PlayOnWords

I never made any claim that it could. We can look at it in terms of transaction if you want. When you are completely authentic, women will want to sleep with you. So your authenticity buys her intrigue, you could say, which in turn gets you sex. However, I would suggest that this is a crude, simplistic, hyper-masculine perspective that you need to let go of. Instead of seeing a relationship as transactional, we could look at it as giving and receiving. Basically the same thing but already we've removed the brutish connotations that come with 'transactional'. Fundamentally, all relationship is the pursuit of love from another. But different relationships have different criteria. Your relationship with your mother has a different structure than your relationship with your best friend, for example. Your mum doesn't need you to be any particular way, in most cases. Your friend might need your sense of humour or general comradeship to consider the relationship fruitful and worthwhile. So really, the question you should be asking is what is the underlying structure of a healthy straight romantic relationship? What do I need from a woman and what does a woman need from me? Ultimately, it's companionship. But again, like with any relationship, there are certain criteria that we desire the other person meet. The issue you will have with this is that women use 'wishy washy' terms. You want women to meet you at your hyper-masculine paradigm and spoonfeed you their terms in pragmatic, dull, simple language. Consider the fact that women are coming from a different paradigm. Could it be that when they tell you what their ideal relationship is you just rubbish it and say bullshit because you are projecting your paradigm and your ideas of what they want on to them? It's clear that you're angry, presumably because of a lack of success with women. Therefore, you've gotta open yourself up to the very real possibility that you're wrong on this topic. Stop listening to Rollo Tomassi and his crybaby friends and be open to genuinely learning about women.

Women want authenticity, emotional connection and dependability from a male partner. Arrive at this conclusion and women become a lot easier.

1) Trip alone. There's little enjoyment in tripping with your stupid friends watching SpongeBob. Tripping alone opens up a whole new landscape of experience impossible to reach with the immediate distraction of others. 2) Stay in symmetry. From Martin W. Ball. I think he said that whenever the body isn't in perfect symmetry, the ego is involved. Something like that. I've used the technique a good few times if I need to ground myself and it's a nice option to have. You'll probably notice your body doing this naturally while tripping anyway. 3) Trip somewhere where it's possible to be inside or outside so you have the option. 4) I like to write a note beforehand simply stating the question or topic I want to explore. Then I read it aloud and ask the Universe to be kind and gentle in its revealing, kind of like a prayer. 5) Have fruit on hand. Another grounding mechanism and is possible to have profound insight or recognition with fruit while tripping. 6) Don't mix substances. 7) Meditate while coming up. 8) Have access to a shower if possible. Grounding technique. 9) Guided meditations from top sources are excellent for lower doses. Maybe higher doses as well if you don't get whisked away. 10) Embrace the trip.

@LiakosN You have avoided a bad situation. I thought the relationship was over but after reading your post again I'm not so sure. Man, if you haven't ended the relationship yet I would suggest you consider it. She is treating you so poorly from what you've described.

Congratulations, you've dodged a bullet. Now learn from your mistakes.

As insufferable as Neil is in the pod, I can't help but feel bad for him. All that knowledge and he still feels lost. He's visibly angry and embittered at the potential of being wrong, defending his position like his life depends on it.

In a nutshell the video is talking about The Observer Effect. In the double-slit experiment an atom behaves like a wave when unobserved and 'matter' when observed. How is it possible that a piece of reality can change its pattern of behaviour depending on whether it is being measured or not? It leads one to consider the possibility that reality is actually sentient or aware of itself and other parts of itself. How the fuck? Kind of feels like an Easter egg in the universe, like it's saying 'look at me, look what I can do. how can you explain this? you can't, really. what does this tell you about me?' Am I missing anything or is it as magical as it seems to be?

Stick a flower up your ass - a reasonable simulation.

