Enishi

I used to go almost every week to a goth club for awhile, but it was more so because I decided I needed some way of getting out of my INTP/INTJ shell and socializing, most of the time I still very much preferred books and internet, or small social groups, over the atmospheres of meat market clubs and bars.

Horrible. An interesting bit of info I came across recently is that in the 19th century, it was commented on by the British in Afghanistan that the women there were quite promiscuous due to the anonymity provided by their head coverings. Kinda ironic given that many Muslim men accuse Western women of being sluts. Dogmaticism breeds hypocrisy and blindness..

I love this description, it dovetails with my own experiences at workshops and when practicing on my own.

Good points! I've noticed the same over the years, especially among long-time posters. One thought I've had is that it's not important at all whether people have the "right" views and opinions, or that they are in full agreement. Rather, following the Tao means that said divergence in views serves as a way to refine awareness, understanding and compassion towards one another.

Offensive vs. non-offensive tends be so personal and subjective that it's impossible to draw any absolute line. Generally I would say that one shouldn't make jokes at someone else's expense, especially if they're feeling beaten down. Among close friends though that too can vary, people who are comfortable enough with each other will sometimes have great fun making two-way japes they would never tolerate from a stranger. Also comedy thrives on pushing boundaries. A large part of ending offensiveness does occur internally by letting go and becoming stronger. The way I see some people rant on forums or on my facebook friends list, the most pressing issues apparently are not rising wealth inequality, GMOs, erosion of civil liberties, dwindling resources or environmental destruction, instead, it's whether or not someone somewhere said or thought something that ruffled their emotional PC feathers.

'Family' to me would be those with whom one resonates and shares a strong affinity. It can be biological relatives, friends, or even those one has never meet in person yet feels great respect and love for. As for me, I have very little personal interest in meeting most of my biological relatives after I die, lol.

I figured I would start posting arguments and articles related to this topic here instead of bombing other threads. Banking reform, along with environmental devastation, the threat of nuclear warfare and governments encroaching on speech and civil liberties, is one of the most pressing issues we're facing at present. Here's a recent article on public banking: http://www.hcn.org/i...nusual-politics

I've been thinking about switching over to PC gaming for awhile now, and hearing about these new consoles only helps cement it. One of the nicest things about the PC is mods, some of the Skyrim mods I've seen are absolutely jaw dropping. O.O I'm definitely still avoiding MMORPGs though, regular games are addicting and time consuming enough as is.

Society for the individual is the immediate world they inhabit and are exposed to on a daily basis. In the "world" where I live, which is an urban college town area, along with most people in my circle of friends (on and off the net), and in the media as well, the general unspoken rule as I percieve it is that most are feminist or at least heavily sympathetic as such, and there is the unspoken assumption that people like me who were born with a penis are a priori potential abuses, rapists and are held chiefly responsible for the world's problems, both past and present. You are only fully accepted if you admit to this and directly or indirectly apologize for being male. In that sense, given that I feel little to no connection to most currently living men or male ancestors, my perception is that I am being partially blamed for the actions of others with whom I share no kinship, and my own actions are scrutinized more than similar actions made by females. In the deep south, rural areas and third world countries I know that the situation is far different. However, I'd also point out that although in terms of physical size the more rural, patriarchal areas can seem like a vast sea of red, urban areas and college cities/towns are far more populous and are the greater contributer in terms of media and culture

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Russia%E2%80%99s_Plan_For_The_BRICS_To_Dismantle_The_Dollar_System/25992/0/0/0/Y/M.html

The attraction to bad boys and jerks tends to be strongest among younger women (teens to mid twenties) and then falls off quickly after that. Looking back on the time when I was in my twenties, the most frustrating thing wasn't women's rejection, a person has little direct control over who they feel attracted to. What bothered me most was the self-delusion, lack of self-awareness and projecting all the blame onto men as a group. I believe that denial extends into other far more important areas, such as unbalanced family court rulings.

Remote viewing doesn't have to equal seeing things in the form of a 3D image, it can also occur in a more tactile manner, or in terms of directly percieving non-local information. One way to do it is stop thoughts and place one's awareness in a state where time and space dissapear or turn fuzzy. Once that step is done, the field of awareness can then be expanded outward by 'pushing in' simultaneously, similar to making a ballon expand by pressing on it with your finger. Your awareness can be expanded to encompass the immediate surrounding area, or resonated to distant locations and people/entities by linking to imagination or direct memory.

Money in its basic essence is a medium representing numbers and accounting. Even if "money" was discarded, any society that uses energy and resources is still going to use some form of accounting to record and facilitate its activities.

