these kind of outfits (including and separate to people higher up on Narcissistic Personality Disorder), in fact it would give them great pleasure the more intelligence they have because of course, it genuinely takes considerable intelligence to both not care about the actual outcome of a movement outside of one's covert strategic intention while also successfully manipulating to the point of persuading hundreds to thousands if not more. There is this overly simplistic pseudo-intellectual attitude in some spiritual circles that because values and principles are relative to a culture in which they're from, that means that values and principles don't inherently actually matter and anyone is philosophically right to actually do whatever it is they want. This is fundamentally true from a psychopaths biological context, however only partly, moreover when we're speaking about the broader population the pattern that we're noting when we speak of the generation of tradition and its outfit of values and principles, across the entire planet of cultures, is of course, the very natural and organic drive to organize truth from falsity relative to an underlying inherent drive towards wanting to not only know what is morally good but also be a part of it socially and build communities who's underlying spirit is fostered by its essence. The varying nature of tradition in culture when it comes to morality has nothing to do with then the absence of an inherent truth in 'philosophical morality' but purely the reason for why, to bring us back to where we started, 'Us Three' as I put it or as I furthered it 'Each Individual on the Forum', would have a different propensity to this individual that 'switched' and therefore from our relative position gives us 'Fair Game' to criticize them however when you changed just a few of the metrics of our biological and or environmental backgrounds, all of a sudden, we're perhaps even worse than the person that was brainwashed with ease on the switch. Or in the case of understanding why the morality varies between cultures and history, is to understand the unique environmental and biological context in which the traditions for morals and, eventually, an understanding of what universal virtue which is what this is all meant to lead to, ends. Propensity is to drive is to purpose is to an end that is solved via biology (Functional Philosophy) and environmental understanding (Structural Philosophy), so 'absolute truth' is in part, the achievement of the 'absolute solution' to any one of our drives of which a universal philosophy is concerning one that serves the underlying intention for all cultures across the planet, which of course too, includes respecting the individual functional and structural intelligence that has surfaced uniquely over the centuries since the dawn of time when a psychopath could easily just claim themselves as leader by beating another 'Neanderthal' over the head with a rock, which actually happened. This isn't to say, 'This is what they did in those times!', as that would be totally misplaced when it comes to accurately contextualizing those actions from then relative position of where their may for example have been less or more psychopaths relative to demographic and time of history, not to mention mental illness, especially situationally given 'Structural Philosophy' which contains all of the knowledge we've learned for how to self-regulate relative to social position is what often automatically controls our automatic impulses, that in our earliest times in history we just wouldn't have the knowledge much less social norms to be able to intelligently negotiate, so in the context of jealousy for example, without awareness it would often override the intelligence of the respective sentience and then from the future looking back we would ignorantly say 'look at what they did in those times' totally overlooking a more accurate interpretation of contextualized morality. Moving forward 100 years into the future and holding onto the assumption that we continue to progress philosophically rather than regress (the latter is arguably more possible though let's try and do our best given psychopaths and narcissists are able to live hidden in plain sight these days in political strata), we would look at this situation of the 'Switch' as a case study example where we further understood the vulnerabilities of human psychology versus the strengths that don't just protect it from being easy to change, because the susceptibility to change overlaps with neuroplasticity which is a positive of the related person, nor even just protect us via critical thinking, however inbuilt within our non-informational moral strata an understanding of all of the 'Energy Units' like psychological characteristics that have been well categorized like 'Disgust Sensitivity', 'Prudence' and others that bring greater 'Emotional Stability', which would then allow in advance as a new scenario if we were to alter these characteristics of the related person and run a new computer simulation as to what would happen after this change in the individual. What I have personally originated is this distinction between 'Functional' and 'Structural' philosophy and I think if people used this layer to understand how they conceptualize the origins of morality, it would really help them understand morality from a biological perspective rather than via the fragile filters of pure historical analysis that requires more of the stated contextualisaton, including too a radical new awareness for how new cultural outgrowths like that we have fascinatingly, however simultaneously disappointing and depressing it is from another angle, seen in the USA manifest over just the last two decades especially though held within the broader context of something that has spiraled more from the 1960's. Some on this forum would undoubtedly try to conceptualize everything using models like spiral dynamics, however you're going to have to try a bit harder if you really want to understand the level of danger the whole world is in as a consequence of these manifesting from what is scarily categorized as the most powerful country on earth. The most powerful and yet for a very large section of their population, arguably the most brainwashed and philosophically weakest in light of the opportunities they have before them to evolve their nature as sentient beings.