Without ego, there is no survival. Is this true? Say, for instance, a child came into this world and was left to fend for itself. We’d see the child give signals such as crying because it needs to be cared for; it needs food, water and shelter, at the very least. But we know the baby would not be able to survive on its own. It doesn’t have the capacity to look after itself yet. What is this capacity? Cognitive development from Wikipedia: Cognitive development is defined as the emergence of the ability to consciously cognize, understand, and articulate their understanding in adult terms. Cognitive development is how a person perceives, thinks, and gains understanding of their world through the relations of genetic and learning factors.[1] There are four stages to cognitive information development. They are: reasoning, intelligence, language, and memory. These stages start when the baby is about 18 months old, they play with toys, listen to their parents speak, they watch tv, anything that catches their attention helps build their cognitive development. Human babies are altricial (born helpless and require significant parental care). However, there are certain species of birds that are precocial (able to find food and walk almost immediately after birth). So if we assert that without ego there is no survival, can we say that birds have a sense of self? As well, can we say because babies are born helpless but can still communicate their needs through crying, that this is a form of ego? If the answers to these questions are yes, then is ego essential to life? Is it the case that actually nothing can come about without a personal self, without its own distinction?

Obviously, I suppose. But coming to that realisation is a headfuck. There's always a story ego can spin. Absolutely always, by it's very nature. Because it's your most fundamental sense of self. Experiences and how you've turned out because of the conditioning by other characters and society as a whole. You survived by thinking your name is John Doe, I'm a male, 399 years old, etc. For the excuse of physical survival, ego has free reign to live. Language, humour, maths, social pleasantries, hobbies. If it has all those things at it's disposal, how does one transcend? To recognise, I would suggest, that what that voice ego has is, actually, bullshit. Sometimes. Hunger, thirst, breath, I suppose are more fundamental, but nevertheless, aspects of ego. But now I'm getting the feeling that I'm chatting shit, and starting to think I'm slightly crazy - ego. So if you're going with that for 399 or 30 years - and now you're trying to transcend that - there's going to be momentum to it. And when something comes in to contradict it, what do you think its gonna do? It's gonna shit itself and say "wtf no way" look at this story I have that has taken everything from the past, the potential future, the very unlikely future, and a tiny sliver of the present. There will always be something it can say. I suppose it does open the question of can ego change? With its self actualization and what not. Yes, I'm sure, but that is still ego; young or old, healthy or unhealthy. And thus, infinite. I do recall a moment where I recognised that I am not the mind, the body, or the flaky bits of thrush, after doing the Neti Neti method. But ego has an infinite ability to spin its web. How does one reach Mu? Or achieve No-Mind? If ego is infinite. OR IS THAT an infinite excuse?

I don't think so. Maybe sometimes.. Yes! That's exactly my point. There are times when you can sit back from the mind, and then it will do anything to suck you back in. So it must be able to co-opt anything, I think. I can feel it when reading your words. Of course, I want to come back and say 'what about this and that'. Namaste, @Theplay. Yes, I do believe that. That's the game, right? @Yimpa Thank you. I will try and contemplate this. Is it not true though, that you can turn inwards and wade through dunes and mountains of shit before you get to that place? and as Im typing this, I realise, that is the point. I think. To realise that you are not the dunes and mountains but the one who has been observing that this whole time. Right? @Moksha Yep. This is exactly what I'm not getting!!! @Breakingthewall I think you're right. @Darodos And yet, my question is, how can I transcend ego totally

