r0ckyreed

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.

Yes, contemplation and observation are both essential. Contemplation is based off of observations which is why I saw experience is more fundamental as a basis for knowledge than just thinking. But contemplation seems to help me attain more insights than just simply observing without thinking.

It is true lol! He brings out more toxic masculine energy than healthy masculinity for sure.

He brings out the masculine energy in feminine males.

I did 501 pushups in 9 hours. I am sore. Even though Andrew Tate is a bully, he has some great things that people need to hear such as building self-discipline and self-reliance. However, Tate is more full of shit than gold. I was able to do 501 pushups because I wanted to prove to myself that I could do it and hold my 2 middle fingers up to Tate. I need to be more masculine in my life. I have been such a pushover and I am tired of it. I have been too afraid to talk and flirt with women. That happens no more. It is all about my frame. My frame is just to initiate and have a conversation and be friendly. My frame is no longer to flirt and get women wet but just to build a connection with them, share my passions, and ask them about theirs. I will try this out tonight.

Thread for forum users to share their best insights. Let’s start with mine. 1. God exists. Atheism is wrong. 2. Everything is made out of Intelligence. All is Mind. 3. Solipsism is true. 4. Time does not heal all wound. It is Love that heals. 5. Perfectionism = self-sabotage 6. Learning to distinguish intuition from anxiety 7. Heartbreak, why it exists and how to heal. 8. Buddhism is a belief and no belief is Truth. 9. Contemplation and curiosity is the ultimate tool for enlightenment. Meditation is a tool for falling in love with Truth. 10. Happiness is being aware of the Presence of God and being aligned with It. 11. Success is more important than happiness. If you aren’t successful in life, then you can’t be truly happy. If you aren’t happy, then you can’t be truly successful. By this logic, success is more important because if we aren’t happy, then we were not really successful. But happiness isn’t the most important emotion. If someone dies, do you really want to be happy? Or would you like to mourn and honor them? If someone violates your boundaries, do you want to be happy or frustrated? We have emotions for a reason. True happiness is having the appropriate emotion for the situation. It is all about balance. If you aren’t happy with your life, then you aren’t fully successful. Both are important. But happiness is conditional to your feeling about yourself. We are on this planet to create something meaningful. Success is having the courage to face your fears and create something meaningful.

I have expressed concerns with using ChatGPT in the past. I have taken on an experiment where I have utilized ChatGPT for the past few months. What I noticed shocked me. I noticed that I was becoming reliant on using ChatGPT to plan out my days, to ask it questions and to contemplate. What I didn't realize what I was doing was I was teaching myself to be less resourceful and less responsible for my critical thinking. You have to wonder, "How can I trust the answers ChatGPT gives me?" It is dangerous to utilize this tool because I feel like I am not alone in that I would utilize this tool but would fail to look up peer reviewed studies to confirm the answers I got. It is like I gave my complete authority away and used ChatGPT to contemplate instead of using my journal and brain to contemplate. What I have started doing now is using Google first to look up the answers to my questions and find 3 different sources. This method does take longer but it trains my brain to not take mental shortcuts. I believe ChatGPT was made for people with a low Need For Cognition (NFC). I have a feeling that people are going to become so dependent on it just like they are dependent on their phones for getting them food, planning their routes, and remembering information. Think about it, how many phone numbers do you actually have memorized? I want you to compare the amount you have memorized and ask you grandpa how many numbers he has memorized. It may shock you. My grandparents have more phone numbers memorized than I do because in today's world, we can function well with a lower NFC, we do not have a high need for memory because "Why remember this if I can just write it down or ask Siri to help me remember it?" Socrates was right about the dangers of journaling. That is why he did not write down anything because he believed that writing was not an effective way to communicate knowledge and believed it would make us less inclined to use our cognitive faculties to remember. Well, he was both right and wrong. Socrates was right that over-reliance on journaling/technology would hamper our cognitive faculties. But Socrates was wrong that writing/technology can be useful for memory and cognition only when utilize in a non reliant way. Socrates' argument against writing defeats itself on its head a little bit because everything I know about Socrates is through the writings of Plato. Without writing, many ideas, lessons, and people in history would be forgotten. So, it isn't just an all or nothing deal. ChatGPT can be a great tool, but people seem to glamorize it and think that it won't come with negative outcomes. It will. Socrates' point remains that with advanced technology and reliance of it, will come with the consequence of depleting our innate faculties of cognition and intuition. I want you to think about that. If you do not use your cognition and intuition and instead outsource your thinking to ChatGPT and other things, then you will become a slave to what you outsource. I rest my case, Rocky

You heard me. The YouTube algorithm is a matrix designed to enslave your mind. The simplest answer is to turn off your watch history. If you turn off your watch history, you disable shorts and the algorithm recommended videos. All these extensions and apps are a distraction. Just turn off your watch history. If you really like a video and want to watch it later, then click the like button or simply create a playlist called “watch history” that way you can have a watch history without having a watch history with all the recommended videos distracting you. If you use TikTok, I recommended turning the setting to open TikTok on mute. When you open TikTok, close your eyes for the first few seconds as the app opens and just spam tap in bottom right hand corner so it goes to your profile. That way, you won’t get sucked into the matrix. You should only be using TikTok and YouTube for primarily creating content and education. If you want entertainment, then go to the clubs and gym. It is important that you are search videos and not getting fed videos.

I agree. I am just pointing out the dangers. I know that it is inevitable and that AI will be as common as toilet paper one day, and like toilet paper, it will be very useful and helpful but also full of shit. Lol. I am amazed by the intelligence we are creating in the world. I am just pointing out the dangers. It’s kind of like Socrates. He was against writing, and he had very valid points. But it was Plato’s writing that kept his ideas alive. So, it is the same with AI in that I am stating the dangers of AI/technology through the use of AI/technology in which without AI/technology, I could not communicate in this way and talk about its dangers. I am just pointing out that there is a big cost. This cost could prevent you from accessing your full inner-cognitive capacities, or it may not. I appreciate you.