r0ckyreed

I made a post and answered it in a video on this topic already.

Thought isn’t ego. Ego is identity. You can use thoughts to deconstruct identities. Think of your thoughts as mental hands that can create and deconstruct things. Thoughts can be tools.

Incels are just victims. They want to blame women instead of taking responsibility. Their minds cannot handle admitting fault or wrongness on their part. If they did, then their victim identity wouldn’t hold.

I figured this would fall on some deaf ears. My point is that I have noticed a trap that I have fallen into and many others have fallen pray to. The trap is chasing women rather than seeking a deep connection with reality first. The issue is that chasing women and sex won’t even fulfill your bodily needs because after you ejaculate, you are left empty and wanting more. The main way to fulfillment is developing a strong direct connection to the Source of existence itself. Until you have built that connection with Source, women and sex are just temporary distractions. Choose your investments wisely. Chasing women can only end in heartbreak one way or another. A connection to Source is your way of transcending Death itself. Romantic relationships are great. But nothing will beat your relationship to Source/God.

I have been thinking about ambition. Ever since I played the video game Uncharted 4, the scene with Hector Alcazar and Sam Drake always sticks to me where Alcazar says that what separates them from the prison guards is their ambition. I define ambition as a strong desire for achieving excellence/success through hard work. Of course, ambition is such an amazing concept in and of itself because ambition is relates to our unique vision and source of life purpose. There is no life purpose without ambition. However, ambition is a tricky because if it is not balanced with satisfaction, then you will end up working yourself to death. Essentially, you will become a workaholic and will become like Christopher Robin. The thing is that Pooh helps Christopher Robin realize in the film the importance of playfulness. It is important to not go to either extreme of Robinworld or Poohworld but to find a balance of playfulness and ambition. That is the key to a fulfilling life. Here is a test for ambition that I found. If anyone can find a better assessment, that would be great. https://mind.help/assessments/ambition-test/ There are certain personality qualities that go into ambition that are interesting to contemplate. I am curious to know your all's thoughts on ambition.

I guess he has no choice? Lol. Determinism is foolish worldview.

It is to let the Universe come inside you and give you orgasms of mind, body, and spirit. The thing is you’re so focused on the body that you are missing 2/3s of yourself; hence, 2/3s of your purpose. It’s funny to think about how many guys are just chasing genitals and sex rather than chasing the source of them.

Not necessarily. If I am God but am depressed, then by definition I am disconnected from Infinite Perfection and Love. Love and perfection are all around me, but I don’t perceive it. Even though the human form is made out of Intelligence and Love, I can be disconnected from that since part of Perfection is allowing myself to be imperfect. Part of Intelligence is allowing myself to be ignorant. Part of Love is allowing me to hate. The way most rats live is having sex with other rats rather than having sex with the Maze. The Maze is already made of love, but the rats love does not match the level of the maze until it surrenders and lets the maze penetrate it with insight.

Read my post.

God doesn’t have any pronouns.

My point still remains valid that if you are just trying to silence your mind, you will never learn how to use the full potential of it. Everything is yourself. You are the entire field of experience.

Have you ever heard of hyperphantasia? Hyperphantasia refers to one’s ability to conjur up life-like, realistic mental images, sounds, and other senses with the minds eye or imagination. I want you to contemplate this: The greatest inventors, philosophers, and visionaries have the same quality of powerful imagination or hyperphantasia. Notice that imagination and success and creativity go together. There is no such thing as a visionary with no imagination. This does not mean that someone with aphantasia, someone who has an inability to form mental images in the mind, cannot be a visionary. It is just much harder. They might have to process their “vision” through other means such as journaling. How does this tie into my argument against meditation? Well, meditation encourages you to essentially turn off your imagination. But not just that, but you are also turning off your creativity. Some people will argue by suggesting that meditation can actually give rise to even more creativity. This is true. But this is a straw man of what I am trying to communicate. Yes, it is true that if you incubate, you will gain insight. But I am suggesting that long-term meditation has its consequences. Too much meditation can actually limit your imagination. If you sit for a long time in a single-pointed focus on your breath, you will not engage in the exercising of your imagination. Brief periods of meditation of say no more than 1 hour a day can be beneficial to your mind, as long as you are also engaging in imagination and contemplation. If all you are doing with your mind is silencing it (or even worse, distracting with social media), then your imagination, ability to contemplate will become dull and almost at an aphantasic state. So, just think about this. The goal of meditation isn’t to suppress your thoughts and have a quiet mind. It is really to be more present with everything in reality, which includes your mind. People say “you are already present all the time.” That is not true. You are dissociating. That is not the same. Just like how you can increase the vividity of your imagination. So you can with your consciousness. Meditation isn’t about silencing your mind. It is about increasing your awareness of the internal and external world. In other words, it is about raising your awareness to explore your own mind/imagination. I just had this insight and had to post it here. Hope it helps. Read this article to learn more about hyperphantasia. https://memoryos.com/article/hyperphantasia-revealing-the-truth-about-photorealistic-imagination

