4201

I essentially agree with you. Your explanation is quite good, although I do think that the limits of the body are imagined, thought to be, not actual but that's my opinion. My point is that, a video titled something like "Why not jump off a bridge?" in which you clear out all those misconceptions (just like you did in this message) would help a lot. It would help with all of the suicidals in the serious-emotional-help section who think killing their body will make them happy and it would help with your "PR issue". PS: I don't think we should focus on the hate and PR issues. People are going to react and who cares? Keep doing your work in a loving way, clear any misconceptions and everything is fine. I think focusing on them just makes them bigger, fuels the drama.

I don't think you've ever directly promoted suicide in any of your videos, but we have to admit that forum Leo is not the same as youtube Leo. You fell for fallacies that are very similar to what sent SoonHei off a bridge. Source: This idea that you can be so conscious that harming the body doesn't matter is exactly what SoonHei believed and what lead him to die. If this current situation pisses you off, why not jump off a bridge? I think a video debunking this idea would be great IMO. The problem isn't really whether or not you think we should do it or whether or not you would actually do it, but the idea of it being idealized in some sort of high-consciousness only thing. If you are really high consciousness then you have no problem with the present moment and no reason to kill your body.

It's a good read! You won't get much out of the abstract though, here's the full paper: http://www.midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1882.pdf I highly recommend you to read it as it goes quite in depth in the misconceptions people can have interpreting this result. This black and white interpretation you are trying to make out of this percentage is flat out wrong and called out directly in the paper: First point (by the author) is that those numbers only hold true for people who do not try to improve their situation. (No therapy, no meditation, nothing). Second point (by the author) is that those numbers imply the twins have no genetic differences, which is not true. Third point (explained in the paper), they take the liberty of judging MANY environmental factors as genetic because they say your environment is partly defined by genetics. This is quite a loose claim from them IMO but I'm not in the field so I won't complain. They basically explain that your life situation is partly defined by genetics, so if you are unhappy right now because of your life situation, it's also counted in "genetics". (Although you can just change your life situation anyway!) My personal criticism of this paper: THEY DON'T EVEN SAMPLE DNA lol This is quantitative genetics, not molecular genetics. They use statistical models to assume people's genetics based on if they are twins or not (they call it Variance and their Heritability is just a composite metric of many variance with many factors, it's very far from raw data). IMO this is highly unreliable for humans since there's not only DNA shared between individuals but tradition, cultures, beliefs etc. The paper clearly states they are doing quantitative genetics and their sampling size is just too giant to even consider sampling everyone's DNA. Your DNA stores 215 petabytes per gram of DNA and they don't even know which genes exactly so they can't check it specifically. Here's a quick breakdown on quantitative vs molecular genetics https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/quantitative-genetics#:~:text=Quantitative genetics is the study,phenotypic state of each individual. All of that being said, if you really want to believe the author, feel free to email her. Ask her what she think of the conclusions you draw about her paper and what it means for your life. She's a lovely lady trying to do her best to help people get out of their unhappiness and she's selling a book about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB1xMsyP71Q (I can't recommend her personally but if you like her paper and want to know how she interprets the results, feel free). At the end of the day this is a lot of work hahaha (but it was fun)! You can quickly see how not practical it would be for you to find every possible piece of evidence, misinterpret it and send it to me for me to debunk it. Read the papers you find, don't just jump to conclusions after reading a number. When studying statistical models about large populations and a ton of varying factor, the truth isn't so black and white. There sure is lots of thing to learn in this field both for me and you, but this idea that you can't be happy because of genetics is utter bullshit.

According to who? I gave you the evidence, everything is linked. You might be mistaking heritability and genetics. Heritability =/= Genetics. If your parents have beliefs (low self esteem) you may inherit those beliefs but this isn't genetics. I gave you the numbers for the studies on genetics. If you have more evidence you want analyzed feel free to send it. Even if it was 50% or even 99%, none of this explains what those numbers actually mean in your direct experience. It's all statistical data that can be interpreted in any number of way. If you want to cling to your way of interpreting it, it's up to you. But then it's not reality that is merciless, but your interpretation of it.

