Owledge

@Isimsiz Biri If people were wrong because they were obsessed by negative bodiless beings as you say, then how does that make any statement about validity? Others are obsessed with what one would call positive bodiless beings. In fact it seems that moderation is the art of a small minority and most people active in that area are drunk with thoughts of either misery or bliss. I clearly see that there is a profound difference in actual belief among people who envision a brighter future or something awesome happening or whatever. Those who do that, but start rationalizing once an expected result didn't occur, are fooling themselves. They're wearing belief like a pair of clothes to signal to others their choice of group they want to belong to. Personally, I tend to not make predictions about the future, because it is irrelevant to the beliefs I entertain. When people start doing good, good will come of it. If they don't, it won't. Simple cause and effect. The recommended course of action based on this should be a no-brainer. This is also why it is so valuable to not react to situations as expected, like a cogwheel in a machine. That merely makes you a relay/repeater/amplifier, but if you shoulder something unpleasant and react positively, you are harnessing the power of the Creator and are defying "reality", which is the name of a belief system held by fearful minds. And it is this worldwide domiant belief system of realism that keeps things the way they are. On the other side you have "creative" people who write science-fiction and eventually see their ideas become a reality. This shows the way to go. The ideas of today are the reality of tomorrow. Only self-restriction in the extent one dares to envision ideas is what slows things down. Only when the belief of "realism" is the basis for your ideas will they be less than what they could be. By doing that you are sacrificing quality for a higher likeliness of seeing it happen in your lifetime, but if nobody dares to think big, then ideas beyond a certain threshold will not exist in the collective consciousness; they will not be part of future reality.

@9th I don't agree on Gurdjieff on that. His statements might sound somewhat Daoist, but he also (like many other philosophers) tends to dive into absolutisms/exclusive beliefs and there it sounds like a survival-of-the-fittest mindset which created so much suffering in the world. He created a philosophy based on "Things should stay the way they are.". There is probably no limit to evolution though, and if the majority of humans evolved to a mindset that brought about what closed-minded people today might call a utopian paradise phantasy, then new challenges would emerge. This somewhat reminds me of the numerous statements regarding the "overpopulation" belief. It was always said that the planet can only hosts a certain number of people, and humankind certainly did evolve in terms of number, and those ideas keep being proven wrong - somewhat in praxis and massively more so in theory. My philosophy is built on the ability to envision a much more evolved future and not employing much disappointment over things not going as I would like them to, and neither worrying that there might be no challenges left for humankind. It's merely a lack of vision and imagination. An idea of a better future can be too overwhelming for the small-minded, who have a twisted relationship to evolution - a dependency on suffering because of an irrational fear of lack of purpose and/or inability to adapt to and be useful in a more evolved society. A somewhat exemplary subset of mindset is the idea that if people didn't HAVE to work, they'd all just hang around lazily and do nothing. Maybe this belief is employed by people who would actually do that, unable to believe others are different.

I wasn't talking to you.

Just that expecting a transformation will alter your actions towards more laziness, not the opposite. And theistic religions might not help much. They're disempowering the individual by offloading all power to a supreme being. The world might be so messed up because power-hungry misanthropes are more inclined to believe they are the Creator than well-meaning people are. I recognized and outed the 'work of the devil', as Christians would say, using the metaphor of the deceiver. Messed up people with serious issues operate with great conviction and then others might start to believe that great conviction is bad. It's a battle of beliefs. Do you have the courage to take full responsibility for your actions? Because your strength of conviction says nothing about whether you're a saint or a dangerous lunatic. You just have to bullshit-check yourself and make sure your motives are as pure as they can be. It's a wishy-washy newfangled spineless idea that in a dispute between people, nobody is right or wrong. No, there are actually many cases where one person is dead-on right and the other one is far from it. The tightrope-walk is to operate with great conviction without succumbing to delusions of grandeur. As the Dao De Jing points out, great wisdom often seems contradictory to the superficial mind, and someone who appears arrogant and brazen on the outside might actually be very humble and careful beneath. But since people are conditioned into looking at things superficially, the tool of smokes and mirrors works great for those who do great harm to society.