I'm sympathetic to arguments that humanity was better off as hunter gatherers, but the pandora's box of technology simply cannot be closed now, baring an extreme cataclysm. Humanity "en mass" will not, and cannot be forced to, adopt a subsistence lifestyle. What is more, a cataclysm that steemed from, say, resource depletion and enusing wars, would likely shred the environment and human society to such a degree that it's unlikely that the world would even survive. Therefore, our solutions for the near future will be at least partially tied to new technology or new uses of existing technology, and unless scarcity is completely eliminated, the monetary and financial system that is part and parcel to scarcity shall remain in some form.

Widespread decentralized use of free energy (or simply a relatively more abundant source like thorium) is the only thing that would allow for money and the financial world to be done away with. Until that happens, the reality of money and scarcity cannot be avoided.

Although ideas on what to replace it with may differ, it's quite amazing that understanding of the tremendously harmful nature of the Fed has spread so quickly, a decade ago almost no one was talking about it. That at least IS encouraging.

http://www.monetary.org/the-federal-budget-through-the-looking-glass/2011/03

Science in its "basic" form is simply the practice of the scientific method, along with the assistance of peer-review to help facilitate the process and eliminate error. Unfortunately however, the practice of science is currently wedded to SCIENCE, the institutional monolith wherein peer review is often seen as some gold plated seal of approval that protects from bias and external pressure and funding, which it doesn't, along the a priori assumption of Materialism wedded to Cartesian Anxiety. So long as the status quo remains in that respect, I'm doubtful that research into Qigong, ESP or other interesting avenues is going to gain much traction.

I largely agree, it's much easier to "let go" of something once you've experienced it a bit, sorted things out and gained your own perspective. It's often counterproductive to forcibly abstain from the get go, particularily in the current world, before the aforementioned steps have been taken.

It's been my experience in the past that New Age teachers will speak of "New Age Teachings" derisively, as if they themselves were separate, pointing out certain flaws it carries while they too share numerous New Age traits, including the bad ones. Some aspects of New Age memes are okay, but it's better to have solid time-tested practices and teachings as a base to build on before adding any bells and whistles.

While it might work better in the short term than giving money to the banksters, I doubt something like this proposal would work for very long without creating instability down the road. Many would end up spending the money on things like booze and entertainment, rather than anything useful. New productive industries are going to be needed to move the world out of the gutter, rather than just services. If the government does decide to give the banksters the boot and print debt-free money, it would be better if it was spent on infrastructure projects and scientific research, areas where the US is currently lagging. http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2013/02/07/a-breakthrough-speech-on-monetary-policy/

It plays a role to be sure, but I have to disagree about Theism being the central problem. Although it may not have existed on the same scale as it does now in the American Corptocracy, the Elite monopoly of social influence and wealth/resources was the story of the day in ancient Tibet and China as well. The greater awareness that traditions like Dzogchen can bequeath onto a person can give you greater insight, but said insight needs to then be applied to solving the aforementioned physical problems if you want real change.

Besides personal self defense (a need which can indeed be meet by mace or owning a large dog), the major reason for the 2nd Amendment IS to give citizens protection from their own government. This doesn't mean however that there would ever be some sort of showdown between citizens/militias and the army. I agree that many of those who hoard weapons and fantasize about taking on the military and such are deluding themselves, a well-trained military unit with tanks and other advanced weaponry is going to curb stomp most small militia groups. One could disagree with that by pointing to the American Revolution, but the circumstances in that are somewhat different due to the fact that even though the Colonists were rebelling against the government they were beholden to on paper, the British government was on the other side of the ocean and had to send manpower and resources overseas. Therefore, the 'Revolution' was more akin to a defense against a foreign invader (violent Revolutions that occur entirely within a country tend not to end so well). A crack down on militia groups/militants would not however be able to go down without casualties or significant expenditure of resources if the civil unrest got bad enough. In that sense, the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a political DETERRENT. A wide scale crackdown would only happen after it's removed or whittled down to almost nothing. I don't actually own a gun myself, my landlord wont allow it. If I ever do get one for defense in the future I'd likely get a single 19th century revolver for historical/sentimental value. Guns are uncivilized in one sense I agree. However, removing them from society would only make sense if said removal occurred in the army, law enforcement, and other countries simultaneously. Remove them from the public alone, and you leave things unbalanced. Without the aforementioned political determent, the already horrible and corrupt American government will have more leeway to get even worse.

http://mises.org/daily/6350/The-Flipside-of-the-Trillion-Dollar-Coin?fb_action_ids=4595822567999&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.UQifIMuC7-o.like&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Sorry about that, I will shorten the quote.