@Keryo Koffa I'm looking forward to going to Denmark soon.

@Keryo Koffa Yeah I have to explore more of south america, I only have connections in Colombia; and although its not black and white in light of some of the cultural difficulties they have there, my connections are only positive. One woman I know there she's very connected spiritually (psychism; after-life, ancestors, deep consciousness bonds, etc), and that's one of the most important qualities when it comes to *family* to me; spirituality minus connection though which is the the overlap with family is like holding a candle in a church while waiting to die. Lots of women that are spiritual but are just sexually spiritual and they get high off their sexuality rather than establishing any genuinely deep connections, especially where there's an unhealthy connection to psychedelics. There's many, many more positive things I have to explore in South America.

@Buck Edwards It's all people should focus on and yet western civilisation try to get them to focus on something else so that they can steal 'family' from underneath you; its how they keep unhealthy forms of collectivism in check, through more unhealthy forms of collectivism, that results in western civilisation destroying itself from the inside out, as it has. But that's another topic. Life is family, from here we learn interdependence and from this, the unity of "Self" and "Other" enough to then call the whole animal kingdom family, then learn how to teach that slowly to open minds, like our children, in the future.

@Buck Edwards I literally don't. I have one: family. That's it. I compartmentalise everything into that category now including energetic connection and then let it all unfold from there as a self-consistent ontology .

@Buck Edwards these days I put genetics first; taboo aryan race stuff. It's because I've realised I've been brainwashed to think it doesn't matter, in reality however, we have many problems that have emerged as a result of this. It makes so many people insecure though that we can't speak rationally. However for me, it's not even 'taste', its practicality. I'm a guy that would otherwise put deeper energetic connection first, now that I've learned from experience I've realised the illusions in that space as well, not that its totally impermanent however if there's any validity to its permanence it requires a set of qualities anyway that usually relate to a persons genetics. I know many women of many races now, and I appreciate all of their uniqueness, however it's only because I want to start a family. If I didn't want to start a family, I wouldn't care in the slightest outside of the persons proven value. This means there's still compromise if compromise means preserving a genuinely deep connection and the wisdoms in the right place, however there's obstacles for me to overcome internally when it comes to raising a family with with a Vietnamese, Cambodian, Chinese, Japanese, Thai or other asian women compared to say a Ukrainian, Russian, Bulgarian or Columbian woman; I haven't visited many European countries hence why its so far just restricted to Ukraine and Russia, another country where I have a connection is Ireland, and she's possible however to be honest, even though I think she'd be a great mother she's a little too authoritarian for me even though there's a spark . There's undeniably very beautiful asian women, my concern is not of beauty but of build, personality traits and other. All in all though, I still need to go through a systematic genocultural, to coin the word, analysis. If I chose Asia, I have no doubt I'd be able to get away with having multiple children with multiple wives to still raise a strong loving interdependent family with a firm value-hierarchy, however I also wouldn't be able to include women indoctrinated into more of a western influence relating to number of wives, moreover, I am leaving some temporal space still open concerning the finding of the right woman. I may even decide to settle down with a Cypriot woman, or any race at the end of the day depending on the connection, however at the end of the day this comes down to protecting the integrity of my family name for generations to come, which is a systematic undertaking. I don't care if people get offended with my choices, I deal with reality in the cultivation of a stable inner culture, I don't care about peoples identities anymore if they're not able to just be mature adults when it comes to healthy self reflection and self-reflection. People forget they're creators, so they should ensure at all times their creative process is respected first and foremost by themselves with the right value-set (which includes knowing how to take healthy feedback from trusted persons) but also others i.e. enforcing boundaries on choices if necessary. So when I have a child with a woman one of the worst case scenarios is I'm saying "Well I love the connection we have however I shouldn't have chosen them in light of x, y genetics" as its totally incompatible with my family name and the legacy we've so far created. For some strange reason for the most difficult and most important decision of someones life that wants to start a family, somehow they're expected to be people pleasers for those that get offended when they take that decision seriously; then we wonder why we have the societal problems we do. As usual, there's a combination of logic (genetic) and intuition (energetic connection) when it comes to solving these dilemmas, and I've already got it all there so its going to be pretty straightforward. I'm sure my commenting will aid someone who's open minded but lacking both. Especially when they just look at 'genetics' as attraction, which is only one shade of it, moreover its only one shade of 'energy' as well, we may be attracted to someone because we have codependent tendencies and they have narcissistic one's creating a perfect sized shoe and foot scenario.

