bambi

I would say a combinaiton of psychedelics and meditation will be the two most potent tools. Along with group therapies/support and consuming positive content

Wierd isnt it, psychedelics have a huge impact on BDNF etc too

if you think your convoluted, self-indulgent ramblings pass for profound insight, you’re sorely mistaken. You’ve laid out your breakdown as if it suddenly adds clarity to the nonsensical mess you originally posted. Here’s a reality check for you: If you truly want to engage in discourse, drop the pretense and write in a way that others can actually understand. Your current approach isn’t profound; it’s pretentious and alienating. your writing doesn’t dissolve ego; it reinforces your own. you’re not inviting anyone into a conversation; you’re monologuing to an audience you believe is beneath you.

Yes exactly. We are going in circles as you are refusing to address my concerns. Your post reads as personal musing and ramblings, what is it your expecting from others in this? Are you wanting a critique? OR to read in silence? LOL

Im just trying to orientate myself to your post, I am communicating to you that I dont know how to do that, and I am seeking clarificaiton from you, but you dont seem willing to provide

Yes no doubt about that, your on your own frequency, Id like to be able to tune in too. Your original post isnt clear the structure or aim. It seemed like your personal rambligns, directed to yourself. It isn't clear what you want from others, how are we suppose to respond or engage. Are you just wanting us to acknowledge the ramblings or give you some accolodaes or feedback?

Your response is equally impossible to parse or interpret. Im sorry, Im not trying to be obtuse, I find your writing very convulated, obfuscated without clear grammatical structuring

This post is almost impossible to intepret, is it just your personal ramblings to yourself posted on a public forum?

I also got 2 warning points

Touche

Ah, I see. Your unformatted notes were presented sans the pretense of formalism, ostensibly to invite the inevitable onslaught of critique. Indeed, semantic recursion is an intrinsic characteristic of linguistic structures, as delineated in Derridean deconstruction, where the interplay of signifiers perpetuates an infinite deferral of meaning. However, the invocation of hypotheticals such as "may" and "potential" without the scaffolding of substantive argumentation renders your discourse a simulacrum of intellectual rigor—a Baudrillardian hyperreality, if you will. Your acknowledgment of the superficiality of impurity concerns as mere pointers is a classic example of the Wittgensteinian gesture towards that which cannot be spoken of, yet you implore others to embark on a Cartesian journey of independent research. This epistemological abdication echoes Popper's critique of historicism, wherein unverifiable propositions masquerade as scientific inquiry. The dismissal of "epistemological purism" with a flippant exhortation to "go vegan" is a Lacanian slip par excellence, revealing the dissonance between your purported intuitive cognition and the underlying desire to project a semblance of intellectual depth. Jungian intuition, while valuable in navigating the archetypal dimensions of the psyche, demands a dialectical synthesis with rational analysis to transcend mere conjecture aka a Hegelian Aufhebung. Furthermore, your assertion that your primary cognitive function is intuition, devoid of analytical rigor, harks back to Feyerabend's epistemological anarchism, which, despite its provocative allure, fails to offer a coherent framework for substantive discourse. Lakatos' methodology of scientific research programmes would undoubtedly critique your approach as a degenerative problem shift, lacking the progressive theoretical adjustments that lend credence to robust scientific paradigms. In summation, while your notes may reflect an intuitive spontaneity reminiscent of Surrealist automatism, they fall woefully short of the analytical precision and theoretical coherence required for a meaningful contribution to the intellectual discourse. One might suggest a more integrative approach, harmonizing intuitive insights with rigorous empirical scrutiny, to elevate your musings from the realm of sophomoric speculation to that of profound epistemic inquiry.