Those are interesting news article but there's actual studies behind them. The first news article is based off of this paper https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/heritability-and-genomewide-linkage-scan-of-subjective-happiness/71536537CBD1619EA68A6E98919532B6#article Which is a meta analysis of a bunch of subjective papers with only one of them talking about actual genetics (instead of heritability): https://core.ac.uk/reader/15455804?utm_source=linkout They conclude from this study that for men, your "tendency to be happy" is 22% determined by genetics and 78% determined by environmental factors. Your other link just pulls out some number from nowhere but even lower: 17% All of this are mere interpretations from very weak correlations. It sure is good research to make news article (and thus get funded) but none of these scientists actually understand what happiness is (they rely on surveys to determine it) nor understand the effect genetics have on happiness (they just link the 2 together with statistics). Judging your own ability from these "data trends" is as ridiculous as concluding you cannot bake a cake because there's a study stating 18% of people do not know how to bake a cake. You could as well try to link people's ability to bake cakes with genetics, and you'd probably get a weak stupid number like 30%. But even if you want to believe this total misinterpretation of evidence and even if you want to believe you are in this 22% even though you have absolutely no evidence that you are in this 22%, then, how does these genetics even manifest in your life? Are you able to move your arms and legs? Is it you that is moving them or is it genetics? Are you able to think freely or is this too under genetics' control? Still the data points to a weak correlation of about 22% and this cannot be overlooked. It's silly to think that anyone is actually "inside" the 22%, it's more of a general population trend. Yet the scientists offer absolutely no explanation on what this 22% could be from. Yes there's a weak correlation but no explanation making sense of it. I'm not criticizing them because any explanation wouldn't be science or based off of evidence. This idea that you cannot be happy because of those stats is not evidence, it is your personal explanation of a weak correlation found in 2-3 studies. You could say all there actually is is the evidence and this evidence doesn't make any prescriptive statements about who can or can't be happy. What way is the most true way to look at evidence? There isn't a true way, the only thing that is true is the evidence (of a weak correlation). Now you can interpret it in any way you want and how good it feels depends on how good your interpretation is. You feel terrible, because your interpretation is terrible. You might be tempted to justify this interpretation as "better" because that's what the scientists thinks (or rather, the POV she takes in the news articles to attract clicks and eventually funding). But what the scientist think is absolutely irrelevant, they are there to get evidence not opinions. If I measure the length of your table with my measuring tape, does that make my opinion of what to do with the table any better? There is a way to look at the evidence that actually feels amazing. The only way to get there though is to drop the way to look at it that feels terrible. It's never going to change the facts but don't confuse the interpretation for facts.

Is there a documented scientific experiment which proves that you can't be unhappy because of genetics? What's the evidence? Anyone can try to use "science" to justify their claims. But doing so is totally unscientific.

And how do you know different genes would make you happy? What is your source? Do you have a proof? Of course if you believe stories like that you'll be in hell. If I believed that I was limited by my genes, I'd be unhappy too. Notice however that this is not the only way to be unhappy. There is infinitely many bullshit stories to believe that can make you unhappy. You can identify with this very specific one if you want, but it doesn't make it true, it only make it your current experience, and thus your experience is painful. But OK, you don't care about your experience being painful, you only love truth. But how do you know that happiness is defined by genetics? Again, who said that? Your biology teacher? Leo with his bullshit rants about genetics? No matter what you come up with, it definitely did not come from the heart, otherwise it would feel great.

What are the other factors? What do you need to be happy? Therefore you don't know the truth. You can't "want to know the truth" and "know the truth" at the same time. Let's say we want to know the truth but not believe any BS anyone says. How do you know anything is true? You have this concept of truth you absolutely want, but what it is? What is this "truth" you want you keep referring to? Wouldn't it feel good if you had the truth? If having the truth would feel terrible, why would you even want it? What if what feels good/being happy = what is true? What if your feelings are just a function of your body detecting honesty? If truth isn't defined by what makes you feel good/happy, then what is it defined by? What your parents said? What Leo says? What you said previously? What scientists say? All of this might be true but it can also be false, so that can't be it.

I do think that your criticism of Leo would help him deconstruct the mind of anyone more effectively, but I disagree that his current technique leads to any amount of increased rate of suicide. It clearly reaches more people all at once, but I don't see the link between that and suicide.

So you think whether or not people choose suicide is a matter of how the information is presented instead of it being presented? In your previous message you said "Don't tell this anyone".

So Leo's edginess is the big evil here? Talk about projection Even if Leo stopped teaching spirituality under your suggestion, someone else would. In a system composed of 7 biliion humans some will organically become spiritual teachers and some will unfortunately get it wrong.

Very tragic, best wishes to the family and his 2 kids. Rest in peace.

How are we happy then? Are we just pretending? Why does it work for us but wouldn't work for you? Why? What's the value in being correct but unhappy? What is so important about this truth that you are perfectly willing to suffer 99% of the time for it?

