4201

Generally psychedelics aren't specifically made for a particular topic. Rather psychedelics will open your mind and help you introspect any topic you want, including self-love. Yes you would benefit from meditating on LSD or shrooms. Keep in mind MDMA isn't a psychedelics and has possibility for brain damage.

I was only responding to the claim that "culture is completely backwards" with the argument that culture/society is just the way it is and your relative notion of "how we should behave" is what leads to such conclusion, not culture/society itself.

When it comes to children the social contract isn't breached with the children but with their parents, who have the rights not their children to get raped. If nobody was the close family of children then no one would care to defend them. But it turns out children are like the most precious things to their parents, so no one would tolerate anything done to them. The way you define harm is entirely subjective to you. Whether a biological organism is conscious or has an experience is entirely up to interpretation and any way of measuring "suffering" accross different organisms depends on how you equate the suffering accross those organisms (suffering of a mosquito vs human). Don't fool yourself into thinking your take on harm has anything objective to it. What is acceptable or not in a society is entirely defined by the self bias of those individuals in that society. Any concept of morality or "harm" added on top of it is distraction from understanding the system beneath it. Hence your idea that it's "backward" when it's not. That's just how a society of humans works.

I agree with @The0Self, wait 7 days and take a larger dose, you'll have an amazing trip! I have read no scientific literature that would support tolerance being dose-dependent.

Of course it makes no sense to analyze behavior of humans under the idea that humans look to minimize suffering. The illegality and negative social stigma of murder, rape and pedophilia is not rooted in a "desire for less suffering" but simply in self-bias. Wanna make a deal? I don't kill you, you don't kill me. I don't rape your children, you don't rape mine. This is basically the social contract that defines our laws and "what is OK" in our society. The reason we don't do the same with tigers or other animals is that they can't conceptualize a social contract or promise to follow it. They just can't understand the deal. To try to evaluate culture on an "objective sense" however is deeply misguided. It's backwards according to your ideas of morality perhaps, but the society of humans with their self-bias is just "itself", it's not "backward". That being a meat eater causes "more harm" than raping children is an idea rooted in some quantification of harm based on your notion of harm. In practice the average human being benefits more from pedophilia being banned and deeply unacceptable as protecting their own children is an interest humans have much more than avoiding the suffering of animals.

Basically, don't try to do anything while feeling bad. If you find yourself resisting, sit down and be aware of the feelings in your body and keep your focus on them until you feel good. In my experience, attempts to feel good some other way do not turn out very well. "Oh I'm feeling bad right now... What could I do? Let me play some video games, that would feel good! ... 4 hours later, now I feel REALLY bad..." The idea that things can make us feel good is a misconception, the only way to feel good is to feel. So there is no difference between prioritizing feeling and prioritizing feeling good. That's great, definitely a habit you want to keep! When it comes to productivity though, you really need to apply the technique at the moment resistance happens as well.

Notice right now that you are coming in with the idea that "you have a resistance problem" and you are looking for a solution or tips to help fix it. But the "problem" with these types of problems (self referencial problems) is that it's not actually true. You don't "have" a resistance problem or a lot of resistance, it's just a thought, an idea. This idea, "that you have a resistance problem" feels bad, precisely because it is not true, a misconception. Even if it's not true however, you can do your best to make it true (if you really believe it) by simply perpetuating the problem in your behavior. It doesn't make it any more true. Even if you are out there fully convinced you have this resistance problem and thus resisting to what you want to do, it doesn't change what you are and what you can do. In reality, you are free to act with or without resistance. By looking for a solution to "fix" yourself or this problem, you are implying that this problem actually exists when in reality it does not. The problem is simply imagined, in your head, as some idea that feels bad. The reason that person you mentionned tells you to feel good first is to get rid of any idea like this that would generate blockage or resistance. If you feel good, you aren't believing false things about yourself and your productivity. Thus, if you want to maximize doing of any form, you should always prioritize feeling. By doing this, absolutely nothing can block you from what you want. The best way to get in touch with feeling on a regular basis is to use mediation.

Practice what you want to be better at directly. Trying to improve your "intelligence" to be better at something is a distraction from practicing that something. You do not need any conceptualization of intelligence (SD, IQ, Personallity types, etc.) to practice what you want to become better at. If you are practicing that thing already and you aren't finding the results you are looking for, consider introspecting what is going on with your practice. How much time do you spend that is actually beneficial? Can you minimize time wasted in your practice?