@Carl-Richard Reminds me of William James' variant of pragmatism, quoting him "truth is what works in the way of belief." This idea that the usefulness of a concept underpins its validity is something I see resonating there in what you’ve said and is reflective of my recent re-evaluation of identity in the context of ego and shedding those versus acquiring those that only have true validity relative to the ontology that reflects our highest potentialisation. This follows from my new perspective that its what all cultures are inherently always attempting to do, at least in as much as they’re not granted with too much privilege that results in an internal imbalance. James emphasized the fluid nature of truth, suggesting that ideas gain credibility based on their practical application, not merely abstract accuracy; to play devils advocate, I am moving for both, where in the nondescript, that would be in exploring the infinite nature of consciousness to expand it to otherwise hidden environments inaccessible to basic sense reality, while grounding myself in challenging sense based environments that grow all good adaptations to them. Pragmatism safeguards against the dogma of naive realism, the latter which I’ve also brought up recently and how need to dive deep to remove as much of it from our psyche as possible as it’s symptomatic of that ‘silver spoon consciousness’ I implied, i.e. to align, pretty much the removal of everything related to identity politics as it presently stands in rotting most peoples consciousness. And on that note though you wisely acknowledge that some realism is inevitable, like how gravity isn’t just simply “useful” but is rooted in observable, measurable forces, in the same way that my work in bioelectrical agency is. Which is why its so “useful” to tie the infinite to the finite with things that continually teach us to better adapt to it by having a project to work on that tests this 'usefulness adaptivity' overtime . To wrap the infinite with the finite, as James might suggest, the challenge is navigating the "stream of consciousness" while recognizing that all maps of reality are partial tools to be wielded, not ends in themselves. This dynamic balance between certainty and flexibility is an art, a way of life and something Leo undoubtedly and measurably contends with in reaching his greater heights, so there’s depth and wisdom to your words regardless as it to pertains to how the gestalts of consciousness levels provide us with new lenses to perceive the same “truths” more than “useful fictions” and while at the same time, to that very utilitarian measurement. Without some degree of realism, communication and action in the world become incoherent, and that realism is where collectivism outside of the ‘infinity of individuality’ by comparison, is our answer on how we create a shared, consistent reality, which in spite of its many flaws, is why of course science in spite of its flaws is as important in modern times as it was when we stopped burning *witches to crosses*, a strong parallel to the noted identity politics, symptomatic of naive realism, we struggle so strongly with today. This survival imperative as well for the 'coherency among the masses' is the undertone I sense in your latest response as well in terms of validating both the infinite and the finite through the utilitarian, though to that end, that too is by our same bias i.e. useful fictions yet increasingly more measurable things like consciousness threshold; level; capacity; etc.

TLDR - explaining these related cultural outgrowths symptomatically, quoted: "By comparison, moral relativism destroys collectivism and impairs decision making on individuality where it affords a false freedom while ignorant external results, moral absolutism on the other hand repairs it while inadequately informing individuality and collectivism to the extent it remains trapped in a lack of democratic thought that enhances intelligence and removes ignorance. " Too tired to comment but , I should have waited until after I rested even though all of my points are still valid. If the reader just learned from that single sentence though, genuinely a lot of creative good can be generated from it to serve their ascendence. Otherwise click *here* to subscribe to more monthly quotations from me at an affordable price, generated from the unique special connection I've formed with the "Mother Universal Horizon" from years of meditating in the Himalayas with only the greatest of Buddhist enlightened masters. High Tier Clients get personally tailored messages where I reveal their unique destinies and as well as, free of charge, strongly aligning them to that path. You... Can do it too (but only after I teach you).

