Joshe

A different tact with AI-assistance: --- The frame that says "I have no frame, I just want truth" is the hardest one to see. It's the final boss. Most frames are visible enough to question. "I'm a Christian" - you can see that's a frame. "I believe in materialism" - you can see that's a frame. You know you're standing somewhere. But "I just want truth" or "I have no frame, I just see what's real" - that one hides itself. Because it looks like the absence of a frame. It feels like neutrality. It presents itself as the thing you get after you've removed all frames. So you never question it. Why would you? It's not a position - it's just "being honest" or "seeking truth" or "seeing clearly." But it is a position. You selected "truth" as your orientation. You preferred it. Experiences reinforced it. Accumulation happened. Now it's invisible. The reason it's the "final boss" is because every other frame can be seen and dropped. But the frame that says "I drop frames and just see truth" can't see itself as a frame. It's disguised as the solution to frames. It's the one that survives every other deconstruction - because it looks like deconstruction itself. So you strip away belief after belief, framework after framework, and feel like you're getting closer to raw reality. But the thing doing the stripping - the orientation toward "truth" - is never examined. It's the last one standing, pretending it's not standing anywhere. --- If you seek "reality without frames", you will find a state of consciousness that feels like "reality without frames". This is universal.

I agree that was the appeal but I think it's unlikely the usual deliverables were young girls, so I'm not sure I'd call everyone who indulged depraved. My guess is Epstein mostly kept the young ones to himself and only offered them to his acquaintances when they showed interest. I'm guessing people like Musk and Gates didn't partake in the super young ones. Gates may have. Trump seems the type, but who knows.

Notice Epstein had the ability to disarm young girls and make them feel comfortable. He had that same ability with all the high profile adults he lured into his world. He was charming. The common perception of those that met him was “ I like that guy”. You probably would have felt the same if you met him and didn’t know him. Epstein was a social genius. He built a network of high profile acquaintances and earned their trust and confidence. Sent them thoughtful gifts, did them favors and solved their problems. He was the con man Trump always aspired to be. I wouldn’t be surprised if the guy never forced anyone to do anything, but used smiles and fun times and what seemed like genuine goodwill and light-heartedness to open them up and bring them into his world.

A buddhist takes psychedelics and finds buddha nature. A christian takes psychedelics and finds god's love. A Leo follower takes psychedelics and finds infinite consciousness and solipsism. 😂 All 3 find snow in Antarctica.

Nice!! Gonna have to take some time with this.

@Cred I think "truth-trackers" or TSPs can often self-regulate through analysis itself, possibly as a result of high Need for Cognition and competency in using cognition to self-regulate. High NfC + high competency = analysis is soothing. Truth-tracking is the regulation. TSPs regulate through analysis, so we go straight there. Non-TSPs need to regulate before analysis, so they stop somewhere we don't need to. I'm not so sure they avoid truth-tracking because they prefer validation. It seems more like truth-tracking doesn't regulate them, so they reach for whatever does - which could be validation, but also venting, presence, reassurance, etc.

This has been a very common theme in my life as well. Someone comes to me with a problem and I end up caring more about solving it than they do. But the thing is, their brains aren't structured for my world. Trying to bring them into it is understandably uncomfortable, the same as it would be for me to come into theirs.

Very interesting stuff. This belongs in my obsidian vault. Definitely a factor in the anxiety. We come to see our natural responses are detrimental to social cohesion, which causes stifling, so we adapt by staying silent, walking on eggshells, becoming resentful, etc. All we want to do is truth-track and deliver but there is very little demand for it. We've essentially opted out of the social games and just want to get down to business. Yes, there's a sort of courage and confidence in myself or something. Like, anytime I've been deeply sad or depressed (which is rare), there is literally nothing anyone can do or say to console me and I'm agitated when they try. I don't want hugs, talking, presence - I just want to be left alone to deal with my problem. I'm curious, how many actual people do you know who fit this profile?

