zurew

So we have to put this perspective above the other ones? You are trying to suggest here that every perspective has an element of truth in them. Thats why you don't dismiss any perspective, and then trying to make your model of reality and yourself from your sober state. Making a model of reality won't work to get the full picture. You are trying play a puzzle game, as if reality was a puzzle. Trying to find its pieces and then trying to make a model using those pieces. Those pieces will be finite, so it will give you a finite model about reality and about yourself.

So you are trying to suggest here, that all perspectives are having the same level of truth in them? All perspectives are equally True? Notice from what state you are saying that. You are using you sober state for that. So ultimately you are placing more value on your sober state. WIth Using your sober state you are trying to makes sense of all the states and trying to judge them and figure them out.

How did u come to the conclusion that neither of those are true? So you are suggesting that the sober state is infinite and the psychedelic state is finite. Explain that, because that doesn't make much sense to me. Truth: knowing what you actually are. We can start with that. Why do you place more value on your sober state compared to a psychedelic state? You are trying to call others out on placing more value on a psychedelic state but at the same time you are doing the same with sober state. That seemingness and doubt coming from a sober state. You are clearly playing the hierarchy game and the same time telling yourself ,that you are not. All your logic and reason flies out the window, once you change radically your state. Again, you are trying to wrap this all up in logic, assuming you can. You haven't tried any serious psychedelic, and at the same time you are saying from your sober state, that this and that in your opinion can't be known. If you are serious enough you should try different approaches out. The very 'i don't know if i can know what actually i am' notion is coming from this sober state. Again you are placing more value on this one, compared to the other ones. All your tools that you are using are in wrapped in this state (your logic, using reason etc). But at the same time you are trying to tell yourself, that you don't put more value on this state than on the other ones. Have you questioned ever, that 'reality is unknowable' or that 'I am unknowable' ? Asking again because you have dodged it twice now: How can you know, that 'I am unknowable' or that 'reality is unknowable'? On what basis you are saying that? Whatever base you are using for that, that is at the top of your truth hierarchy.

Yeah, i have heard about that one too, it is an interesting one. Thank you for your detailed explanations and answers, and for your time!

Trying to put everything into a box or into a framework, even experience itself. Trying to makes sense of anything , just by doing the sensemaking itself is reductionistic. Thats why i think that becoming the experience itself is the deepest you can go. Trying to makes sense of the existential nature of life, by using a set of metrics or by trying to make sense of it as an observer or as an outsider will always create a 'wall' between you and that particular thing which you want to make sense of. The closest you can get to the nature of reality, is by becoming reality. Thats the only way you can know something existentially, every other way will just only see parts of reality.So if we use this logic, only by becoming infinite and then self-reflecting makes sense, if you try to find out what reality is as a finite self, you will only discover parts and not the whole, because as a finite self you have your own biases and limitations. Just by becoming infinite you can realise what reality really is. Why is that? Because if you want to make sense of reality as a finite self, you will have some biases that will distort reality, and you will only see parts of it.By becoming infinite you don't have any bias, you can clearly see reality as it is. Now i am going to ask you more questions to inquire further, you don't have to answer them if you don't want to. Do you think, that every perspective has only a part of truth in it? Or do you think that Truth cannot be known? If you go with the first one, the problem will be, that even this perspective, that 'every perspective has only a part of truth in it' will have only a part of truth in it if you want to make it to be true. If you want to go with the second one, the question is, how do you know, that Truth cannot be known? Or if you want to go with neither, then where do you want to go exactly, what is your stance? What is exactly that make you think that you are more of a human rather than God? Whatever method or exercise you are using to get to the conclusion that you are a human, you place that exercise/method above other ones, why is that? It seems like, you are using a hierarchy here. You don't treat this problem as if every perspective would have the same level of truth in it. Thats good, nothing wrong with that, i am doing the same, i am just arriving at a different place. Whatever at the top of your Truth hierarchy, the real question is why do you place that particular thing there, what makes it more trustable compared to the other ones?