Could you be happy if you believed in the same fairy tales we do? If so, I think that make you infinitely brave since you are ready to suffer infinitely and constantly just to stay honest to what you consider true. What's the value of what you consider true if it doesn't make you happy? You say you would be ready to get rid of everything to stop suffering (even your life). But are you ready to give up "what you consider true"?

Are you taking any other medication? Usually 1 week is enough to clear the tolerance for mushrooms. You don't need to wait an entire month. Not everyone get visuals. Whenever I trip on any psychedelic with solid expectations of how it should go, I generally find myself frustrated. Did you not notice any effects of the psychedelic at all or was it simply not what you thought it would be?

There can't be nothing without things nor things without nothing and I am the one making the distinction between thing and nothing. But why am I able to distinguish? Why isn't it just all really nothing? Not "nothing" as in not a thing, but nothing as no things and no counter-things (no nothing). Just pure emptiness. If you show me a page half black and half white and tell me that the distinction between the 2 is something I'm doing OK, but then if you showed me a full black page it's not like I would have even been able to distinguish between the 2. Why is there possibility for duality?

No, when you sign up to become a pornstar, they make you sign a sheet which permanently remove your ability to deconstruct your mind. Game over, suck dicks forevers. This question "Can X be enlightened?" implies someone there is some sort of conditions one need to be in to be enlightened or that with other conditions, it's straight up impossible. This is absurd as enlightenment is recognizing the present moment for what it is. It sure wouldn't be a path helpful to enlightenment but this is still ego trying to view it's own present moment as "unenlightenable" as a defense mechanism by first theorizing about a present moment which would be like that.

How does absolutely nothing even talk? "It doesn't even talk, it appears as a talker" but then that just goes to the 3rd point. Fair enough pointing out the idea that a mind has an ability to create dualities is my idea. But I don't see how nothingness appear as separate. How does even anything appear? If I asked "how does this view of the mountain appear?" someone would say "actually this view of the moutain is precisely absolutely nothing seen as multiple things (the mountains, the trees, the clouds, the sky) because you distinguish between those things with dualities". But then how do those thoughts or dualities appear? If you use the same explanation, it just adds more appearance of thoughts to explain other apperance and that never ends. I do get that this present moment is all there is and it's absolutely nothing. But it sure appears as if I'm dreaming, having a life, talking, typing on this keyboard. What is the trick used to make this dream with absolutely nothing? If I have dualities, I can redefine what nothing and something are and materialize anything in this nothingness. But to do that I need dualities. How do I make them appear in the first place?

OK I understood that dualities or distinctions are content (you call them appearance). Whether I identify with them is also a thought, which is also just an appearance. If both what I see and what I think of what I see are consciousness and precisely what nothing is, it's like saying "nothing exactly is this landscape with the dualities". I am precisely nothing, observing myself, which is also nothing but appears some sort of consciousness bubble containing a field of view feelings for vibrations in the air (sound) other feelings thoughts (dualities) How does absolute nothingness appears as all of these things? Through dualities. But dualities are also nothing. "Dualities" are a separation I'm making within consciousness. I just don't see how consciousness or absolute nothingness can separate itself. I am aware that absolute nothingness is not the nothingness I've been taught (the empty space), absolute nothingness includes both the empty space and the non empty space. You can say "nothingness cannot separate itself" but that's just shifting the goal post. Nothingness either separate itself or appears as separate, otherwise there would be no dream. How does it appear as separate when it's not? I am not able to equate absolute nothingness to an infinite mind. To me a mind is a duality machine, it processes information. In the case of the biological brain, for it's survival. In AI, we can train neural network to classify information (literally the same as dualities). When it comes to absolutely nothing, I would think that absolutely nothing = no mind. I don't see how there is appearances of duality (or of anything) in the first place. I see that with a duality machine (mind) anything can be made since all things are dualities. But I don't see how absolute nothingness in itself has this ability to subdivide or make dual. This leads me to think that this "ability to make dual" is a property of the body and therefore the body is real and if it dies I'll lose that ability forever. It probably sounds ridiculous to you, but I don't see it.

It's difficult to assess whether the psychedelic causes tension or just make you notice how tense you are. Feeling tension doesn't necessarily mean the psychedelic is the source of it. Like Leo LSD also makes me feel more tension in my body but LSD seems to puts more of my focus on feeling and seeing in general while 4-AcO-DMT puts more of my focus on paradoxes, thinking and "intellectual phenomena". I would bet that the tension I felt on LSD was just how tense I was at the moment as none of it was experienced after awakening on it. At least that all sounds similar to the 4-AcO-DMT headaches I used to have, which turned out to be caused by thought and not by the substance itself. I had 5-MeO-DMT trips which made my heart go very fast but then I would say it's most likely me being scared than the psychedelic doing that. After all psychedelics affect neuro transmitters. I don't even believe the idea of the "gut tripping" which make you more prone to vomitting. I think vomitting on psychedelic is also based on stress and fear and not the substance itself.

