philosophy

Are spiritual teachers more narcissistic on average? Our best guess at infant phenomenology is that we come out of the womb experiencing a pre-differentiated oneness. As babies, we assume the world revolves around us because for all we can tell, the world is us. We have no way to empathize bc we can’t take another perspective. This theory underpins a lot of psychological claims, like “we internalized our parents’ fighting, assuming it was about us when it really wasn’t.” 

I claim this isn’t an elevated spiritual state, because we haven’t developed individuality yet. We need to have something before we can transcend it. Ego collapse and ego-transcendence both involve a different sense of self from the adult norm, so they’re easy to confuse without a developmental distinction. Both provide a sense of certainty, and rely on non-linguistic knowing, making it harder to recognize the distinctions.

To the extent this is true, it makes me wonder: Are spiritual teachers more narcissistic on average?? (some evidence points that way, but no rigorous studies exist). Can they differentiate between the state of pre-differentiated and post-differentiated union? And if they can’t, how often are experiences labeled “union,” or “nonduality” actually literal infantile regressions? If so, wouldn’t these teachers exhibit the same self-centered orientation of an infant?

Plus, selection effects: narcissistic individuals are drawn to roles with authority, attention, and reduced accountability structures. Communities where charisma is more relevant than independent reviews of competence (versus accounting or Nascar), and states of attainment are categorically unverifiable by the students (versus massage or writing fiction).

Distinguishing infant oneness from transcendence

This doesn’t mean all spiritual teachers or leaders are “narcissistic” even in a colloquial sense, just higher risk. And it’s an inherent epistemological risk in finding someone who’s better than you at something you haven't accessed, using frameworks you haven't developed, verified by experiences you can't reproduce (yet).

So best to encourage critical thinking, and introspect on some of the checks I have for myself (and others) about myself and anyone I look to for guidance: Is my spiritual practice increasing my need for special treatment, entitlement, surrounding me with people that never challenge my views? Am I always turning criticism around—saying it's “your karma,” “your projection,” “your lesson”, “your drama triangle stuff”?” Am I telling others what’s true about them without acknowledging my projection (ironically), justifying boundary violations since it’s all illusory, calling my emotional reactivity "authenticity," calling others’ reactivity attachment?

Or do I laugh at myself, and the inevitable foibles I engage to maintain the sense of self I’m laughing at? Can I laugh at any so-called “spiritual attainment”? Do I truly not need special treatment—do I wipe the toilets and empty the trash like everyone else? Am I able to hold many different perspectives at once, including “unity” and my uniqueness? Do I maintain appropriate boundaries while experiencing interconnection? Is my ethical behavior consistent across contexts?

What's in a question...". Here's a scenario...
I say something. It could be anything but for the sake of argument, "I hope Trump runs for a third term."

People in hearing range are heard to ask (examples):
   - What do you mean by that?
   - Umm, have you read the Constitution?
   - Why?
   - How do you think that benefits the country?

My interest... Which, if any, of those questions might be considered an invitation to dialogue? Which might elicit a defensive or angry response? If we accept a premise that Our country is being damaged by polarization and hostility, how do we engage with one another to explore the why's behind opinions held? What is your base response when someone asks you a question?

I have observed what I think is shift in definition (or perception) regarding the purpose of a question. To some extent, I think the use and nature of questions has been placed in a negative light. And, that is hazardous to Our ability to gather and analyze information as well as Our opportunities communicate about important societal issues.

At a base level, how much does tone of voice matter? Does who asked -how they look- matter? Does the choice of words affect your response? The time or place? How much of your response is determined primarily by how you interpret the question versus how the questioner might have intended it?

Additional circumstances where I wonder about questions and what they mean or do...
   - How often does a politician who represents you ask your opinion before voting on a matter?
   - Are public polls and surveys able to collect opinion fairly? (I.E., Shouldn't there generally be a "None of the above" option for almost everything you've ever been asked? Or, data about who is taking the poll and for what purpose? I am tired of being forced to answer in a way that defines my 'social box' incorrectly.)
   - Particularly with regard to evaluation of programs, we are asked to place ourselves in various classifications. Income, race, faith, address, age - you know what I mean. These "metrics" are quantitative and objective but... Who decides on the ranges?; Who decides on definitions? When we are measuring whether the quality of someones life has improved, do we need more 'humetrics'?

Have I perhaps managed to kindle curiosity in a dark corner ? :-) It seems to me that this is worth thinking and talking about. It may be part of healing and finding our individual agency to affect the world. It might also be a part of solving problems in a way that promotes positive-sum outcomes. 

👽 aliens and angels 👼 . We’re driving on 620, passing one of those statue places that has a bunch of big metal dinosaurs, big green alien statues, flamingo statues, etc.

Me, to Jack: What do you see buddy?
Jack: A flamingo!
Jordan: Yes! What else?
Jack: An angel
Jordan: Yeah, where?
Jack: The big green thing

What do you make of this?

I’m starting to take this idea pretty seriously: the universe is filled with subtle energy beings that have some overlap with our realm, and some not.

One of the strange factors about the beings/energy is that it can’t be perceived directly in the concrete realm through our normal five senses, so we have unique APIs that translate these beings into a cultural context that makes sense. So the same being could be seen as an angle, or a hindu god, or an alien, or simply energy depending on the person. My guess is this helps account for plant teachers, DMT entities, UAPs, etc.; although I realize this is extremely hand wavey on the details.

An Introduction. My name is Eric Stevens 

I want to be clear about who I am and why I am here.

I recently published my book, Evolution Mine: Genesis.
You can read it for free here:
https://nowweevolve.com/view-the-book

I made it free on purpose. The idea matters more than the money.

For the last 15 years, I have been working inside the systems most people only argue about from the outside. Global trade. Manufacturing. Supply chains. Policy. Commodities. Labor. Capital flow.

I helped Vietnam enter the World Trade Organization in 2007, ironically on my birthday. I have worked with governments, factories, military-adjacent systems, and private industry. I have seen how decisions made far from communities quietly reshape jobs, materials, and power at the local level.

Most of my life was spent in Los Angeles. I recently moved to Dallas, where the political and cultural polarization is impossible to ignore. The fights feel louder. The solutions feel thinner.

I am a father of six. I am married to an incredible Salvadoran woman. I am politically independent, not because I avoid responsibility, but because I do not believe any single ideology owns the truth.

What I am building is not a movement in the emotional sense. It is an economic one.

Our society talks about systems as if they are beliefs. They are not. Systems are built on inputs. Commodities. Materials. Energy. Logistics. Whoever controls those controls everything downstream.

That insight sits at the center of everything I do.

Through these platforms, I am working on one integrated effort:

Now We Evolve
https://nowweevolve.com

The Bioeconomy Foundation
https://thebioeconomyfoundation.org

American Fiber Group
https://theamericanfibergroup.com

Together, they focus on one question most debates avoid.

What happens if we change the materials the economy depends on?

Hemp and bamboo are not symbols. They are commodities. They grow locally. They scale horizontally. They support regional processing. They anchor manufacturing close to communities. They change money flow, job creation, and who holds power.

This work is not anti-capitalist or pro-corporate. It is pro-reality.

If you want different outcomes, you do not argue harder. You replace the inputs.

That is what I am here to discuss.
Not outrage. Not slogans.
Industrial math, material systems, and practical paths forward.

If that resonates, you are in the right place.

Times like these . I feel alone and trapped with animal abuse and cruelty and I don't know what I can do to change things