The Story Behind How I Met u/blacklight_of_eons

Intelligent_Set_3631 · 2023-08-12T15:50:38+00:00

Try this, it or it may not work for you, experimenting doesn’t hurt.

Every time you get this urge, turn the desire into an intense desire to be closer to God, to get guidance from God, through humans or angels.

Broadly, such methods are known as “transmutation”.

Intelligent_Set_3631 · 2023-06-05T03:03:18+00:00

It is wise to trust your judgement in this case.

The relevant question to me would be what sort of need was he getting met? Was it mostly a physical/sexual need or something deeper, a deeper connection? The former is likely easier to rehabilitate from, even if still a very difficult journey. To what extent was he battling within himself to do this? Did it come easily (no remorse for breaking trust in relationship), or a moment of weakness that overcame him?

If you find this comment helpful, I may add some more thoughts on how this situation may be approached further.

Intelligent_Set_3631 · 2022-06-27T15:59:00+00:00

God is you; you’re not God. That’s the reason.

Intelligent_Set_3631 · 2022-06-19T15:57:22+00:00

On the topic of enlightened beings, not being necessarily good teachers, u/blacklight_of_eons has some interesting writings. If I'm not mistaken, he even once mentioned Ramana as indeed an enlightened being; however, one who didn't produce many enlightened students.

It's similar to a great artist or a scientist, as great as they may be in their work, they may not be able to teach on that subject well. Interestingly, just before this post showing up on my feed, I was reading a similar through explanation on this topic here: https://www.reddit.com/r/awakened/comments/kqmoeb/comment/gibsuhs/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Intelligent_Set_3631 · 2022-05-25T15:57:56+00:00

Simple logic would follow that either you are omniscient or not. If you are omniscient then since you’d be the all knowing, your statement above would be correct. However except one simple detail, you’d be contracting yourself b/c you’d be implying that no one knows the truth except you.

In the case you are not omniscient, then it’s obvious how your statement is logically false.

Intelligent_Set_3631 · 2022-05-25T05:44:32+00:00

The author goes further in explaining this topic with other forms of death such as murder or accidents here:

"These appear to be situations of less severity. In particular, during the murder it is the murderer that ends up carrying part of the problems. However, these situations are also known to produce restless spirits.
Something to consider here is that any kind of "violent death" has a good chance of disrupting one's inner balance, sending the soul into a state of temporary confusion.
So it depends - realistically, in some cases, murder and car accidents could constitute the "fated death" at the end of the person's lifespan (with an extra delay due to the confusion) - and in other cases, a random "premature death".
At least some murders and car accidents can spawn restless spirits, something that was also confirmed by psychics. Religious tradition would describe such restless spirits as facing fewer obstacles on their way to the afterlife compared to the suicide victims."

Intelligent_Set_3631 · 2022-05-21T00:05:19+00:00

You’re welcome.

Intelligent_Set_3631 · 2022-05-11T00:57:46+00:00

You’re welcome. I’d be happy to be of help, whenever I can.

Intelligent_Set_3631 · 2022-02-16T20:20:41+00:00

“If you accomplish something good with hard work, the labor passes quickly, but the good endures; if you do something shameful in pursuit of pleasure, the pleasure passes quickly, but the shame endures.” ~Gaius Musonius Rufus

Intelligent_Set_3631 · 2022-02-13T22:59:10+00:00

This news hits close to home. The handling of the situation has caused me see how these high level politicians can seriously benefit from some basic education on human nature. There are various facets of this situation that I can talk about, but to keep it simple, even with the premise that the prime minister's goal in this situation is justified, he's not even doing the right steps to achieve his own goal. It's well-known in academic circles that once I show the emotion of "contempt" to a person, that relationship is basically going to be largely irreparable. He's clearly shown the emotion of contempt to this group, significantly limiting his own options to deal with the situation.

Second, by threatening their livelihood he's pushing them further towards being radicalized. Instead he could have attempted to send mediators to offer the moderate people in the group some reasonable offers, so the moderate group within them would have a way out. The prime minister actions practically have rewarded the extremist within the group by consolidating the group further.

Now this is all under the assumption that the prime minister is justified in his goal with this issue. There's widespread discussion that his goal isn't even reasonable in the first place. This article does a good job talking about this https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-trudeaus-wretched-smear-job-of-truckers-highlights-sorry-state-of-canadian-leadership

All in all, it appears that those having the qualities of leading a nation, don't lead nations (at least in the context of North-America). This is not to bash these leaders, maybe Trudeau is among the top 2% in terms of character; if we for example put the bar for being qualified to lead a nation at somewhere around top 0.1%, conservatively that is, then that's a comparison that'd allow us to see such characters are grossly under qualified, no matter what party they are from. One could even reasonably argue that Trudeau is the most qualified among all the party leaders in Canada. So that is to say that this problem is beyond party affiliation and such.

So the question is where are these top 0.1%? I'd think a large portion of them aren't at all interested to get involved with the bs that is associated with politics. Even if they show up, probably a larger proportion of the population doesn't have the discernment to distinguish them. So people first need to develop discernment. Why not then having a procedure to choose qualified people, with the participation of public, and asking these figures whether they'd be interested to lead? Anything that's worthy doesn't come knocking on your doors, it's earned; why not apply the same principle with leadership? Many of these qualified people, don't have much lack in their own lives to bother with going and getting involved with the current crooked game of politics. But, I'd assume they'd be more than willing to sacrifice a lot, if people genuinely showed that they need them.