Would you say, that a bare minimum IQ is required for almost any job, or thats a wrong argument? The reason why i ask, because i have read about it somewhere, and i am curious, because you seem to know a lot about this. I mean, if you know exactly what is required for that particular job, you can construct a set of metrics, and that can be used and that can somewhat automatize the hiring process or it can reveal some important stuff ,for that special job. Of course the whole process shouldn't be automatized. Testing with certain kind of Intelligent metrics lets be it IQ or EQ or something other can be useful. That does not mean though, that it can show overall how intelligent you are, because its all depends on the context, and on what you want to do. So given the necessary context, Intelligent metrics can be utilized. If we are specifically talking about an overall intelligence of a human, then i am agreeing with you ,that only using IQ for it, is really dumb. Yeah, i am sure there is much more to intelligence, than just IQ, there is no agrument there. It would be interesting, if we could make a set of metrics that could could reveal the geniuses and the outside of the box thinkers. Maybe assuming it can be done with a set of metrics is dumb in an of itself, because its too reductionistic, and there are things that can't be put in a box, but maybe there could be something, if enough number of metrics is used.

Do you think that IQ tests at work can have some relevance, or do you think that these IQ tests are completely stupid? What would you measure for or what set of metrics would you use, if you wanted to hire someone, and if you wanted to use an automatic approach to see how capable that particular person is for the job . Of course every automatic approach will be somewhat reductive, but if you have a big company, maybe it is a good move to use something automatic.

Its not necessarily that 'he doesn't have the intrinsic understanding of the subject'. For example If you can't articulate enlightenment well, then it automatically means that you don't know what enlightenment is? We socially created these beliefs, and dynamics where we are attracted to people and believe people more if they are confident in what they are saying, and if they can reason well. Reasoning is mostly used in a social context, of course you can debate with yourself, but most of the time reasoning is used the defend ideas and ideologies. Just because you can reason well why materialism is true, that doesn not mean that it is the case. Being able to reason well doesn't necessarily mean that you know what you are talking about. Just because you can't reason well or can't articulate something well, doesn't automatically mean that you don't know that particular thing.Especially if we are talking about intuitive knowing. Can you articulate me well, how color blue looks like if i have never seen it in my entire life? If you can't, does that automatically mean, that you don't know the concept of color blue?

IQ can be good to get a sense about certain kinds of things. A certain amount of IQ is required for every job, because if you don't have the bare minimum amount, you basically incapable of doing certain things and you can't really learn effectively. Once the bare minimum is reached, then after that it can be argued, that it doesn't have that much significance for a normal person. If you want to go to the academic field, or if you want to do a certain kind of job, then yes you will need to have a higher amount. But looking at it in a broader sense, it is just one intelligence measure from the many. But just as with anything, you need a certain amount of it, to be able to be more effective at anything. It is very unintelligent in my opinion, to only use IQ tests to figure out how intelligent a person is. Here you can see other kinds of intelligences. But even this is limited.

@LostStudent If you don't think ,that it is has bad consequences for your life, then do it as much as you want. But as @aurum said, experiment with it. See if doing less or more can change how you feel about yourself, and about your life.

In my opinion, this is more like a subtle presence detection. Its like you mostly use your 5 senses, but there are more, and maybe unconsciously one of your other senses opened up, and you got a peek into something, what you have never experienced before.

What is the difference between framing manifestation this way vs setting a goal and making the necessary steps to achieve it? Maybe that, with manifestation or with the LOA you don't necessarily need to know the between steps to get to the end? Because thats sounds practical in an of itself. Thank you for your detailed explanations, they are very helpful to understand this 'problem' from a different angle.