This mindset is a result of indoctrinating the people. It is based on authoritarianism. The irony is how much this is the opposite of the truth, because your vote constitutes support for a person, organization and/or system. You are responsible for that. If you keep voting for a system that eliminates better alternatives, then it is only a sign of integrity to not be coaxed into voting for something one does not agree with. Those who voted for a crappy government take all responsibility for their actions. Those who didn't vote for any because they didn't agree with any available are not to blame by those who support the problem. And even if they create alternatives themselves, they are faced with the dominant system cheating and manipulating and using illegal means against them and people still vote for that criminal system, so they're amassing an ever greater burden of responsibility. When an allegedly democratic system becomes all about voting for a supposedly crappy alternative in order to un-vote a supposedly even crappier alternative, then the whole system is ready for the trashcan, because that's as sad and morally bankrupt as it can get. That's merely lab rats trying to escape the labyrinth. To somewhat paraphrase a quote made a long time ago: A revolution cannot happen as long as people are respecting signs saying that you're not allowed to walk on the lawn. It is madness to be embedded in a criminal system and then trying to fight it with its own rules.

Jeremy Paxman is such a brickhead. Probably at least in parts very consciously, because he's there as a representative of his employer. He keeps asking Russell Brand about why people should take him seriously when he's so unspecific. Well, let me tell you Jeremy, Hitler had way more specific ideas, and people took him seriously. Is that the aim here? If you try and coerce people into action, you might not like what you're getting, because this moronic adversity is just pissing people off and making them fanatical and believing you're as dumb as you're acting. Those media puppets are really boring. It's the same whenever someone interviews the Iranian president or any other person who challenges the dominant power structures. And they're also very dumb, because they're giving the interviewed person a great platform to demonstrate how much smarter and more dredible they are. At this level the interviewers are merely practicing fanservice for their already indoctrinated followers. His smirkness towards the end of the interview reeks of his feeling of comfort being embedded in those power structures. He doesn't even bother to counter with platitudes that actally adresses what Russell is saying, but just throws ad hominems. In internet language he'd almost classify as a troll. I don't even bother that Russell still believes in the climate change scam, because as he's saying himself, he's merely reaising awareness, wanting to have a discussion. He doesn't have to know everything. I still support his general approach. And apparently it is necessary to use somewhat stronger language to wake people up. Many are so deep in paralysis and apathy that they need a slap, or a glass of water in their face to wake up. Jeremy 'Pacman' is too dumb to realize what a great favor he's doing even himself by conducting that interview.

I only read the initial post, but I want to say this: 1) Setting a user to "ignore" might take things out of context; make certain discussion threads very confusing. (Not sure though whether they completely vanish here or are shown in a hidden state, since I'm not using the ignore function.) 2) If you need to set a troll on ignore to remember they're trolling, then you can't recognize trolling well, but you will not learn to improve your ability of accurate judgment or tolerance. I put no-one on ignore, since information about what's going on helps to make accurate judgments. This policy has helped me to improve said judgment and this, combined with investigating people's motivations for certain behavior, enabled me to handle a certain messiness of the internet. Also, I often find myself being the only person in internet-based disputes who really means it when they say they're not responding anymore, and others might not even be able to believe it. People have so little self-discipline sometimes, and it has become the norm. ... This is not what garners respect. As a sidenote, I prefer rudeness over falsehood. If someone is angrily calling me names, I know they're sincerely expressing their feelings, which is a good start.

