Are you optimistic about the future of humanity?

YES.

WHY DO YOU ASK ME THAT?

one I was curious and two I wanted to know how long and how often and what was your focus as you enter the meditative state

i am trying to incorporate the practice in my life to sharpen my awareness

>I wanted to know how long [SIC]...

UNTIL I FEEL THAT I HAVE REACHED SOME KIND OF CONCLUSION; THIS USUALLY OCCURS AFTER APPROXIMATELY FIFTY MINUTES.

>... and how often...

BETWEEN FOUR, AND SEVEN, TIMES PER WEEK.

>... and what was your focus as you enter the meditative state

MY FOCUS IS ONE OF CONSCIOUSLY EXPERIENCING NOTHING.

I USUALLY BEGIN WITH VIPASSANA CONCENTRATION, THEN, I GRADUALLY MOVE INTO SAMADHI CONCENTRATION.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT KINDS OF MEDITATION, MOST OF WHICH ARE "EVIL"; THE ONLY TO "GOOD" KINDS OF MEDITATION, OF WHICH I AM AWARE, ARE SAMADHI, AND VIPASSANA; SAMADHI CONSISTS IN THINKING OF NOTHING; VIPASSANA CONSISTS IN LETTING ONE'S CONSCIOUSNESS STREAM FLOW WITHOUT ONE'S CONSCIOUS INTERFERENCE, WITHOUT LINGERING ON ANY PARTICULAR THOUGHT, OR IMAGE.

>THE ONLY [TWO] "GOOD" KINDS OF MEDITATION...

In the short run, I guess. It'll take some work.

In the long run, definitely. History is cyclical, but each stage progresses closer and closer to a final state in which humanity is organized into a globalized network of self-governing, directly democratic, anarchist, libertarian socialist/mutualist collectives.

thanks man.

I don't really care t.b.h

I enjoy sucking another man's cock, he is much closer to God than I am and can do no wrong
No wonder his show is shit

Meant to >meme arrow the first three lines

I'm expecting more and more degeneracy followed by a divine cleansing fire and the coming of a Heavenly Kingdom.

So basically, fpbp

>novice memer detected

>skilled typo-er detected
Fixed that FTFY

...

I'll be dead so it won't really be my problem if it all goes south.

That is a selfish and irresponsible way of thinking.

>humanity
A meme.

Not really. But then again I never had much faith in humanity at all.

Why are most kinds of meditation evil?

...

BECAUSE THEY ARE NOTHING BUT METHODS FOR LETTING DEMONS INTO ONE'S BODY.

Will you ever get yourself treated for your schizophrenia?

Couldn't you also continue to dividing into optimal and suboptimal groups until you reached the peak quality observable?

The next 50-80 years? Not really. I think that Silicon Valley and their ilk are sort of corroding the foundations of the human experience by monetizing or commodifying it, and I sincerely doubt that this will end any time soon. I'm also worried that persecution of free speech will get out of hand here soon.
Overall though, I think that we will get past this. I don't know if the novelty of it will wear off or if we'll have a second Renaissance or something of that manner, but I generally believe in People (capital P) even if my confidence in most persons is waning.

ONE SHOULD JUDGE QUALITATIVE VALUE INDIVIDUALLY, NOT COLLECTIVELY; IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE PERSONALLY OPTIMAL INDIVIDUALS THEY MAY UNITE INTO A GROUP.

THE DEFAULT CONDITION IS INDIVIDUALITY, NOT COLLECTIVITY.

Successful companies will only increase their reach, or make way for new industries. It's a symptom of capitalism.

>THE DEFAULT CONDITION IS INDIVIDUALITY, NOT COLLECTIVITY.
THE DEFAULT CONDITION IS COLLECTIVITY; YOU ARE BORN INTO A COLLECTIVE

INDIVIDUALS ARE WORTHLESS IF THEY'RE NOT IN A COLLECTIVE

1. ANY COLLECTIVE IS CONSTITUTED BY INDIVIDUALS; THE INDIVIDUAL PRECEDES THE COLLECTIVE; YOU YOURSELF HAVE POSTED IT: "*I* AM BORN A COLLECTIVE" —DO YOU THINK BEFORE TYPING, AND POSTING?