My understanding is that not necessarily a thought or thoughts, but the very act of observing something can have its on effect on the quantum world. For example, i don't know if you are familiar with the double slit experiment. It was a relatively old experiment, where they realised, or found out, the very act of observing a particle has a dramatic effect on its behaviour. Maybe you are right and thoughts have their own effects on the quantum world as well. My only problem is with the delayation. Basically i wouldn't be sure if i have actually manifested that particular thing, or it was a coincidence. But i am open minded, and maybe a more tangible model could be constructed about manifestation. Maybe, with a lot of experimentation some model could be made about it and some hypothesis could be made as well(assuming there is an observable pattern to it). I think assuming, that there is a pattern to it could be good, because if there is one, then that means we can find it. If there isn't one and this assumption is false, then so be it. Most of the time assuming that everything can be grounded in a scientific framework and methods is not good. Because it closes down reality pretty much. We make a mistake that our model of the world is the world. But in this particular case, it might be acceptable to try to search for a pattern or something tangible. This sounds very similar to what i have heard about the law of attraction. Basically, yeah the LOA and manifesting something from thin air is kind of similar. So the more vivid i can imagine something and the more emotion i can give that particular picture the stronger it becomes, and eventually it will be manifested. Yeah, maybe i am overthinking this. Maybe, the more insight and knowledge we have about physics and quantum physics the more conventional 'manifestation method' can be created. This is kind of like a big dilemma, if for example i want a gold ring, should i try to manifest it from thin air by concentration, or should i just try to build some skills and get a well paying job, and then buy that ring. The second option in this case the more rational one, and it seems much more plausible that it can be done. However, that does not mean that the first one isn't a possibility. In my opinion, manifestation from thin air can be a good choice, if that particular thing can't be easily created or can't be created at all with a conventional method.

Have you confirmed any of the red pill theories yourself, or you just took it for granted and now you are defending it?

If we are talking about equal rights and opportunity through all genders, why not? It is a net benefit for society.

Here is a video where he talks about the 'alien' subject in more depth if anyone interested.

Now, this is gonna be an interesting one Lmao, good share!

This is a good point, there is so much distorting with using right angles, using great lighting, using filters, using photoshop etc. And yes, many instagram models are using steroids or things that are close to steroids. Thats in their best interest, to use a lot of tools to look a lot better on their pictures, especially if they have an additional business besides being an IG model(for example having a unique protein powder brand , or creatine brand or owning a unique cloth brand.

Was it the raw data, that lead you to this conclusion, or you had to use your own filter(s) to arrive here? You can't do anything with raw data, if you arrive at any conclusion in that case we are talking about filtering( interpretation, using unconsious biases, using focus to only see parts of the data) So at the end of the day, whatever you use as your basis, which you can use to justify statements like: Its unknowable I am unkowable or similar statements, that basis will be unjustified. It will be circular, just as anything, just be aware that you always use such basis (to make sense of the world, and yourself) that are unjustified. There will be a reason which will require another reason to back it up. Even this can show you the nature of reality and language. It kind of hinting that something that is the nature of reality, maybe isn't dual but more likely nondual. I wanted to ask you the question, that have had any awakening experiences or deep psychedelic trips? If you haven't do you think its fair to judge something from lower? In my vocabulary 'lower judgement' means, when you haven't tried that particular service/activity but you make judgements and assumptions about it. One last question about this: Do you think its effective to try to ground something that is ungrounded? (or it call be phrased that it is the ground itself) The need for grounding everything is in an of itself questionable.

Who is more likely to aim "lower" though? ( financially wise, lifestyle wise, social status wise etc) The gatekeepers most of the time are woman. So this higher standard thing, hurts the man side more than the woman side. Does that mean that woman should lower their standards? I don't think so, it just good to understand both side. Who has more options a man or a women? I think the answer for this will clearly show the getting laid aspect, of course it can be argued that woman have a harder time finding a good long-lasting realtionship.