I'd be careful. Notice you found exactly what Actualized.org told you you would find. You sought Leo's teachings, took a dissociative, and found... Leo's teachings. You said you used to think Leo's advanced insights were "airy fairy" but now you "fully understand" them. Is it possible you just trained yourself to see them? How would you know the difference between discovering reality and having your mind reflect back what you've been feeding it? If someone absorbed a different teacher's framework for years and took DXM, is it possible their trip would confirm that framework? You had ideas about solipsism already in your head. You had tried to make sense of them. Then, you altered your consciousness with a chemical and the intent to "see something". More simply, you had concepts, added a drug, and got those concepts back in experiential form. Consciousness is very plastic and fluid. It can do this with anything. Just something to keep in mind.

Of course not. The issue is when people dress it up as "discovering truth" rather than "I trained toward states I value and got them." The first one creates needless developmental hierarchies, levels of awakening, on an on with the hierarchies. Always arguing over what or who is deeper, more awake, more true, etc. - without realizing the hierarchy itself is a preference, not a discovery.

🤦‍♂️HOW did you get there? You practiced. You read. You learned about surrender. You liked it. You oriented toward it. You tried an failed. You tried again. Over time, the effort became less visible and started feeling effortless. This is "training". You didn't just wake up one day into it. After you found it, the training disappeared - which is exactly what I've been saying. I think this might hit a little too close to home for you. No offense, but you don't know wtf you're talking about. I never stated "truth" is not for me". I said something like I'm not currently optimizing for spirituality. But you don't know how far I've already come. I am very humble/cautious in what I claim to know regarding spirituality. I don't make grand claims such as yourself and I sure as hell don't blindly adopt framework terminology that will skew my view. Don't let this fool you into thinking you know something about my spiritual development.

You practice. You make progress. You talk about "deeper" and "higher". You distinguish between people who "get it" and people who don't. You treat certain states as more valuable than others and use words like "awakening" and "enlightenment" and "realiziation". All of that implies a destination. A finish line. A place you're trying to get to that's better/higher than here. "Surrender" only makes sense if there's something on the other side of it. You're surrendering toward something. If there were no destination, why would surrendering be better than not surrendering? Why would you even recommend it? BECAUSE THERE IS A FRAMEWORK you're operating on with preferences driving it. You are not spiritual because you just so happened to surrender to reality and all was revealed. You selected for and aimed at what was revealed. Seek and ye shall find. You sought, you found. You thought you found that surrender is the way but what you really found is what consciousness produces when you train it toward surrender. What I'm saying here isn't some elaborate intellectual maze. Consciousness confirms whatever you point it toward Spiritual seekers point consciousness toward things they prefer (love, truth, peace, surrender) They aim for those things and find them They confidently call it discovery instead of construction

Jesus. This is getting so little news coverage.

Can you sit with this question: 'What if my framework-free seeing is just another framework I trained into and then forgot I trained into it?' Could it be that you trained so deeply into a way of seeing that it no longer feels like a perspective, but feels like actual reality? For example, you can train your consciousness to suspend interpretation, but the suspension itself is a trained orientation that originated from a preference and a framework, and over time, the training and framework are forgotten and what remains feels like raw reality. I'm not saying this about you necessarily, just pointing out that it is a real mechanism with big implications. This is exactly how people end up in the psych ward. They trained consciousness in a direction until the training disappeared and what remained felt like "just seeing reality". Same mechanism.

We often mistake choosing for discovery. Consciousness will validate whatever framework(s) you commit to. This mechanism is universal and unavoidable. If consciousness will validate whatever you commit to, then the honest move is to choose your framework knowing it's a choice - not to pretend you discovered actual reality. And even if you did, you should hold such things loosely. "I'm choosing to orient toward love because I prefer a life organized around it" is more honest than "I discovered reality is infinite love." Seek and ye shall find. Subtract and ye shall find too. You aimed at "removing falsehood" and you got a remainder and called it truth. But subtracting is seeking. It's spurred on by preference. What made you subtract? What made you call the remainder "truth" instead of "residue" or the "the stubborn parts that persist"? It is a preference to call what survives "truth". The vocabulary is selected for words that feel good, significant, profound. WHY? Values and preferences. My point is consciousness can be trained to confirm any framework, including spiritual frameworks that claim to be framework-free. That claim is the framework. You prefer your framework be framework-free, and you believe it is because that's what you sought. "I just look at what's true" is the framework. It's preference acting like neutrality. Your highest awakening is the same stuff as grandma washing dishes, with the main difference being the elaborate significance you add. These ideas are uncomfortable because they dissolve significance.