2. THE WORTH OF A COLLECTIVE IS CONTINGENT ON THE WORTH OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT CONSTITUTE IT.

>... "*I* AM BORN [INTO] A COLLECTIVE"...

THE INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT PRECEDE THE COLLECTIVE; FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO EXIST THERE NEEDS TO BE A COLLECTIVE EVEN IF SHORT AND NOT PERSISTING

THE COLLECTIVE IS NOT MERELY THE SUM OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT CONSTITUTE IT

Not for as long as he can milk it for validation from larpers on on the internet.

STOP FUCKING SHOUTING

NO.

>ري كظ R Y · Q V S S !KNDY.F27NY
So... What the fuck is wrong with this guy?

1. FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE BORN ONLY TWO PERSONS ARE NEEDED AS PREREQUISITE, AND A COLLECTIVE IS NOT NEEDED FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO BECOME A PERSON, SINCE PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT IS AN INDIVIDUAL PROCESS.

COLLECTIVES ARE CREATED BY INDIVIDUALS; COLLECTIVES ARE NOT GENERATED AS THEMSELVES, "READYMADE", FROM NOTHING.

2. THE VERY WORD "INDIVIDUAL" INDICATES THE STATUS OF PRIMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL —"THAT WHICH CANNOT BE DIVIDED FURTHER"/"INDIVISIBLE".

3. WHETHER A COLLECTIVE IS MORE THAN, OR EQUAL TO, THE SUM OF ITS PARTS IS IRRELEVANT; THE "POINT" IS THAT THE COLLECTIVE'S WORTH IS CONTINGENT ON THE INDIVIDUALS' WORTH.

>A COLLECTIVE IS NOT NEEDED FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO BECOME A PERSON
Wrong. Without a collective, you'd end up an animal, not a person, and a dead from thirst or starvation animal at that.
>COLLECTIVES ARE CREATED BY INDIVIDUALS
Were, not are. Collectives are now much older than individuals and exist for thousands of years. The individuals are to a collective, what a single cell is to a complex organism.

kirk van houten of Veeky Forums

I REALIZE NOW THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT A COLLECTIVE IS.

1.TWO PERSONS WORKING TOWARDS A COMMON GOAL, A COLLECTIVE GOAL

2.FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO APPEAR A COLLECTIVE IS THUS NECESSARY.

3.THE WORTH OF THE INDIVIDUAL IS MEASURED IN HIS WORTH TO THE COLLECTIVE
COLLECTIVE IS NATURAL
INDIVIDUAL IS MAN MADE

literally chicken and the egg.
>muh centrism

IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF THE CHICKEN AND THE EGG, LIFE NEEDS OTHER LIFE TO REPRODUCE, IT IS INHERENTLY COLLECTIVE

WE CAN ARGUE ABOUT THE CHICKEN AND THE EGG BUT IN BOTH CASES IT WAS A CHICKEN

Way to be theatrical, man.

Factually incorrect : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_(biology)

HOW CAN AN INDIVIDUAL DIVIDE ITSELF INTO AN INDIVIDUAL

THE DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL CONTRADICTS YOU

INDIVIDUALISM IS A LIE

>LIFE NEEDS OTHER LIFE TO REPRODUCE, IT IS INHERENTLY COLLECTIVE

I said nothing about individuality, this was your comment regarding life and it is categorically incorrect. You are wrong.

"Typically in asexual reproduction, a single individual gives rise to a genetic duplicate of the progenitor without a genetic contribution from another individual. "

It was the egg, the egg is the first manifestation of its genetics.

You seem to have quite low intelligence, you are clearly not Aryan.

YOU ARE SHORTSIGHTED FOR A COLLECTION OF MATTER PRODUCED BY OTHER LIFE IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE FOR LIFE

THE CHICKEN IS NOT DEFINED BY THE EGG

I'm not going to have kids nor will my brothers, so i do not need to care for any others