Maybe there isn't or maybe there is. . But then again, how did u end up with this conclusion, that this problem cannot be solved? You used your human state, and your rational mind, so you trust both of those, instead of the potentially right God-state. You are saying, that you don't know, but at the same time, you trust your rational-mind, and human state to be able to use those in a way where you can make a proper judgement about the God question. I think you could even question logic itself, or questioning itself, could any of those lead us to the Truth? In my opinion or understanding there is 2 way of knowing. The first one is the one where you can rationally understand something, you can reason your way to find some answers for your questions There is the second way of knowing, which we can call intuitive-knowing. Intuitive-knowing for example, when you argue with someone, and you can clearly see this other person's body-language, his tone of words, his facial expressions and so on. But without contemplating deeply about it, you can instantly know if that person is angry or not, without going through the list i mentioned above. Sort of inutitive knowing is how you use your hand. You don't need to reason you way from all the beginning to be able to grab something you want to. It would be really hard to give a step by step formula for a computer how it can bend its fingers, and in what way, when it needs to bend its fingers, what does bending its fingers even mean and so on. When you do a psychedelic trip, or when you get some insights from doing yoga or meditation,it seems like you are getting those insights from intuitive knowing. You know something, you feel that you are knowing something deeply, but you not necessarily can reason your way to the consclusion, what you gathered from a trip. You could argue, that there are some cases, where this 'intuitive-knowing' looks like it gives you incorrect insights. It might, or it might be the case, that you are getting correct knowledge, but your rational mind can't know how to handle it. I think it could be beneficial to sometimes make this distinction between the two way of knowing. Now you can freely decide what you want to make of this, or which one you want to use more, or to trust more.

Yes, i agree with this to a degree. However, in the "God-state" or whatever we want to call it, there is no one to question anything, you are Absolute. You could argue, that thats another story that is highly prone to delusions. I think there need to be a method or a set of methods, that you can accept as granted, to discover something. (this all required for this state).But even if you don't go there, you can ask the question right now, what do you know about yourself, what do you think you actually are? Probably the answer that will pop up in your mind will be that you are a human being etc etc. Lets change your brain chemistry and see how your sense of self will change. Now, if we are really trying to seem objective, from this subjective experience (thats problematic to pharase it this way, but lets go with it for now), you only know that okay i am something that can examine itself, but i don't really know what i am. If i really radically change my brain chemistry, the very core belief that i am a human being can fade away.Soo, what am i really? So you start to change your states more and more,and then you discover the so called 'God-state'. In this state it seems like that you are infinite, you are Everything, and you are Absolute. It seems like, that in the God-state you can have a better understanding about the world and about yourself. I can use a more practical example. If i have a 2d coordinate system and i have 4 points on it, i can make sense of the points but only in a really limited way, because that particular coodinate system is only 2d. But if i were to use a 5-10 or 40d coordinate system (where we use an AI to make sense of some data) and we put that 4 points on that 40 dimensional coordinate system, in that case, i have no chance of understanding the data there, but AI has the ability to use its higher dimensional perspective and ability to make sense of the data. You could argue, thats not whats going on in the real world and framing it this way a little bit silly, i agree, but lets just go with it for a second. Now in the God case, we can put our Data on an infinite dimensional coordinate system, and make sense our data that way. It seems much more effective and precise, compared to the 2d coordinate system. So as we can see, we can look at the same data, and we can make better sense of that data, if we change our perspectives. So my argument would be, that not every perspective is equally correct or true.

Yes, this is also true. But i think there is some theory, that can be beneficial though. For example generally speaking what a woman is attracted to, how a woman mind's work, and how they think about men. With the necessary theory and with real world practice combined, even incels can get better success rate.

To be extremely clear about it, i didn't mean God but that you can dismiss that you are God, people do it all the time, so there you go. Now you can engage with the arguments that i have made.

Depends on the definition of God. You can get caught up on words, and dismiss the rest of the argument,thats all easy. Getting engaged with the content,rather then dismissing the structure, is harder.