I've studied various periods of human history with passion, and let me tell you, there has always been deep change going on. (From a certain viewpoint, that is. If you apply a different viewpoint equally to the past and the present, then humankind isn't changing at all. Even things like equal rights for women is no result of a more advanced global mindset. Ancient Egypt had it!) I also came to the conclusion that any kind of hyping that we live in very special times is borne out of ignorance. This mindset leads, for example, to someone analyzing a Mayan calendar and then everything in their theory fits perfectly, except that anything extrapolated from it for the future turns out to be wrong. There's a lot of confirmation bias involved in these things. My advice: If you want change, don't wait for it. You have to bring it about. ... Remember the quote? "You have to be the change you want to see in the world." (I remember a German saying: Es gibt nichts Gutes, es sei denn, man tut es.) I think a big part of the New Age movement doesn't realize that all those beliefs held are useless if you do not use them to condition yourself into working towards it. Beliefs might have great manifestative power if harnessed in masses, but simple down-to-earth actions can be infinitely more powerful. It seems to me that the striking lack of anything remarkable happening on a date that so many people focused on is evidence that people actually didn't harness their manifestative power. They did not believe, they merely hoped. And hope based in fear of not seeing change will manifest more fear. People are disempowering themselves that way. (Just look at the whole Obama advertising campaign.)

I watched the TV series a few years ago and enjoyed the embodiment of the protagonist's mindset. Definitely not made to wow people with action all the time - not shallow like that. The sword fighting encounters were among the most exciting and tense movie encounters I can remember. Just waiting for that one move that could end it all is often way more entertaining than endless fighting - it teaches the viewer to cultivate the same depth of awareness that the protagonist has and thus connects us with the character, making us walk in his shoes to some degree.

Yes, there's lots of stuff that gets released on that day.

This doesn't sound like the sheer mindblowing level of determination and confidence that will be required to achieve what you're aiming at, if it doesn't have a habit of falling into your lap.

Then again... the body can be amazingly adaptive. (admittedly, a lot more during childhood) It's not impossible to condition the body to do this detox at least partially on-the-fly.

Those drugs cause dependency on a social level. If enough people take them, employers will expect you to take them or they replace you with someone who will. More and more people are unemployed, but the remaining have to work more and more. And if they get replaced by machines, society doesn't reap the benefits from it. Those substances should be avoided like the plague due to their social destructiveness. Not to mention that FDA approval doesn't mean people won't eventually figure out that it kills you. Personally I found out that one of the best wakefulness-inducers is passion for what you're doing. Adversely, hating what you're doing can artificially tire and exhaust you.

And another one... Fun fact: First I made the text black, but when I changed it to red, the file size became 666504 Bytes. Happy Nightmare Night, everypony!

The article is mostly unimpressive to me, but a notice on that page caught my interest: "Ad Blocking software It appears that you are currently using Ad Blocking software. While we appreciate your choice, please consider that Phys.org is supported by advertising revenue and that by choosing to read the site without ads, you're potentially hurting Phys.org’s ability to continue providing the latest sci-tech research and news. You might consider adding the Phys.org domain to Ad Block exceptions. By supporting Phys.org in this way, you are helping us pay for hosting, bandwidth, original content, editorial staff, and the many other costs associated with such a high-quality site." Funny. They say they appreciate my choice. What they write then contradicts that. Also note the choice of words: "you're potentially hurting Phys.org’s ability to continue..." This reveals a certain fear-based mentality. They could have said that ads "support" their ability, but the way they wrote it reveals that they have a fixed expectation about how much they are SUPPOSED to do, and when people don't allow the ads to show, then that will be REDUCED. They're basically saying, in more straightforward language, that I am a potential threat to their goals / existence. This makes their 'appreciation of my choice' look even bullshittier. I understand what they're saying, but the message between the lines leaves a bad aftertaste. This is an example of an early stage of the kind of mentality that makes, for example, the highly profitable and well-established music industry so deceptive and vicious about 'piracy'.

