I really wanted to make it tonight, but felt blocked. Explicit, direct invitations and pleasant outreach would assist me in many ways to break through my emotional blocks regarding engaging with technically proficient people.
Im in Los Angeles. Please consider reaching out individually. Blessings!
Michael drawnalong@gmail.com
Are there individuals willing to explicitly engage in comforting discussion regarding these things you’ve written about? Any willing to extend personal invitations?
I would love to discuss spirituality with otherwise “rational” intelligent people.
Please consider teaching out to me personally—it would be transformative: drawnalong@gmail.com
The idea is that valuing a life as that important is what guides the HOW to save the nation. The how is with utmost regard for all people’s existence—especially their exposure to suffering.
By valuing people, in this case human life, to that great a degree, it establishes respectful acknowledgement of the great forces which were set in motion to create such a marvel as a human being.
Plus, there IS always the accountability for having devalued a human life when that is the beginning of the end of good policy, behavior, ethics, decency. To value one human so much? Makes you valuable to humans. Etc..
″..who cares about solving hard problems and helping others and eliminating suffering in the world and finding truth through science and the progress and achievements of humanity..”
Love this, thank you. Cannot attend, but thought to say that I always feel extremely exposed to LW as a spiritualist/believer. This sentence drops the key lantern on the porch. Blessings!
Maybe the answer is:
This is the latest era that there were sufficient humans with survival traits related to treating people decently.
The simulator will hold onto the biologically friendly humans, since beyond a certain point, if certain circumstances generate people with no ingrained feelings of necessary coordination and interpreservational behaviors, then it reverts and restores that state.
My shortest form is the known unknown: what hurdle of unacknowledged individual shortcoming prevents my being in accord with others? (This ingroup)
I believe it is the missing, in-person declaration of mutuality, combined with declarations of the value of each person—to have in person communion with those estranged by supposed ideological differences, that would be unimaginably useful.
Yet I assume my “alignment” is the problem. Or some character assessment which, perhaps only partially informed, drives intentional exclusion.
Either way, it would be tremendous to discover a change in parameters benefiting the widest number of persons, yet including myself and others.