Consilience

It most certainly has psychedelic properties and can be a tool used for spiritual work though, even if not a "real" psychedelic

I think of it like this... If you walked into a gym and tried to squat 400lbs, the weight would fucking crush you. The "backlash" being that your body's homeostasis was so disrupted by that 400lbs that it resulted in injury/a failed lift. Similarly, it seems that each ego carries a similar "homeostasis" wherein if you deviate too far from the habits, desires, judgments, distractions, etc. that fuel an ego's existence, a psychological backfiring mechanism takes place. Too much stimulus too quickly will result in any system backfiring. This ranges anywhere from ego, exercise, economics, metabolism, invasive species, etc. etc... Essentially large shifts in any system that presently has a homeostasis have a high potential for backfiring to occur. These are by no means perfect examples, but I've personally found this type of thinking to be a helpful model for understanding and preventing ego backlash. It's important to SLOWLY build consistency, momentum, and discipline with these spiritual and personal development practices in the same way that one would need to SLOWLY work up to squatting 400lbs. Hopefully this helps.

Hi actualized.org members, So I’ve been a “lurker” for a while now, but finally decided I’d reach out and engage with the community directly :). There are a lot of interesting and unique perspectives here and low-key I should have joined up sooner. The deeper I’ve gone into this work, the more obvious its significance becomes, but equally, the more obvious its scarcity within society becomes as well. Like, I’m one of the only one in my life I see asking these existential questions that are commonplace around these parts so... It would be cool to finally get involved with like-minded “individuals.” I was hoping you all could give me thoughts or insights you’ve had on the topic of Love with a capital L. What is it? Why would it be present? Does it have anything to do with enlightenment? Often times enlightenment is described as pure “being,” which is achieved by resting in a state of pure “awareness.” So essentially, when we’ve achieved this pure being-ness with our present experience, dropping all beliefs and concepts, we become aware of the nature of our reality, self, etc. By only being our-selves, we are enlightened to the true nature of our selves and reality. Intellectually, however, none of this seems to include or require something like Love to be included into the mix. I can imagine pure awareness being utterly cold, detached, impersonal and observatory without there being any sort of internal feeling of connectedness with the present experience. And in this sense, you are that which is aware, nothing “more” (such as Love) and nothing “less” (such as Hate). How could LOVE be a part of this? If Love were to be found within *being,* it would still be observed via awareness right? (e.g. not YOU because YOU are that which is AWARE) It’s just a strange concept overall, and yet enlightened masters have continually emphasized the point of Love within this spiritual journey. So yeh… If any of you all have thoughts it would be extremely cool to read them Thanks!

Hmm... I believe there pointing towards the true nature of self. And, depending on how you look at this nature, it could be described by either options 1 or 2. (though the caveat being that each of these descriptions is ultimately not that which they describe so it gets weird) So for example, 0 is infinitely small and infinity is infinitely large, and so in this sense, the boundaries between 0 and infinity kind of collapse because the nature of these two are actually equivalent. This math metaphor is how I've always conceptualized the differences between a Buddhist perspective and Advaita Vedanta perspective

It took me awhile to realize the no self of Buddhism and the infinite self of Advaita were pointing towards the same end. Which perspective has helped you most?

Thank you for your words... I shall contemplate dis

@here-now Super helpful! Especially that Spira video

The fact that Ralston is struggling to communicate this topic here is interesting. It's just more evidence for the fact that whatever component of enlightenment is made of Love/Compassion is going to fundamentally be experiential rather than something language or mind may communicate

This is a lot to process haha. I agree though that faking it until you make it seems like a dangerous foundation to lay... But yeah, becoming too center minded on love would be counter productive too considering the "goal" is to rid oneself of false beliefs. An interesting delineation between compassion and love. I'll have to think more on that topic mayne, but thank you Maynor based Joseph and also iamme

I agree, a materialists paradigm wouldn't make sense in this context. Thankfully, I'm not a materialist. I was actually anti-materialism before I knew about enlightenment just because their arguments didn't make any sense to me (obviously they still don't). I think this comes down to me simply not having enough 1st hand experience with the "absolute" and non-duality... I'm glad you'll make a video about it

@nex462 Thank you for the thorough reply. There's a lot in what you posted to process, but I really appreciated the "so be it" component... In that way, if one were to become so fucking accepting of everything, I could imagine how love would be allowed to flourish unobstructed.

Hi thank you This is true. Having an intellectual understanding of enlightenment is initially what got me on board with all of this, but I simultaneously recognize that this is a beast outside of the intellect haha. I see what you mean though. Also thank you pt 2!