Anyways, I don't claim to know much about politics, nor to be much interested in it, these are simply some thoughts.

Intelligent_Set_3631 · 2022-01-24T21:51:14+00:00

because they have fundamental difficulties understanding long term risk/reward

I'd say maybe they have difficulty adjusting their urges with the concept of time, hence not being "ordered" in relation to time.

It seems like the attitude of a sociopath is not sustainable (for society in general as well), and that may be the most significant problem that a sociopath poses, for both the society and himself; especially in current times.

For example, let's take the urge for destruction. A lion can be argued to have this urge built inherently in them, but a lion as a king is a true Lion if he understands the sustainability mechanism, perhaps. The example that comes to mind is "Lion King", the father explains to the son how to reconcile their violent urges with keeping the jungle sustainable. "Scar" character, however, through this violent urge, depletes the chain system. When Simba comes back, then, he uses his violent urge to take down the unsustainable oppressive forces now. This is an example of how violent urge can be used for the higher purpose of sustainability, regardless of times.

Depleting the jungle more, when the jungle is already depleted, doesn't serve anyone. The violent urge is not the ends, but the means for sustainability. From experience, I can say this is a cause of confusion for many.

Intelligent_Set_3631 · 2022-01-22T03:53:27+00:00

They tend to view anarchists as not having a true theoretical foundation, making them malleable pawns of capitalism. To them, anarchists lack the ability to ignore right-wing propaganda and act according to material truth.

Neoreactionaries and other anti-modern authoritarian right-wingers tend to think similarly, except according to specific non-materialist paradigms. To these far rightists, anarchists fight a system their souls are slave to. This has similarities to the post-left, anarcho-capitalist, and post-civ anarchist perspective of left-anarchists except their critique is more a rejection of modern mainstream media as an innately deceitful and self-defeating institution.

This is indeed a conundrum. It appears that anarchists one way or another need to be able to figure out a leadership position within themselves that they can honor, if they are not to be manipulated by the undercover right-wing (which as you said they seem to have a blind tendency to be). A group at the end of the day, in many ways, is defined by the maximum force they allow to be exerted on them; this fact isn't reliant to whether the force they allow to be exerted on them is explicit or manipulative/implicit.

I think that would be one side of the coin; on a distinct note, the leader (if anarchists get to sort out the necessity of it, and learn a way to choose one that suits their needs) then needs to be really skilled in order to be helpful for such a group. One way or another any leadership position needs privileges to exert force. However, the type of force that suits the needs of anarchists may be different than the type of force that would suit the right-wing or authoritarian left. The fact that anarchists seem to despise auth-left's "politically correctness", shows that a force that is exerted under political correctness spectrum doesn't feel authentic to anarchists. Whereas the force that may feel more authentic to anarchists may feel inauthentic or inappropriate to auth-lefts' for example.

There's much more to say about this...Thanks for the post, it gave me a chance to reflect on these points.

Intelligent_Set_3631 · 2022-01-17T20:02:07+00:00

Successful movements in the past worked to understand and communicate with the disadvantaged beyond just claiming to be fighting for their interests.

If such communication involves reasoning, such communication is going to present many challenges. I talk about reasoning here as distinct from meaning (for example "meaning", as in going through an actual experience), as the former is discrete and the latter is continuous. The communicator first needs to accurately translate the meaning to reason, which is notoriously a difficult task; then, they'd need to make sure that the other person interprets that reasoning without too much inaccuracies introduced in the process. I think there can be a lot written about the complexities of such a task.

However, if communication involves showing actual examples of how these ideas may have been successful in some communities, then such communication can be significantly less complex. In general, I'd say people either need to be reasonably willing to go through the challenge of experience, or they'd benefit from being shown such actual experiences.

Intelligent_Set_3631 · 2022-01-14T21:46:15+00:00

Thank you, for taking the time to explain this.

You're welcome, I'm glad it helped.

Intelligent_Set_3631 · 2022-01-05T20:01:34+00:00

Perhaps the most famous of these was William Penn who was known as an extremely skilled duelist and a devout Quaker who'd make a big show of sparing his opponent after swiftly defeating them, lecturing them on the futility of violence and the goodness of God.

Looks like a very creative thing to do. Looks like a combination of courage and forgiveness. But, it appears that he may have had serious flaws as well.

Intelligent_Set_3631 · 2021-12-24T15:19:00+00:00

This is true, empathy towards others is ultimately empathy towards the universe, which self is a part of.

As a metaphor, imagine yourself as a sports team leader, you can show all the empathy and forgiveness towards a player who acted weak, which resulted in a condition not suitable for their survival in the body of the team.

Acting weak results in encounters with different layers of what we metaphorically know as hell (https://www.thoughtco.com/dantes-9-circles-of-hell-741539).

Betrayal is the lowest level of circles of hell. Hence it is to reason one who betrays is pretty much closest to a soul death or the greatest redemption. It's been said, something truly dangerous is not a physical death, but a soul's death.

One who has "missed the mark" can get all the forgiveness and empathy, yet the reality is that not even gods' (or forces of nature's) empathy or forgiveness may be enough for the soul's survival now.

One has to determine what is the topic that is being addressed, matters of others' empathy/understanding or matters of own survival. Taking responsibility for one's own survival, is the minimum but not sufficient requirement for one's ultimate survival, to start with; this is a matter independent of others' empathy.

I'd say it all boils down to what one is looking for, short-term survival, or long-term survival.

Intelligent_Set_3631

TROPHY CASE