LowPlanetary

Yeah that's a good point. In most competitive environments people become less conscious, which is probably why good sportsmanship is so praiseworthy.

So does your area of mastery not matter too much? Since in that case anything i get good at i will enjoy. But i guess that limits your area of mastery to your natural strengths/inclinations, which is a result of what you happened to have done during your life, especially childhood when your mind is most malleable.

Look at how you act when you are threatened. On a daily basis i would say i am on orange/green stage. And then when i am most calm and relaxed, maybe when meditating i am might be thinking at the yellow stage. But when i am threatened, i suddenly start thinking in the blue stage, or even the red stage, if i feel really threatened. So you can kinda jump around a bit but the thing you should really focus on, i think, is to increasing your stage of consciousness when threatened, i think that's what counts in the long run.

Happiness isn’t inherently good, you placed that definition of happiness onto it. That’s the same with suffering. Since all definitions are made by the mind.

I used to be a massive video game addict and now I barely indulge in traditional entertainment bbut I still have other addiction though. But the main thing that got me to quit was two things. Life purpose and death Find something that just the mental image of achieving makes you cry, take Leo's life purpose course. Also realise the fact that your life is really short and there is literally barely any time left until it is ALL OVER. Complete nothingness in around 60 years... To me that's worrying so I make every second count, by doing the things that I ACTUALLY want to do. Leo had a video on this, but I'm on my phone so I can't link, just look up contemplating death and you might find it.

I think it's based around two things. People want to work for someone else because they feel it's harder to run their own business, therefore they go down the safe route of working for someone else. Also since it's the well worn path, because most people work for someone else, therefore their parents probably did as well. It's also to do with spiral dynamics. Since having autonomy, working for yourself, (orange stage) is closer to the truth (turquoise stage) compared to conforming to higher authorities, working for someone else (blue stage).

Avoiding the why questions is the essence of of a blue staged system/society. It's time to grow past the higher authority and become individuals, accept it's been happening for a while now, people just need to catch on to the vision.

I agree with you that video games being addictive is bad, and playing games all day is incredibly unproductive and I would advise most people against it. I am by no means defending the addicted gamer, nor am I praising the mainstream games that make so many people so addicted. All I’m saying is to not blame the art form, but blame the artists that make the games with the purpose of addicting you. Since blaming the art form, generalizes all the artists as shallow and money motivated which is a point I disagree with.

Art is communication. Communication is vital for society to function. Without communication how can visionaries lead? Therefore the use of communication is a necessity. Speech is an art form, just like music, painting and video games. The difference between speech and video games is that video games are generally more entertaining, but speech has a more explicit and easy to understand message. However, a lot of people don’t really search for a solid message in entertaining art forms like video games, therefore big business and generally artists as a whole in all art forms “abuse” this by producing art with no message at all, but with a hell of a lot of entertainment. Thus causing addiction, which I am completely against. But I believe that the problem is not the video games, the music or the paintings; it’s the artists that make art with the purpose of causing addiction. Therefore, saying that the only use of video games is the simulations and educational aspect is kind of close minded. Why can’t there be a Picasso for video games? Why can’t there be a Da Vinci for video games? There can be, it’s just that there isn’t one yet because of the current mind set of the masses, and video games isn’t as evolved of an art form as painting and music. But i completely agree that playing these video games is incredibly unhealthy and i would personally advise most people against it, i personally don't play video games anymore and I've grown so much from stopping, but i'm not going to reject my love for creating worlds, it just feels so beautiful to me. I just think that the problem has a solution that can be solved when the industry actually wants to make some real social impact. Since due to how immersive and manipulative video games are, they can really have some positive impacts if they are used properly. But of course with great power comes great responsibility, thus causing the problem.

The way i think about it is like this. The consumerist "bullshit" is like the Matrix. It's a way of living life. You are Neo, and in order to get them out of the matrix, you need to go in there yourself. Therefore with consumerist products you get them out. So maybe create art that inspires people to get out of their matrix and pursue enlightenment (or anything you believe to be an essential part of your life) in some way or another. Since art at the end of the day is a form of communication (expression). So why would it not be possible to do that will a video game, a song, a painting, etc. In fact i believe those in this day and age are much, much more effective ways of communicating an idea to people, because it is manipulative. The only danger is if what your communicating is not healthy and ends up becoming destructive, and the whole idea of 'with great power comes great responsibility'.

Art is the expression of an idea, like talking. Talking is an art form since you are expressing an idea. I personally see communication as a valuable aspect of being a human being, and the variety of art forms just makes the connection between each other much more powerful. Instead of saying your sad, make someone empathize with your sadness by making them sad with a depressing song. It's more effective, because the message is coated with the melody, which provokes an emotion, it's entertaining. The problem with most art i see is that artists are focusing too much on the entertainment part and completely ignoring the fact that what they are doing is expressing an idea, not just provoking the release of chemicals in the consumer's brain purely for the sake of entertainment like it's cocaine.

It might be to do with motivations. Lets say your motivations are based on external circumstances, then it won't be consistent since your external circumstances are always changing, therefore if your motivations are based on those volatile and constantly changing external circumstances, your motivations will become the same. So let's say your motivations for living a good life is for helping other people. One week everything is going smoothly. Then the next week the people around you in your life start to reject you and you start seeing them as evil, wrong, etc. Then your motivation for helping people is suddenly gone. Then the next week you meet a nice person which makes you believe that people are nice again, now you're motivation has become back again.

I personally think that the creative process is like Natural Selection. A person lets say plays randomly on a keyboard to create a melody. They play a random combination of keys. If a certain combination of keys sounds bad; that combination is ignored and scrapped. Then you play a different combination. And through the process of trial and error you will eventually create something with value, that could be innovative, or someone might have already done that, who knows. But one day, through enough persistence, you will create something of value. Which is why i think that more intuitive and imaginative people tend to be more innovative, because they don't limit them self to things that are "logical" and "make sense". They just do a bunch of random stuff and it will eventually work out, because the only resource your investing in the composing stage is time. I guess the idea might not be applicable to all situations, but i guess this is pretty much just brain storming. But yeah, i agree that derision is a good source of inspiration, but i really feel like you shouldn't limit your creativity to just that, but also allow yourself your ideas to go through the process of "natural selection". Sure copy a melody from Mozart, but evolve on top of that, make it better through innovating with that idea.

Wouldn't time being an illusion mean that time is not infinite but zero, if you see what i'm saying? There is no difference between now and 1 year from now sort of thing, but i can't get in touch with that sort of idea since its so abstract. Also, how can i accept waiting a million years? There are so many things that make me not want to do that. Firstly, ego (i'll be dead in much less than 100 years), and to get detached from that you need to become enlightened. I'm still attached to the "illusion" of time and am very impatient. And generally i personally won't expect anyone at my level of consciousness to accept something like that.

You're right, i feel like i'm distancing myself from the present moment too much, in fact i feel afraid of it and have become addicted to the past, future and fantasies. That's all that happens during my meditation sessions, i can't get myself un-hooked from those three things, i keep thinking. and physically get involved with it, therefore making it difficult to meditate.