Last few days have felt like a breakthrough for me. Various wisdoms are dropping on me, seemingly, whilst also the prospect of self-deception is in everything. Which can be funny. Everything is true in varying degrees. Seems to be the main discovery. How do I know that everything is true in varying degrees? If I make up a scenario with my imagination and say, "from this point of view it's X, from this point of view it's Y" and more and more perspectives can be listed, what's the spirit level that I'm using to test the validity of that perceived perception against? My own mind! And how do I know that the scenario my mind has produced is true? Especially if I'm putting myself into the mind of a killer or something. I've never experienced that, so how do I know what that is like? My own mind! But there's many ways to be a killer, and many reasons why, so how do I experience all those How's and Why's and perspectives and then produce an analysis of those perspectives to then know why it may have happened. It's double-filtered. Is my intuition of what that experience might be flawed? Is it shaped by thriller movies and historical killers and things I have gleaned from this? And then the history could be misconstrued, the thriller movies Exaggerated etc. But then does that invalidate your theories that are, lets say, made purely by imagination, if that was possible - with no prior personal experience, even third-party. But even if you have third-party experience, that is still a legitimate partial view of what killing is like, just extremely limited. Because if you witnessed a murder, you could observe and make meanings from your environment (facial expressions, weapons used, communication) out of what you see: maybe it was an accident, maybe it was planned, maybe the wife was cheating on the husband or vise versa. And while you can gain something from that experience, you can never truly know why it was going down, how did it get to that point. And thus everything is relative. And is that why, or how, everything is infinite? The mind makes it real, partially. In one sense, it's real, the mind has produced it and if it has been produced and exists, even as a thought, that is as real as you're eyeballs viewing the external world. And it's also not real because we can come up with any number of other scenarios and those all become real too, by that logic. And the eyeballs can be rendered useless by blindness and what happens then, is external reality not real anymore? Maybe. Maybe just not visually. And as I write this, my mind says "what if that's a self-deception?" And I'm like, oh fuck maybe it is. And that is also true and not true to varying degrees! I think...

As the title suggests, I'm seriously thinking about going homeless, voluntarily. I work a 9-8 job 4 days a week and I cannot cope with it. Its a customer service role, answering phone calls. It's working from home which I guess I should be grateful for, but my gratitude grows weaker with every "this is shocking". My desire, at this moment, is to pack up and head for the hills (or anywhere that will provide me some true solitude) but I do have reservations, as you might imagine. I'm sure those I consider family will help me when I need it and because I'm in a job right now, I could buy every necessary tool and apparatus to do this right. I would, of course, have to say goodbye to my room I'm staying in, which is a lovely, big room. However, I'm afraid I just cannot cope with the rat race at this time. I really can not fucking do it. And I feel this may be a wonderful experience; kind of like Into The Wild but in Britain's fields, fords and forests.

If you were to accidentally leave a substance in a hot location, would there be any negative effects? For example: LSD in tinfoil, in a suitcase, in a car, in the middle of summer. Also asking generally, so include any information that might be necessary.

I know about the lion and it's desire to kill and eat. And how since we are all one, there is no real right and wrong. In my own perspective, it seems like God gave us the ability to eat other animals, but it is not necessarily the highest way of being. Because humans have a herbivorous digestive system and so forth. This would lead one to believe that animal meat should only be consumed as and when needed, eg: being stranded in a forest. This is a fundamental rule in the Hare Krishna religion. I am a vegetarian, primarily thanks to an LSD trip that showed me this is the way to go. Was a meat eater my entire life beforehand. What do you think?

This thing that has existed since forever, and, presumably, will exist forever... Doesn't that just fuck you up to think about? It's begs the questions why and how. And also, when I contemplate this being the case, my mind says, "Wow. So what's outside of God then?" expecting a different answer. I mean it's just insane. Gonna go watch the Something instead of Nothing episode...

Please translate as best you can some quotes from the likes of Jesus, Mohammed etc that closely represent what they were actually trying to say. "The kingdom of Heaven does not come with signs to be perceived." - Jesus Translation: The kingdom of Heaven is within You. You are God.

How was the sex? You've probably got a lot of internalised homophobia and so this situation has become very serious because of that. I know that game all too well, my friend. You need to realise that your reaction to this is mostly coming from the shit sandwich society and probably your parents has fed you regarding sexuality. Start trying to deconstruct these beliefs you've been indoctrinated with. Realise that all that actually happened was you had sex with someone. That's it. You're not a bad person. And you don't have to start going to Gay Pride in a tank top with sparkly pom-poms. It's cool. Proud of you, brother.