If you understand the concept behind non-duality, do you see that "being happy" vs "not being happy" is a duality you create? If you stop creating dualities, how could you be unhappy? You need duality to be unhappy, or to "not get it" or to define yourself in whichever way you want to define yourself right now.

In the absolute yes, in the relative where I'm stuck most of the time there is. Likewise, what's the point of the dreamboard if not to help someone stuck in the relative? Honestly no, I don't think they are exclusive and in no way I'm saying "no to feeling" and taking understanding for it. I personally find value and pleasure in understanding how things work on a materialistic level, even if that's not necessary. I don't have the understanding I'm looking for at the moment, but I still meditate, I still feel. I think it would be helpful but in no way not having it prevents me from anything I could previously do. I believe getting that understanding would help me personally and no argument for "feeling" really discredit any argument for understanding. Why assume they are mutually exclusive? Merry Christmas btw @Nahm @mandyjw!

Yes, ideas about meditation are not meditation. But if you want to convince someone to meditate, all you can use is ideas about meditation. Wouldn't the most accurate understanding of meditation be the best to convince someone (or a self) to meditate?

Not sure what you are referring to here. Are you saying not settling on one particular technique of meditation is "a relentless molestation of meditation"?

Let it be clear that while this post (and my forum usage in general) could be a distraction from feeling, I'm not saying here that I can't go back to feeling or that I'm not the prodigal son. I'm simply interested in a deeper understanding of feeling or feeling response without implying I need that understanding. I agree about everything you say here about how the feeling response works. It responds to thoughts, it either hurts or not. Is this feeling response biological or conceptual in nature? This is more or less what I'm interested in. I know it will always work either way and I know about the traps of misinterpreting that feeling response to perpetuate a cycle of pain. "The way home is to feel." Recognize that this is an interpretation, a way to look at how feeling works. It implies that there is such a thing as a feeling response and that it works. (Whether that feeling response is biological in nature or not). I'm not saying it isn't true but it feels shallow as an understanding. All it says it that "feeling works" but why? how? Next time you happen to doubt feeling (happens every day for me), what is going to hold you back? This very surface level idea that "feeling is the way home and that's it". Perhaps like me you've been trying to beat this idea into your head that "feeling works", "following feeling leads to happiness" or "feeling guides". But in my case, beating ideas into my head doesn't work and all it does is create this notion of "what I should do" vs what I am doing, creating a lot of guilt and shame for not feeling. I know that personally at least, understanding why and how something works is a big driver of motivation for me. When I was a kid my parents were telling me not to put the cutting boards in the dishwasher. Yet I wouldn't listen or even remember or think about it, since I didn't understand why I was supposed to not put cutting boards in the dish washer. When I learned that it damages the wood and can make it crack though, I didn't need to be told again. If I receive some random meaningless command from someone, the chances of me doing it are pretty low. But if I understand why that was asked and what's the issue behind it, chances of me doing it are pretty high. Feeling works, ok, but how and why? "Idk, it just works". To me when I'm in a state of doubt, this idea that "I should feel" is just some meaningless command, which come with absolutely no justification of why I should do it. It isn't sufficient for me to have demonstrated that feeling-response work, I want to understand the mechanism behind it. Even if there's no mechanism and feeling-response are "made out of nothing", I want to see how that works too. I think it'd be bullshitting hard to say that feeling can't be justified logically. (Not that this justification is necessary, just pleasant to have). After all I have justified Mediation from entirely a biological and logical standpoint. I don't see why it couldn't be done for feeling, especially if the feeling-response is a biological reaction of the body to what the brain is thinking (many teachers explain it this way, not that I believe this is exactly how this is happening biologically). I mean if you are looking for ketchup and you find ketchup it's bound to satisfy you to some amount, even if temporary. I'm on no way saying that this understanding replaces feeling, it just serves to reinforce the motivation toward feeling in situation of doubt. Indeed Isn't the duality between what you see and what you feel a duality you create? (And what you hear, touch, etc.) You interpret this as "the stuff you see" and feeling as the stuff you feel. Even if the feeling doesn't say "good or bad", it's existence implies "nah dude" as you said which is divided from "yes dude". Even if the yes/no is interpreted/added onto the feeling, the mere existence of that feeling at some location in the body is dualistic. But then if all we receive in consciousness is the feeling at some location in the body then it's a biological process that evaluates our thoughts, not the mind directly. This feeling-response or body-reaction is thus then biological and within a materialistic paradigm (belief of a body) you can't control the functioning of the feeling-response. If that's the case then I should be able to find my proof through the study of neuroscience and the human body. If that's not the case (and feeling-response is conceptual) then I should be able to find my proof through the study of neural networks on a theorical level. YES. I want the "how" of feeling-response. Awareness of creation is cool and all but neither is a replacement for the other. Yes I agree that feeling indicates self-identification. My "knowledge" of the good IS meditation/feeling. (What I should do) Yet all it takes is one bad identification to deny that. I've been doing meditation for a while and I can tell it works. But the situations in which I get stuck implies not getting off of the computer, not doing meditation, not feeling. I know that when I'm "stuck" meditation always works but it's a matter of actually doing it. I could perhaps make meditation a bit more serious as right now I'm not really following a technique. I just breathe and focus entirely on my breathing. Eyes open, eyes close? Doesn't matter. Sometimes I try more to focus on my body or be aware of thought, but rarely I ever "officially decide" I'm doing one form of meditation over another and perhaps this lack of definitiveness hurts. But IMO meditation is going great, I should just be doing more. I have a dreamboard although I don't feel particularly passionate about my dreams lately as the focus is to pay my rent.