@Butters he's exploiting peoples vulnerabilities on the subject that's most important for people's development as humans, spirituality; classy dude. He seems okay though, it's just something I'd never endorse. Spirituality needs to have the integrity of the level that we expect but aren't fully receiving from the medical field in the west. He's established himself as an authority on spirituality, without proving himself as an authority outside of the success he's had at exploiting vulnerabilities. When I view him, I view a human analogous to any other species on the planet, I don't dislike/like him, I don't know him; I see him via the cause and effect of his life weighed against the fragile cultural insecurities of the west by misinterpreting true and only partial concepts of the east. The west is drunk on pseudo-spirituality that supports their narcissism which then opens them up to exploitation by people like his. The thing with people like him, is that some people can genuinely change, and thus, to truly have an objective perspective we need to ask ourselves, what are the actual results are people changing and why, just in the same way as we're meant to accurately view someone like Andrew Tate. The actual results are sometimes impressive, however in order to address contexts like this with cultural precision we both need to understand underlying natures and future results therein, what are for example the potential pre-existing psychological issues of both the recipient (i.e. attachment issues - looking for an authority figure to tell them what's right about life that related creators partially fulfil for a little while but then what happens after this? What percentage of those actually have long term positive change that then positively in return impacts the development of culture?) and the creator (i.e. potential narcissism and dark triad tendencies). On the surface, 'everything is positive' just in the same way we thought everything was positive when we saw the dynamic between the invention of 'celebrity' and 'fans' until this evolved to the deterioration of cultural artistry to only appeal to achieving a certain end for those 'fans' like either or both dumbing them down and or satisfying their taste buds. And now, this deterioration has evolved so much to the extent where this kind of pseudo-spirituality has evolved as a byproduct of those cultural patterns where 'he's a celebrity' and 'you can become one too' and we've just got to collectively take a gentle law of attraction bite into the 'sound bite of the cultural algorithm' that's now converted the 'Elvis = Fans = Money + Cultural leverage' algorithm into a mathematical formula we can all capitalise on if we just have the right 'good intentions' without any thought on how the universe is going to respond to our lack of responsibility concerning the long term future outcomes of our decisions. People get into false comparisons as well when they source from these kinds of guys as well, they'll be like 'Well he's NOT Andrew Tate therefore he MUST be good!" but its really not about that, it just comes down to whether the information being created is in alignment with the integrity of the direction. Like we need pharmacists to have the competency of the essence of pharmacy just as we need spiritualists to have the competency of what spirituality is, this guy doesn't have that. He comes across as a 'good' bloke though in the sense that his intentions are mostly hidden, and evolutionarily that's what people are buying into more presentationally as of course that's precisely what we see gets them activated or deactivated in the west with the politics, football games and Hollywood films as the perfect example. There's at least 50% of them that doesn't give a damn about truth and just evolutionary presentation and so the other 50% plus that does care gets manipulated into believing that "This is where its at, spirituality at the intersection of gold chains and fast cars". The biggest underlying issue I see presently in modern spirituality, is exploiting peoples lack of awareness especially in their self-perceived locus of control. In psychology there is a phenomenon that describes whether someone has an internal or external locus of control, well to be more accurate, there's Venn diagrammatically a few more intersections that derive that final output of each individuals unique expression here. In modern spirituality among these influencers, their followers are often exploited through the dynamic that's created between their desire for "Control, Empowerment, Ownership" (internal locus of control) as some mystical creator while at the same time, being totally absent of having any control by simply trusting in the universe to give you this if you simply align whatever selfish desire you have with this point of creation (external locus of control). That's precisely how a psychopath operates minus the lack of delusion all things being equal. They have a target, and they don't care what's in their way of completing it. I feel like in this sense, a lot of weak people are attracted to influencers like these because the empowerment they derive is a healthy response to their previous codependence, people pleasing and even naivety when it comes to listening to ignorant people around them about how the universe works and subsequently, how to actualise themselves within it. So the thing is, this kind of thinking DOES actually work, as its precisely how it works for psychopaths, however there's zero proper reality testing that goes on between point x and point y so they just say 'the universe did it' without adding any nuance to the equation which subsequently deteriorates their ability to objectively assess themselves and the cultural environments around them to build a healthy cause and effect that in return generates a more nuanced advancement to their locus of control. To benefit the reader in assessing this person or anyone like them objectively, my advice is to evaluate your own process via the filter as to whether you're maturely assessing for improvements in your own locus of control and subsequent personal