@cypres they can be clear signs of that, and they can also be clear signs of the opposite. It's dependant upon context, atmosphere and the history between the two people. Guessing from Fopylo's post, I'd say he's between 16-21. So we can assume both he and the girl he's courting are relatively sexually inexperienced. At this age, there's a lot of apprehension on both sides, naturally. The girl may not want to be seen as desperate or slutty and so is waiting for the guy to make the move. The guy may not want to be seen as too pushy or domineering. Both have not mastered the ability of escalating the situation. Thus, they both sit there uncomfortably waiting for the other to make the move. You seem to be projecting your experience on to this situation. If you read the story, the girl was clearly reciprocative to Fopylo. What you're talking about is potentially committing sexual assault, which has no place on this particular thread given the context provided by Fopylo.

This should be obvious to anyone. Doesn't sound entirely relevant to Fopylo's story though. It sounds like what hindered his date was his apprehension to pull the trigger. From what he described, the girl is keen on him.

I remember times like this in my teens. One time I invited this girl round my house and we watched a film, and I never saw her again after. You know why? Because I was too much of a pussy to kiss her or do anything with her. It's a harsh lesson, but as a man, you have to take the lead. You should have just moved her head towards you and kissed her when you felt like kissing her. Women, generally speaking, will not be the ones to make the move. You can give all the signals in the world and nothing will happen. You must lead. Sounds like she took it fairly well though. The reason why she asked "why did you say if we meet again?" is because she wants to see you again. So well done. Next time, try as hard as you can to break through the fear and just do it. She's expecting you to do this and it's totally natural. So just listen to your instinct and go for it. Good luck. Edit: Ted's advice is terrible. Sorry, Ted.

I feel pretty strongly that direct experience conquers all. However of course, there have been many, many times in my life where I couldn't trust my experience. In fact, I was living with PTSD that has only faded now after a year of EMDR therapy. So I know how easy it is for one to delude oneself into believing all kinds of things. Having said that, I could mostly always see when the paranoia and delusions associated with PTSD was at play, but it didn't stop me acting as if it was real. The feeling of imminent attack, for example. Anyway. I have a lot of questions coming up in my experience on this particular topic. I wonder if belief and truth actually merge into each other, for example. Say, I wanted to believe that gravity didn't exist. So I adopt the belief. Then when I drop a stick from a height and it falls on to the grass, I have some options. I can say "this proves that gravity exists" or I can say something along the lines of "well yes, the stick has fallen in accordance with the theory of gravity and it's pull etc, but I still believe that there is something else operating here." Now, the funny thing is, that these would both be beliefs. I can choose to believe in gravity, or I can choose to refute it and say something else must be at play. If I choose the latter, someone might say "but you saw the stick drop to the ground, how can you not believe in gravity?". Where is the truth of the concept of gravity? In the present moment, right? Every moment that goes by I can see gravity at work. The leaves fall from the trees to the ground. Voila. But there's a distinction here and almost a simplification to be made. A) "In every passing moment I can see things fall to the ground naturally." Versus B) "Things are falling to the ground because of gravity." See the difference there? Option A is very much not conceptualising the occurrence and just noticing something happen. Option B has a story about it, a belief. Now, I'm obviously not refuting the existence of 'gravity' in physical reality. What I am saying, however, is that both statements seem to be true, yet option B seems to be believing the fact, on top of directly witnessing it. How can this be? This means there is a possibility to conflate truth with belief. This is a rather benign example but it will have deeper ramifications. So, I think my point of this post is to ask, how can we ever know something to be true? And, how can we know it is not a projection from indoctrinated beliefs? I want to give one more, hopefully compelling example. I'm watching an Actualized.org video about What Is God? There's something inside me that knows I have not awakened to what this video describes. Yet, there's something inside me that believes it to be the case, certainly more than the Big Bang. Now, I go and take some psychedelic and ask it to show me what God is, and let's my experience confirms everything Leo has said. How can I know that this is genuine truth, and not belief masquerading as the truth? I've just realised what the answer may be. Something like "Being comes before knowing." I'm gonna post it anyway as it seems like an interesting topic.

@cypres Yes, I was just skimming over PTSD and everything it encapsulates to get to the point of my post. I agree with everything you've posted there.

"we made 3 vaccines in 3 months! 9 months. And actually, it was 3 days less than 9 months and it's great." Part of me misses this guy.

@Nahm More often than not, I feel your words do something. Even though they're utter bullshit and not even that.