What’s the difference between having another awakening vs having another insight?

A meteor destroying the Earth.

Any time is good time. 4 hours is just a number. You can date and work on your business. There is no either or. You need balance. You are overthinking this. 4 hours is a made up number. To think you can’t do both is a fiction.

I just think it is dangerous to sit in long periods with a silent mind. I’ve heard that people with decent imagination can actual develop aphantasia, the inability to imagine. I formally meditate no more than 20 minutes a day. It is important to contemplate and visualize more than meditating. What I have found is that if you contemplate deeply, then sit in 20 minutes of mental quietude, insights incubate there. But if I meditate for a long time before I contemplate, it messes up my contemplation. It is essential to allow the mind to wander and not just have it focused on your breath. This numbs your mind’s potential. A better way to meditate is to visualize a goal in your life, an existential question, or a personal problem and just have the mind focus on that. Everytime it wanders, let a wander around that topic then gently bring it back. Mind wandering is essential for creativity. Focus is also important too. But I think if you just focus on the breath for a long time and ignore your curiosity and imagination, you will stunt your gifts.

Well, then I am screwed. I cannot shut off my philosophical mind and nor do I want to. I love questioning reality and engaging in philosophical discussions. I talk about the most controversial things because that is what intrigues me. I really don’t care so much about sex as I do an intimate relationship.

The ego is the ultimate conspiracy theory.

When I die, the world dies with me.

It just stuns me honestly that we still give Andrew Tate room in our brains to fart all over this forum. It honestly lowers the entire IQ/EQ of the entire forum every time someone posts content of Tate. I find it more odd that we can promote and give the virus of Andrew Tate free advertising and room to promote his toxic masculinity and misogynistic content at all. At least with Connor Murphy, his content seemed more higher conscious until he spiraled out and had an ego backlash. Anyways, sorry for the low quality post. I just get pissed off and triggered every time I see people glorifying Andrew Tate. Sure, his advice can help you in life, but it only goes so far. The issue with Tate is he is negatively motivated towards life and promotes toxic red pill, conservative ideologies. His content will lead you more into your ego and Devilry and will never lead you to Love and Consciousness. I think Tate’s behavior should be analyzed from a high conscious perspective on this forum, but it is never done. Apart from Leo’s video about Tate, nobody makes a post about Andrew Tate, steelmanning him and then completing breaking him apart. If you want to study double standards and hypocrisy, Devilry, and much more, Andrew Tate will give you a free course on that and then will charge you for it. Most of the “higher quality” ideas that he gives you are not original ideas. You are better off with listening to people like David Goggins or better yet, learn self-leadership, listen to your own instincts, and derive the answers for yourself. Why do you need Tate to yell hate at you?