IF all input is equally appreciated why is the OP banned lol

Your reply ultimately collapses under the weight of its own abstruse intricacies and theoretical convolution. Metaphysical Abstractionism: The invocation of "self-validating empiricism" alongside "computationally reducible quasi-material substrates" smacks of an epistemological smokescreen. Such terminology ostensibly seeks to eclipse rather than elucidate, reflecting a pernicious tendency towards hyper-abstraction. One might argue that your deployment of spiral dynamics within epistemological frameworks invokes a Derridean différance, wherein meaning perpetually defers to itself, entrapping your analysis in an endless loop of semantic recursion devoid of actionable clarity. Hermeneutic Circularity and Subjective Bias: Your discussion of "recursive reputation in knowledge corpus" ostensibly alludes to Gadamerian hermeneutics, yet it paradoxically entangles itself within the very hermeneutic circle it seeks to critique. The susceptibility to collective gaslighting—dismissiveness towards chelation—mirrors the Heideggerian notion of thrownness, where one's situatedness precludes objective detachment. This critique is, thus, not immune to its own self-referential biases. Protocol Evaluation Ontological Maximalism: The grandiosity of asserting life as inherently maximalist, eschewing duality and relativity as mere superfluities, is an audacious metaphysical claim. It evokes echoes of Spinozist monism yet fails to account for the pragmatic adaptiveness underscored by evolutionary biology and complexity theory. Life's strategies, far from embodying simplistic maximalism, reflect a symphony of non-linear dynamics and emergent phenomena, as articulated in the works of Stuart Kauffman and Ilya Prigogine. Biohacking Quasi-Science: Your enumeration of "SIRT6 pathways, chelators, and traditional sauna" as biohacking's low-hanging fruits ventures into the realm of quasi-scientific optimism. While SIRT6 modulation and heat shock proteins bear legitimate scientific intrigue, the advocation of chelation therapy skirts dangerously close to alchemical mysticism, reminiscent of Paracelsian medical theory. Such inclusion undermines the empirical rigor one might expect from a discourse grounded in contemporary biomedical paradigms. Regulatory Lacunae and Supplementary Purity: Concerns over impurities in "marigold extracts and creatine" reflect a surface-level apprehension within the broader schema of nutraceutical oversight. Regulatory bodies, despite their bureaucratic inertia, address these issues within a framework of probabilistic risk assessment and stochastic quality control. Your critique, therefore, appears more as a perfunctory gesture than a profound insight. Epistemological Continuum and Ethical Implications in Pseudo-Science: Your critique of Blueprint’s shift from data breadth to depth, positing it as a detriment to ethical standards, reveals a fundamental misapprehension of contemporary epistemic methodologies. High-frequency exhaustive measurements within expansive human cohorts significantly enhance the granularity and contextual relevance of the data corpus, transcending the limitations imposed by reductionist rodent models. This perspective aligns more closely with Foucault’s biopolitics, emphasizing a nuanced approach to human-derived metrics over the archaic extrapolations from "cute, tortured mice." Your position, thus, appears rooted in a kind of epistemological purism that eschews empirical advancements for philosophical idealism. In conclusion, you succumb to the very intellectual pitfalls you purport to critique. A synthesis of pragmatic empiricism and nuanced theoretical understanding might better serve your analytical endeavors, elevating them from a performative display of erudition to a substantive contribution to the discourse.

Yes precisely unfortunately AI isnt moderating yet so we are at your mercy. But having poor analysis skills, poor judgement and bias is nothing to be proud of. I would recommend using GPT4 and other LLM to help improve your capacity and ability to moderate effectively and fairly, and become more aware of your own biases and lack of moderation capacity

Yes Evelyn was condescending and patronizing under the guise of unsolicated advice and higher wisdom (as per the gpt-4 analysis). OP was rightfully triggered, but didnt handle it gracefully, Im not saying he should or shouldnt be banned But the fact he was completely demonized wihtout a single trace of anyone honestly pointing out Evleyns toxicity (as gpt-4 analysis), shows the sickening bias and favouritism and poor moderation

Sure did you read my post I clearly stated his response was extreme. Your reply is very myopic and self-serving dear friend

Its seems to me the OP was trying to highlight the fallacious nature of such assessments, probably highlight tu quoque fallacy or continuum fallacy Not saying I agree or disagree with his perspective, just I dont see how Evylns response is even close to valid