creativity or whether you're potentially experiencing reductions. This person for example may actually make improvements to aspects of your locus of control depending on where its sitting, however can the potential improvements made also be viewed through the lens of where you're simultaneously able to see through the messenger? Because at the end of the day we're all just human, living our humble experience in this moment, solely differentiated mainly by our level of consciousness, which is not our self-perceived level but more than anything else the actual reading of our awareness and subsequent ability to differentiate our experience around us totally and utterly independent of our desires from the universe that have not yet found proper stability via an improvement in our cultural and historical education on our selves, our environments and where the intersection there leads to not only personal fulfilment but also cultural enrichment that benefits generations down the line. Finally again stated in another way, the question here shouldn't be "Oh Letho you wish you could just seamlessly scrape the monetary icing off the cake of the millions of peoples insecurities and subsequent ignorance in spirituality or any subject for that matter as well, don't you?" Instead, it should just be a subject of an analysis of ethics, integrity and analysing the intelligence surrounding where the highest future cultural maturity is likely to be resolved towards. To that end, he is a very, very unsurprising event of western culture and purely symptomatic of where the west is in its cultural development, however regardless, it's still a form of exploitative emotional slavery here that's at work which has more ethics to it than exploitive physical slavery that existed less than 200 years ago. Yep, just less than 200 years ago. When people become more self-educated and self-reliant therein towards their cognitive development, those emotional insecurities will reduce and influencers will be increasingly forced to re-measure their approach towards the public they're attempting to persuade. Just imagine a thought experiment for example where you instead were taking this guys information in from the perspective of being a part of a more advanced race 1000 or 10,000 years down the line from now, you'd see their information as totally misrepresentative of true spirituality, therefore you'd be assessing him in the same way as you would in determining the pros/cons of this kind of exploitation, finding the intellectual balance in your assessment where you could rather than being totally dismissive outside of holding your ground on the fact that its still very 'child like spirituality' with very little raw intellectual authority to it. You wouldn't condemn him though, you'd have compassion from the perspective of both his own weaknesses that have led him to this place and those of others that have blindly followed, and for both, without the maturity of sight that takes both potential perspectives and more into consideration in delivering your vision forward. "Oh look at this guy! He's taking the moral high ground!" says the dark triad propensity person. Well yes that's right, that's exactly what a dark triad person that's not of the light and therefore of the light of the future would say, wouldn't they? Can you see through your own biases as I see through mine while still making my own personal judgements based on how I view the overall ground of nature? By comparison, moral relativism destroys collectivism and impairs decision making on individuality where it affords a false freedom while ignorant external results, moral absolutism on the other hand repairs it while inadequately informing individuality and collectivism to the extent it remains trapped in a lack of democratic thought that enhances intelligence and removes ignorance. "Oh he's belittling him!", no it has nothing to do with that. This is just a subject of as I said: Ethics, spirituality and intelligence; their unity is what gives us a picture to follow with our lives and their disunity and to the level people believe in that is how we become a fragmented society that doesn't even have any common sense when it comes to assessing the intelligence of spirituality and its purpose anymore. So what are you waiting for? Get out your drawing pad, figure out how to appeal to peoples evolutionary biases as best as you can then start crafting your next best idea for how you're going to exploit them in the best way you can to manifest your (next) dream car on the morally polished ground of peoples misfortunes. Subscribed and now paid monthly fan.

@Consept Intuition + Logic loop, where you have intuition questioning logic and logic questioning intuition from a calm peace of mind where you know your own sense of authority must be respected. Your desire for higher maturity will tell you how to guide it to the end. For me, this is now more about you than it is more about them, as you already know their patterns and potential behaviours, but you don't know how to fully actualise yours. You're the one dealing with the guilt and the potential after-guilt, the way to listen to that emotion while having strong boundaries is to parent your guilt into understanding that while you're going to be fully open minded as you move forward in this situation while leading with a loving stance, you're going to feel empowered by the healthy boundaries you enforce. For me, tracking this into the future I feel that they need to know how I truly feel about their behaviours so that we can either find mutual ground or that we can establish that distance is going to remain, but that's just me. Their exploitational patterns which is not a true reflection of their essence need to understand that what you mirror back to them is a healthy authoritarian change point where you are only deeply respected for the authenticity that you are giving them as a gift as opposed to having to pretend like their aren't issues onto the surface that would only likely indirectly positively reinforce their negative behaviours.

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.