I have been thinking about empiricism and rationalism. I have come to the conclusion that it is not an either or debate but both are important processes for deriving knowledge. If we just had our senses but no ability to think, then our ability to attain knowledge is limited. If we just have our thoughts but no experience, then it is inference and speculation. I am claiming that Leo Gura and everyone on earth is using both empiricism and rationalism to derive insight and knowledge. However, when communicating knowledge to others, I can only do it through the rationalist paradigm. I cannot communicate experience to you but only my rationalizations of it. Here are my additional thoughts: So, I think that knowledge is derived through experience. If I cannot experience it directly, then I cannot say for certain that it exists. There is a difference between inference/assumption/belief and knowledge/experience. I can learn facts about the color blue, but no amount of facts and rationality will get me any closer than the actual experience of the color blue. I can study all the facts and rationalize about what life is like on the moon, but until I experience the moon, it is all theory at best. However, I think that rationality and contemplation can help us to understand the world but that is mainly because rationality is linked to our senses. For instance, we were able to “know” that there earth was round before we were able to go to outer space. But this knowledge I would argue was derived from experience because rationality is our thoughts about our experiences. Rationality is another experience, perception, and sense. Some people say that there is innate knowledge such as that babies are breathing at birth and have an innate knowledge of their mother’s voice. I would argue that it is more biological programming than actual knowledge. Just because I am already able to do something doesn’t mean I have knowledge of it. But I also think that our experiences are limited in a way. For instance, I think that we can know that infinity exists even though we cannot experience all the derivations of infinity. We can have an insight that if I count 1 2 3 4 … 400 … 7373636, etc. that I can reach the insight that numbers never end even without direct proof. So, it seems like our logic can be limited because there are insights we can have that go beyond our experience and explication. Our experience also does not necessarily tell us if we are self-deceived. It seems like our rationality is what helps us analyze information we receive from the senses to make it work and derive knowledge. I think both rationality and our senses are essential in knowledge. The kind of knowledge I am talking about here is relative knowledge. Absolute knowledge about the nature of reality I think can only be implicitly understood like the natural numbers going to infinity. I don’t think direct knowledge of the Absolute is possible. I think that the Absolute is direct experience and we cannot know anything further than that. What do you think of my thoughts here?

The main issue I notice about myself is that paradoxes screw with my mind. I cannot stop thinking about them into I have resolved them somehow in my mind, understanding, and actions. For instance, the paradox between knowledge and not-knowing, ambition and presence, empiricism and rationalism, skepticism and omniscience, silencing the mind and using the mind, etc.

That's what I thought too lol. I thought he has talking to us two lol, which that is also true XD.

My mistake. My initial interpretation was focusing on the negatives of being blind as being 100% deluded rather than partly deluded. I forgot about the part that the Devil operates most effectively on half-truths. In your Serious Philosophy video, you put Empiricism and Rationalism in the camp of useless philosophies, which seemed interesting to me. I discussed my thoughts on this topic with ChatGPT, and it suggested that my ideas align more with empiricism because I hold experience as more fundamental than thought. In my contemplations, I have come to the conclusion that thought is experience and is generated by the senses. Our thoughts are a replication of our senses in the mind. If we took a baby and put it in a sensory deprivation tank and then released it 40 years later, I would bet that it could not perform any rational functions. It would essential think like an ape when it got out in the world. This goes to show that there is an interchangeable relationship between our experience and thoughts, but experience is what comes first. It also largely depends on what kind of knowledge we are pursuing. There are different kinds of knowledge and not just one kind. I think that is the main assumption of both theories is that there is only one type of knowledge either knowledge derived only through rationality or through senses. But knowledge is derived through all modes of experience, so it seems like empiricism is slightly more true. However, empiricism seems to have more assumptions that are false, but the main assumption that knowledge is derived through experience seems to be absolutely true. The issue is that it does not account for innate knowledge and assumes that we are born on a blank slate. Rationalism seems to have less assumptions and focuses more on universal principles like the rules mathematics, physics, logic, etc., which are all of course based off of our experience in this particular dimension of consciousness. The issue I am having is that I seem to be contradicting myself because on the one hand, I think knowledge is derived through consciousness but at the same time, I do not think it is possible to have knowledge about consciousness itself because that is the precise "mechanism" that allows knowledge to be even possible. I think that Consciousness is always going to be a mystery because it is absolutely infinite. But on the other hand, I do not know this for certain. It seems like Absolute Knowledge or Omniscience is not possible because knowledge seems to be finite. Anybody else have any thoughts? Anything that I am overlooking?

How would you get around this problem then? We are left with our senses and thoughts at the end of the day. Empiricism suggests observation is the gateway to knowledge and rationalism suggests contemplation is the gateway to knowledge. I’m not sure what other option we have. It seems like both empiricism and rationalism have grains of truth.