Fair enough but "under" this thought of recognition there's a thought of identification. "THIS is a cardinal" is a very "visual" identification of a piece of your field of view and is a thought. Likewise that there's a bad feeling is an identification of "how" is a feeling even before it is recognized/conceptualized into language. Isn't saying the a feeling response is bad a thought? (A way to see/interpret the "feeling response"). In the absolute, wouldn't the feeling response be uncharacterizable, since any characterization or property of the feeling response is thought? Is there even really such a thing as a "feeling response"? Or is it just idea about feeling that changes? Certainly, having a solid conceptual understanding of feeling in a mind-body system is not required to follow feeling. But I'm personally curious in what makes feeling "work". As I doubt feeling again and again, what is it that makes feeling failproof? To me, this idea that "feeling guides" or "feeling is a quality validator for thought" is basically hearsay. It feels nice to say indeed and I said it myself in the past, it's a nice way to look at feeling, but what really makes it true absolutely? My initial reasoning was that I was interested in this to doubt feeling less often. You may say that this is just a way in which I am doubting feeling right now (which would be fair enough) but my curiosity is picked now and I actually want to understand feeling, not just being told that "it works" or "it guides" without understanding why it does so. How could anything be misaligned with awareness or the now? How could anything be misaligned with absolute infinity? It's like saying absolute infinity has preference on what "aligns with it" or "not". If it did, it wouldn't be absolute anymore. Thought of a self not being sane. One could argue any thought about the self is insane to some relative level. Those are the thoughts that block, prevent, limit us. I can see how judging a thought of the past is different than feeling whether a thought is good or bad right now. This difference is what I'm curious about here. Whether a thought is good or bad right now is still dualistic yet it doesn't seem like something I'm giving my opinion about (unlike the 2 other categories you mentionned).

But isn't "me" and "what I desire" just identifications and thus could be literally anything?

Do you recognize that "I suck" and "this feeling is bad" are separate ideas? Or are they the same? The first is a thought and the second is an opinion of the first thought, a thought about the first thought. Fair enough, there's no good and bad feelings it's just my own opinion. But then who is having that opinion, "me"? The higher self is absolute an has no opinion while the "regular self" may be literally anything that was identified with. How can feeling guide you out of identification if whether a feeling is good or bad is a matter of that same identification? If somehow someone were to identify with liking insanity, would insane thoughts be judged as "good"?

Yes, but why does most thoughts have a feeling associated to it when the thought isn't itself about feeling? "Being mad at an asshole" is not a thought about feeling, it's just a thought. Why does it feel? Doesn't it mean there's also a secondary thought, which is about feeling, associated to the first thought? (Otherwise there would be no interpretation of feeling) Alternatively, why can't I think negative things without feeling bad? Isn't the idea of a feeling "being bad" a totally different idea from the thoughts about other things?

OK that's indeed what makes the most sense. But then feeling is only bad when it is thought to be bad. But how does a totally unrelated thought also feel bad? If I think "I hate that person" it will feel bad. But how does lead to an interpretation of feeling as "bad"? Does that mean for every thought I have I actually have 2? A "normal thought" and an interpretation of feeling?