The unpopular things that keep people so busy these days are getting worse. If you manage to live with less sleep, those things might occupy the time gained, too, whereas if you don't manage to do that, the actual life-changing breakdown might occur sooner. Because your need for sleep is not the actual problem. "Become financially free via becoming a successful stock trader and entrepreneur starting positive impact businesses" That's like stealing from the poor so that you can sell it back to the poor. Also kinda naive combined with "Be a philanthropist" It's not a career path, you know? Either you qualify as being one or not. And it's a vague term. And often misused or outright not true. Same with "Be a positive influence on the people I come on contact with" This is not a goal you aim to accomplish. It's a lifestyle. And not one you need money or stuff for, at least not necessarily. "Do all of the above with as much spirituality as possible" What do you even mean by that?! Also, might I recommend more focus? I'm beginning to see why you feel you don't have enough time in the day, if all these things are what you are directing energy at. The list almost reads like a joke. So many things some people manage to do as THE main career, pretty much full time, and you want to not only do those things, but excel in them? Your problem is definitely not a lack of 4 hours a day. You just want to be Tony Stark. Furthermore, planning/intending to become successful at something is not as good as finding passion for something. Because in the former case, you might have to make sacrifices that cause you to not be able to look at yourself in the mirror. That kind of approach is supported by certain paths in society, and not healty ones. P.S.: I have actually managed to reduce my need for sleep to 4 hours a day by doing roughly 4 hours of a very deep meditation daily.

ADDITION: When a female teacher tries to stop boys fighting in school, this is not an attempt to force unnatural, supposedly matriarchical attributes onto them. The real problem there is the irony that those teachers are not smart enough (don't have the understanding and the tools) to solve those male-dominance-borne problems with an actual feminine approach. In tragic irony, they are applying male-borne tools in their attempts, because they have learned those tools from institutions shaped by a male-dominant society. It requires a basis of actual lived female philosophy to be able to defuse those situations. Trying to stop people fighting over dominance by using dominance is folly and at best a short-term fix with growing long-term problems. You have to make them understand their folly in a convincing way, and what is usually helpful there is the authority of radiated confidence stemming from an understanding of the truth and wisdom you speak. Taoist studies on a wide scale could help bring balance by enlightening people. Just imagine a symbolical situation: You have a one-on-one challenge, a champion of the masculine and a champion of the feminine, and want to see who wins. In our current society, the feminine champion would try to win this competition by proving that she can be just as fierce a fighter as the male champion is, and that is the folly of our times. The female champion has almost forgotten what her strengths are and to cultivate those. If the feminine energy was in balance with the male energy in our society (generally speaking), then there would be a good chance that the feminine champion wins the competition by opening the male champion's heart and making him agree to not fight. In the end, he would gladly declare her the winner, out of courtesy and admiration, because what the competition was actually about would be irrelevant at that point. The female champion would have 'totally owned' the whole thing, because the format of the competition itself can be seen as something typically male. The Western philosophy confuses things and considers weakness bad, but what Western language would be calling a "strength" is actually the female champion's weakness, which neutralizes the male champion's strength through being its opposite. A force-based feminist movement cannot succeed, because it is rooted in male principles and thus fueling those. It's one of the things where you perceive a problem and end up empowering (or outright creating) it. Feminism should be distinguished from a women's rights movement. (Be honest: How many of you were exclusively thinking of a fight when I mentioned a one-on-one competition, two champions and winning? ... If you did, then you habitually applied a male-dominant perceptual bias to a problem-solving approach.)