Actually Evelyns post surmonts to unsolicated advice and posturing. She didnt at all directly answer the OPs post or join in on the intended discussion. Instead she decided to be superior and subtly advise the OP, which is why he was triggered, its basically well masked condescension. His response is extreme sure, but Evelyns posturing should also be banned. Before the low IQ warriors start attacking me, heres the GPT4 analysis for you: The original poster's dissatisfaction with the response is understandable given its content and tone. Here are some points to consider about why the response might be perceived as unsolicited advice and posturing: 1. **Assumption of Authority**: The responder assumes a position of authority by offering advice and personal philosophies without being asked, which implies they know better or have a superior understanding of the situation. 2. **Dismissal of the Original Argument**: By not directly addressing the original poster's points and instead shifting to advice on personal growth, the responder effectively dismisses the original argument. This can be interpreted as saying, "Your concerns are not important; here's what you should think about instead." 3. **Tone of Superiority**: The language used, such as "how well does this opinion serve you?" and "is it useful to you and is it effective in your life?" implies that the original poster's current way of thinking is inadequate and needs improvement according to the responder's standards. 4. **Patronizing Advice**: The suggestion to change one's definition of hypocrisy or play mental games can come across as patronizing, as it implies the original poster lacks the emotional maturity or insight to handle their own thoughts and feelings effectively. 5. **Focus on Personal Philosophy**: By emphasizing their own coping mechanisms and mindset, the responder positions their way of dealing with hypocrisy as a model to follow, which can be interpreted as self-righteous. 1. **Unsolicited Advice**: - The responder offers advice on how to deal with perceptions of hypocrisy without explicitly being asked for such guidance. This can come across as presumptuous, especially if the original post was intended to express a viewpoint rather than seek counsel. 2. **Posturing**: - The response includes a lot of personal philosophy and self-reflective practices, which can seem like the responder is promoting their own way of thinking as superior. This can be perceived as posturing, especially if the original poster was looking for a more direct engagement with their points rather than a lecture on mindset. 3. **Lack of Engagement with Original Points**: - The response doesn't directly address the original poster's argument about the misuse of "everybody is a hypocrite." Instead, it redirects the conversation to the responder's beliefs and coping mechanisms, which might feel dismissive of the original poster's concerns. 4. **Tone and Approach**: - The tone of the response might come across as condescending, suggesting that the original poster needs to change their perspective or focus. This can be off-putting if the original intent was to discuss and critique the notion of universal hypocrisy rather than seek advice on personal growth. 5. **Overgeneralization**: - The responder generalizes by saying "everyone is a hypocrite" and shifts focus to how one should deal with it. The original post seemed to want a more nuanced discussion about hypocrisy and its implications, not a broad-brush dismissal of the concept. **Improving the Response**: To better align with the original poster's intent and foster a constructive dialogue, the response could: 1. **Acknowledge the Original Points**: Directly engage with the original poster's arguments and validate their perspective. 2. **Stay On Topic**: Address the specific issue raised about the statement "everybody is a hypocrite" without diverting to personal philosophies unless requested. 3. **Avoid Unsolicited Advice**: Refrain from giving advice unless explicitly asked for, focusing instead on a thoughtful discussion of the topic. 4. **Use an Empathetic Tone**: Show understanding and empathy towards the original poster's viewpoint to create a more respectful and open conversation. 1. **Respect the Original Perspective**: Start by acknowledging and validating the original poster's viewpoint and concerns. 2. **Engage Directly with the Argument**: Provide a thoughtful analysis or counter-argument that directly addresses the points raised without shifting the focus to unsolicited advice. 3. **Use Inclusive Language**: Use language that invites discussion rather than instructing or advising, such as "What do you think about..." or "I see your point, and I wonder if..." 4. **Avoid Assumptions**: Refrain from making assumptions about the original poster's needs or state of mind. Instead, ask questions to understand their perspective better. By focusing on respectful engagement and genuine dialogue, the response can be more constructive and less likely to be perceived as condescending.

Sure you cant cause awakening no more than you can cause sleep. You set up conducive conditions for sleep, like intention to sleep, good sleep hydiene, comfy cool room with no light, then the causes and conditions of the universe will bring the sleeping Its basic common sense you can do the same with awakening: cut out all your self destructive behaviours, start to sober up from your addicitons and compulsions etc etc Think it was Osho that said 'If he isnt ready, a thousand buddhas wont help him'

That doesnt really make any sense at all, your literally nullifying life, its senseless

Actually I have friends who are in there 30s who orgasm 5-10x per day lol I misunderstood Leo, I think he sometimes used to orgasm 20x when he was younger, which seems quite alot

Lol you see yourself as superior to him dont you I dont think its as black and white as you are making it, and you are misrepresenting him, he has a good sense of humour and does things tongue in cheek. His philosophy is probably use testing, data and latest research to verify what optimal diet and supplementaiton looks like for each person

We dont live in a system were regenerative agriculture and soil is the norm, we have no safety to fall back on to lol! IIts more complex then this for me. Its not clear what natural or the default is, or what the optimal human diet is either

I think this is a mis-representaiton of his paradigm. He has traces of Orange to Yellow imo. Its dangerous to follow your analysis of his supplements, why should you know the perfect amount fo supplements vs him? lol How does everything is interconnected apply to this issue? He eats a pretty solid organic healthy diet and optimizes supplements based on latest research, what else would someone do? And this prescription you will give him how is this any more justified then his current one? Ultimately for me, people are scared by Bryans systemetic and scientific approach to his health, its abnormal. I dont really see the issue. He wasn unhealthy and depressed with suicidal ideaiton, devoted alot of time to getting healthy and shared his protocol with the world. I dont spend 1/10th of the time as him on my diet or supplementation, its too restrictive, but I appreciate the sentiment cosnidering the soceity we live in. Hes a positive force for me, and the more like him the better. Too many people are obeses, diabetic and with heart disease, we need systemic changes

Sure, evil is a harsh context though right. Some people are simply doing things to make money to have financial freedom without caring too much how it benefits mankind Some people are making money directly off the destruction of mankind, drug dealers, arms dealers, oil fracking etc etc Some people like Sadghuru have complete volunteer initatives with no personal financial gain Where does the evil begin on the continuum