Tbh, I was closer to enlightenment before I had learned about dualities Learn about dualities, just to learn there's absolutely no such thing as a duality...

If that duality is "baked into the body" then I'm quite curious about the biology of it. What part of the body judges the thought the brain has? Do you have a part of the brain which "you" can't access that is there only to judge the quality of your thoughts? This feels rather weird, it feels to me imo that it's more likely a trick the mind is playing on itself.

Hunger is interpretation on top of stomach sensation. This interpretation is instinctive (learn pre birth). That hunger is bad is indeed an interpretation coming from survival. You could indeed let go of this idea that hunger is bad and contemplate the hunger (in fasting). But you are right in saying that feeling bad is suffering, which in turn is thought. So in a sense there is absolutely no such thing as feeling bad, this is just an interpretation of feeling which in itself is absolutely not prescriptive and non dualistic. But then if that's the case, how can feeling guide if it is absolutely not prescriptive? Does every bad thought come with a secondary thought which is saying "this feeling is bad"? We know "this feeling is bad" is a thought but also it's bad because of another thought which is false. None of this makes much sense. Feeling can only be dualistic through interpretation and if it's non-dualistic, how could it guide?

No, I'm looking for a more absolute understanding of feeling, while still acknowledging that the relative context of the body. Is the good/bad duality of feeling "baked" into the body or is it a trick I'm playing on myself and actually part of the mind? I feel like this way of looking at feeling is relative and dualistic despite being relatively useful as a pointer. You still are creating a "off track"/"on track" duality. I'm not saying I don't agree with this and this is the starting point of my contemplation, but despite this working in practice it still feels like a belief because it comes with judgement of thoughts that are "in accordance to a higher self" or "not".

This implies that there is a "harmony" vs "disharmony" duality which is "not a concept" which is basically saying you have a duality "built-in" into your system you don't have access to. I'm aware that "feeling works" and in no way this post prevents me from "functioning with feeling". (I know how to create harmony). But I'm curious how feeling works on a basic level and I can't get myself to accept such an explanation of feeling that implies an absolute good or bad, harmony or not, etc. (the word doesn't matter at all, you can switch it, the question remains the same). I know all of that, what you present here is the assumption or understanding I'm coming from in the first place. Yet it doesn't explain what the good/bad or make you sleep/not duality is coming from.

If you are interesting in finding the truth about a particular topic, I recommend using scientific literature instead of the "media". Not that you should "trust" the people in academia but that those publications are proved using some sort of data you can access. This means you can reproduce the experiment or calculations for yourself rather than having to trust anyone. While medias are controlled by corporations, there is no restrictions on who can publish a scientific paper. A peer review system exists but isn't funded by a central organisation, it's scientists double checking each other's work to make sure there is no mistake. If you want to deny the efficacy of the vaccine, I won't go there with you. You are deeply misinformed and unwilling to look at scientific evidence which is entirely based on numbers which as previously mentionned would be nearly impossible to manipulate without huge backlash. If the democrats were manipulating the numbers, you can be sure you would hear every conservative cry about it for years until reelection. Meanwhile, what would the conservative gain from conspiring with the democrats? Your seem to view the government + big corporations + medias as one big entity with some sort of "will" and this is a failure to understand how it works as a system. Society is composed of many actors each acting in their own interests. While cigarette compagnies (just like most other compagnies) want to make money meanwhile the political party in power tries to please both the population and the corporations that fund their party to stay in power and the political party that is not in power is trying to grab power. Big medias try to make you believe whatever benefit their owners. If you want to think of a conspiracy between all those actors, you have to justify why each of them would participate into it. Why would the republican party not capitalize on such a fraud to push BIden out of office if it was happening? Why would millions of scientists lie about this, what's in it for them? The way you see everything you don't understand as one big entity with malicious intention fails to take into account all those factors. I recommend you watch Leo's video on system's thinking. No power is gained by either political party or corporations by mandating a vaccine. It doesn't make Biden more likely to be relected, this is not how political power works.

Do you understand what a conspiracy is? Let go of the negative emotion associated to the word. We don't care about that (the label). By talking about government manipulating numbers you are implying governments and compagnies as well as all universities (everyone who work in medcine) are actively conspiring against you. Such a massive operation would be extremely difficult in term of logistics (how do you get literally everyone working in science to shut up, not everyone can be bought with money) and there's literally no evidence of that going on. If that was happening there would be undisputable, evidence or proof of it happening.