Yes. When you were a baby you had no strenghs other than crying and whining all day. As time passed your parents did stuff with you which developed your abilities. You might have done a lot of one thing and thought "I'm very good at that, that's one of my strength" but it only became one of your strength because you did it a lot.

In my personal experience, shame is what is felt when thinking one's personal value or worth is low or nonexistent. Personal value is something a lot of people worry about as it's one of the most important aspect of our social survival. While the one who feels guilt highly regrets what he has done, the one feeling shame thinks they are worthless because of it (or because of something else). A commonly accepted belief in society is that the value of men is defined by their ability to do things and the value of women is defined by their body or appearance. Both are false and just beliefs, but those things are pushed onto us from quite a young age. It has to be seen however that the concept of value is relative to a self or someone getting "something" out of the thing that is being e-valuated. There is no such thing as "intrinsic value", the value of something depends entirely on someone giving it value or not. Does this rock have value? I don't know, what can I do with it? Even gold has no intrinsic value, for gold to have value there needs to be humans valuing it. The idea of people having value is already quite funny, unless you are Machiavelli, as we rarely thing of people as objects with uses. One may be afraid of being thought as low value by someone else, by their family or by society. I find that none of those fears actually improve the idea others have of you and there is absolutely no reason to live life out of fear of what other people or society think of you. The truth is there is no such thing as value, whether something is valuable or not is a duality we make. This is your life and if you live it without fears or insecurity about your personal value to others, it's quite likely people will value you naturally. Transcending shame is as simple as stopping to assign yourself a value although it's not something you can do intellectually or with discourse. The self-value assessment has to be recognized directly as a mind process so it can be put to an end. This is my personal experience with it: When I was a kid (3 yo) my dad got separated from my mom and for a time we spent a lot of time together. I felt very valued as a person and had all of his attention. Then as my dad was dating someone else, he stopped giving me as much attention and I started to wonder what was wrong with me. After a while, I thought I wasn't as much valuable (to him) since he didn't care as much about me or give me as much of his attention. This lead me to believe I had some hidden reason to be ashamed and feeling ashamed became my new "normal". I only noticed this dynamic after doing spiritual practices 18 years later.

I did watch that first video several times over my last 5 years of productivity struggle. As for my life purpose, I'm quite clear on it. Good planning and setting a right mindset goes a long way but it's nothing like staying present. Thanks for the help still, I'll go get some shit done now.

What do you suggest exactly? More meditation? I mean I've already done it and it literally does. There is no problem to solve in the end, just situations to stop imagining as problems. It's not like I literally work while tripping, but after taking a substance I no longer identify with a "self that do not want to work" or a "self that is lazy" for 3-4 days.

I want productivity so I can pay my rent. I very rarely have any productivity when lost in thought. I'm working on my own business so I got no manager to kick my ass if I'm not productive. This always puts productivity into question and whether or not it will be present on a certain day. I'm making an indie game and trying to turn it into a source of revenue. I have a limited time until which I will have to get a job to pay for my living expenses. It either works or not and I don't mind the outcome, but seeing myself not giving my best in achieving my dream is excruciating. I wake up with the very strong desire and expectation to have a great day and actually do something, but then anything goes wrong becomes a spiral of doom and I find it difficult to get out of those spirals without psychedelics. I can accept the fact that financial stability is a priviledge that I don't have and none of the lifestyle itself causes me pain or trouble. But I highly struggle accepting a "self that is not productive" because I know it's untrue and totally unnecessary pain. It's so ridiculous and pathetic to fall for the same traps everyday and suffering my own action for no reason whatsoever. To make it I need to be more present than once every 2 weeks. I don't need god consciousness everyday but I need a base level of consciousness to avoid falling for unproductive thoughts. At this point I've been tripping on shrooms or LSD for every week or two for more than a year now and it sure helps being more present on the days around the trip but on the other days, it doesn't change much. I see how my life situation is unique and not everyone cares as much to be present all the time. At least in my case, it's a bit like a tease. I always have the 5-MeO-DMT option though. I struggle with this option because of how psychedelic dependent that makes me in the end (and also the fact you need to stop eating for 4 hours or risk choking in your own vomit thing). I theorically could take 5 MeO every 3 days to try and fill the gaps but that sounds like a bigger struggle. Being able to maintain presence sober is definitely the way to go for me.