I think the gender argument is partially a distraction from the underlying problem. Childhood behavior on average is indicating what is healthy. Despite having been under influence of the surrounding social environment, certain natural tendencies are more prevalent than in the adult world. Social/emotional problems grow over time if not cured. Society is shaped a lot for the purpose of pampering those problems for the masses of people who don't want to solve the issue. At some point, the problem becomes so powerful that someone becomes its slave, and then natural healty childlike behavior will induce anger that should be directed inwards, but is directed outwards. It's about jealousy and being reminded of one's own weakness. This is why, if you keep observing the big picture, you can see a war being waged on childhood. Illness-based trends in society are growing to a size where they look like they're developing a life of their own and thus become more and more disconnected from awareness of those that feed them. Metaphorically speaking it's like demons fighting angels, because they're natural opposites. This doesn't have to do with conspiracy, because as I tried to point out, when someone becomes a servant to their inner demons, the demons are the deciders and then conscious awareness is not there. People operate a lot on their unconscious programming (naturally they're not aware of that if they haven't undertaken a journey within), and their actions based on that perception of reality shapes future reality. That why when you observe the big picture, it might look like a thoroughly planned and structured war effort for destroying childlike purity. It is ... but unconsciously, or sometimes at least denial-based. (And continued denial leads to dumping stuff into the unconscious.) Adults make up terms like "ADHD", but the problems they are describing are mere symptoms of THEIR problems. The trend is that the result of a clash of adult society's sickness with healthy individuals is called sickness. And I think there are examples of especially sick societies trying to weed out childhood like an illness. The problem fights the solution. People have to decide which they want to support, to become an agent of. Some can be helped in that decision by others, some are far beyond help (sometimes due to vicious resistance, sometimes due to lack of mental capacity -- fear makes stupid). This is exactly why the stereotypical wise old Chinese masters are known to show many childlike qualities. They have overcome many of the fear complexes that make people into what people associate with the negative aspects of adulthood. Herbert Grönemeier sang a song that pointed at exactly this issue: "Kinder an die Macht" (Put children in power). And this is also why I emphasize the importance of distinguishing between childish and immature. Acting childish is fine, it's fun and inspirational. Immaturity is based on fear. When kids fight in order to establish their dominance on the school yard, that is immaturity they have adopted due to the immature way the adult world they grew up in is designed. Many of those things are considered "normal" because people don't know about examples of healthier societies. Either the information is kept from them, or they don't want to know. It can be frustrating trying to make people learn inspirational and uplifting truths when the will to learn has been conditioned out of them by those that fully succumbed to their inner demons. Also, many people are so deep in inner misery that they cannot handle any negativity that comes with learning the truth you have to know in order to be able to make things better. As the extended saying goes: "The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable." I've experienced many cases of people even viciously fighting the knowledge of those truths. They cannot handle them. This includes people who claim they are big optimists. Some are just kidding themselves and are in fact running away from any unpleasantness, and that's why they appear like optimists. They will condemn messengers of those truths that set you free as "negative all the time" and things like that. As always, once you pierce through someone's bullshit, they will panic out of fear that their masked truth might have been revealed, and as I stated earlier, fear makes stupid, and thus it leads to the irony that, through their panic reaction, they reveal their inner truth even more. I guess I just wrote down the source of all human suffering. Again. Haha.

Maybe because they understand that they're asleep even when they're "awake"? And this understanding causing them to be awake even when they're asleep?

I don't know how it measures my activity, and since I have a habit of keeping many tabs open as a kind of bookmarks for later reading, I don't see a use in letting the forum software pretend I'm 'here' when I'm not.

All I can say based on the article is that the explanation of his device is kinda open for misrepresentation and deception. 'Knowing' of tunnels or 'geting information' from a device can always be completely false, based on how that device actually works. So it seems there never has been an excavation. Didn't he find the entrance or come close to? No probing dig? What happened after what the article reported about?

Some say the pine cone symbolizes the pineal gland. All the dirty little secrect in the OP's link - unsurprisingly - boil down to the same thing: competing for money. That's why Bruno Gröning said money is the devil (or something like that). It is the medium or scarcity, the lifeblood of it's idea. When there is money, there is having it and not having it, the latter implying that you are lacking. When there is no money, the idea of ownership fades. There will be less "I have" and more "it's available here". Also, we need to go back to the small local supplier system, because that brings people closer together and doesn't give them the idea that they can get away with fraud, since all their customers are very close.

Made a new video. Not much, but I'm glad I got excited to do another one after quite a while. Rewatching the show is always inspirational. Noticing so mucn more stuff now.

Yeah, seen that on Cheezburger.

It's a parodized a quote from Dune. Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear: I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. Personally I'm all for anger. It's an expression of sincerity and it releases pressure. It can even get stuff done.