Nilsi

Hey, i just had an interesting insight about understanding and the nature of reality and im not really sure whqt to make of it but i thought it might be of value to share it (and certainly to write it down) anyway. The way i see it is there are two serious and compelling proposals to the question (of how to pursue understanding). The first is the Wilberian/Spiral-Dynamics-esque path of transcending and integrating which is sort of a bottom-up path toward understanding and the second is what you (Leo) talk about as hyper-intelligence which you characterize as (transcending and) losing your mind which is the top-down understanding. I guess what speaks for the bottom-up approach is that you are keeping all the good lessons and insights you have and build on top of them toward ever more inclusive and integrated understanding and the top-down approach is truly infinite-creativity in all dimensions but without any tangible goal or actual progression. So what do i do with this dialectic now? Do i transcend and integrate it or do i transcend and lose my mind?

You don't understand something by repeating it, you understand it by penetrating it so to speak and for that your mind needs to be razor sharp. All this repetition and recalling will just muddy the actual insight that's available.

I used to do that, it really is a waste of time. How often do you actually go back and read through your notes? Try to understand what the book wants to communicate to you, contemplate, make connections in your mind. Taking notes just takes you out of the flow. If you think you really need to remember something just underline it and after your reading time you can just take notes of what you have underlined - you will notice that most of the shit you underline is not even that important and profound outside the context of the actual text. Go sit somewhere nice and quiet and just allow yourself to enjoy the reading. I set aside 3-4h a day for reading and I can easily read through 2-3 books a week and go really fucking deep into them. So just set aside 90 minutes a day - which is the amount of time in which your brain is most receptive for learning - and you will easily be able to read through a book per week while also engaging with it deeply enough to let it transform you. I drink a can of coffee and take MindlabPro (Qualia Mind is also supposed to be good) before reading and I can penetrate the book so much more deeply it's quite amazing - of course don't get addicted and make sure you cycle all performance enhancing substances - i just wanted to mention it because it really makes a big difference, for me at least.

I grew up without a dad and so when I was a young boy my grandpa used to fight with me, play ball, teach me about politics/conflict/society, show me how to take a leak in nature I always loved visiting him and it made me not worry about not having a dad

Thank you for your thoughtful answer I think you and Schmachtenberger are more similar than you realize. He has clearly stated that the way to get to Game B ist through winning Game A; he has talked about the necessity to develop or train some kind of Alexander The Great type character; he has talked about Nietzsche. I'm just saying, I think there is a lot of common ground and things to be learned from one another in regards to your respective works.

Just for context, how deeply have you actually studied Schmachtenberger? The way I see it is he's doing a lot of the same things you are. Its quite obvious that he enjoys the work he does and doesn't do it out of some sense of obligation. To me he is a perfect example of healthy, well integrated Turquoise. He talks about epistemology, spirituality, psychedelics, mental well-being, peak performance and where humanity is headed and does so in a uniquely non-ideological way; his "philosophy"/"mysticism" strikes me as very similar to that of Ken Wilber. He is obviously an extremely developed and conscious being. Is it that he's not explicitly talking about God and awakening or where is this contempt coming from?

“If the world were perfect, it wouldn't be. ” ― Yogi Berra