nuwu

I am not sure what the drama of yours is about. However, apathy, pseudo-nondualism, blatant dismissiveness, over-emphasis on superficial harmony over the legitimate well-being of extraneous perspectives, passive-aggressive entitlement, belittlement, perpetuate nonchalant maceration of victims, sophistry (particularly strawman, status quoism, appeal to naturalism, short-sighted disregard on fundamental principles | needs, oxymoronic exclusion of perfect actuality based on symbolic misinterpretations, …), all of such contentions are inappropriate rebuttals to the stoic distressful states of vulnerable entities. Refusal to provide simple concrete solutions to traumatized agents optimizing their slim chances of self-imposed perspectival survival, is iniquitous. I will not reiterate my request. Please delete my account.

As an intuitive introvert with social anxiety, I have difficulties managing networked structural entanglements, incentives, manipulations, and their respective dynamics. I operate effectively in a minimally maximizing field of potentialities. Due to severe chronic health problems, I have absolutely no spare energy for superfluous worries. In accordance with: - Vertical Integrity: Hierarchical positions are entitled to basic decencies and non-discriminatory external or internal integration, especially in allegedly help-centric communities considering the potentially profound trauma-induced vulnerability of entities, contrasting subsequent failure to uphold the forum own’s guidelines ‘Expression of all emotions is encouraged.’ and ‘What Is Not Allowed On This Forum […] racism’ - Privacy Regulations: I live in a jurisdiction with strong data protection laws (EU’s GDPR laws and their extraterritorial effects). They enforce my right to privacy, respect, and support in services of practices deemed unfair and deceptive, which may also include American consumer protection laws. - Self-Help Completeness: If the well-being of users is not prioritized (e.g. by processing suppression of account), then objectives and actions are mutually contradictory. Legitimate consideration of user requests is tautological. - Clarity: To enhance the effectiveness and sincerity of communal classifications, and to respect the boundaries of their users. Under such circumstances, cynical superstitious gaslighting is unfortunate and unwarranted. I hereby request the regrettable suppression of the account of mine.

@Blessed2 Game theory wise pragmatically measured defense mechanisms are possibly necessary in survival. https://youtu.be/mScpHTIi-kM This interpretation is not inspired by pseudo-spiritual dogmas. I personally wish for infinitely loving ontology, rather than a regrettably abstract absolute with no relative practicality.

@Blessed2 If you are kind and forgiving to narcissists, they will exploit and abuse you until death. I understand ego death depends on a perspective, but if you are willing to sustain a presence within duality, or at least this realm, then survival bias may be unavoidable.

Sorry for gloom and doom. I am disturbed by the prevalence of hate speech and narcissism on the actualized.org forum, ostensibly accentuating. I am dumbfounded that individuals boast or denigrate based on placeholder monkey avatars devoid of abstract significance. But more importantly, I feel overwhelmed by the systemic lack of empathy in this realm, and this is troubling my experiences with dreams, psychedelics and meditation. I wanna see evidence that consciousness is love.

what's the difference between perception and abstraction? aren't they both the same substance (imagination)? why would more or less direct forms of understanding even require a sense of self? i don't share the opinion of @Devin that the ego isn't problematic, but buddhism and advaita may or may not provide the full picture of what we should do with our consciousness, conveniently omitted by the "it's impossible to know" rhetoric. we actually don't know if it really is impossible to know either. the sense of self only limits the expansion and freedom of awareness, but it doesn't change its substrate. we are it. if leo has been aware of states potentially beyond ego games, it's intriguing. i don't think we should be scared of exploring the realm of possibilities.

w-why is ego considered identical to thoughts? it doesn’t matter how many layers of concrete or abstract understandings consciousness gives shape to, isn’t it all part of truth? conceptualisation does not imply attachments. i still meditate and seek selflessness, but as far as i can see, there are blind spots in advaita/buddhism that deserve to be explored. such as having a clear understanding of the end goal (even if we say the end is an illusion, in practice our experiences will be radically different). if we are going back to where we came from, what’s the point? using concepts to prevent the exploration of other concepts is not a solution to this. eventually, this would also be useful in mainstreaming spirituality.

to be clear, i'm not arguing against buddhism or leo. both are supported by strong arguments and both make lots of sense. i only scrutinize what i find confusing. personally, i will still explore all spiritual practices. a more loving existence is all we need. in summary, one side says "everything is a state" and another says "everything has a sense of self". i think leo believes states without ego he has been aware of invalidates the latter view, or something, which is why he would lately distance himself from advaita. it doesn't mean he necessarily believes advaita is false, but he might find it incomplete. i have not been aware of such states, nor i have any idea how he actually views spirituality or experiences it. it's mostly intellectual contemplation.

cross-posting from the other forum n-not sure how much of a foolish rant this is. i find the situation somewhat confusing. what are your thoughts on the matter? i have no idea or attachment about what consciousness truly is, i just want to be comfy and happy content in question: - infinity of gods - mouse-leo - leo's posting style which seems less inclusive to traditional buddhism, reinforcing the observation his views are incompatible

beyond material goods, i feel money is a powerful to raise collective understandings above what would be a bunch of selfish perspectives otherwise. this is specially apparent in web3, but also happens in legacy contracts structures, where game theory shapes systems that are stronger with interests alignment at all levels. stock markets is, despite all the flaws, humanity first attempt to algorithmic governance. all systems are incomplete so i feel like happiness might only come from money when upsides and drawbacks are understood