UnbornTao

The picture above is not Kant, by the way.

SOLD!

Melatonin: the "psychedelic" we didn't know we wanted. I've tried high dosage melatonin pills and loved the effects during the first few days - a peaceful, natural, progressive deep sleepiness. However, it did seem to build some sort of tolerance with repeated use.

Ocasionally yes, with a machete. Razor blade.

I think I understand now, thanks. No, wait - how is motivation metaphysical?

@Sugarcoat Stop treating suffering as something external that is imposed on you. It's not. "The mind, the psyche, the thought, the structure." No - you! We could put it like this, somewhat poetically: Circumstances don't care about you - you do. What happens is what happens; your relationship to it, believe it or not, is based on you. This is where you experience suffering - not in what factually or objectively occurs. What is is inherently free of suffering. You're commited to defending suffering. So why resist it? Surely, embracing it would change your experience of it. From there, you'll be able to contemplate it more effectively. In the end, it's entirely up to you.

I guess it largely depends on factors such as the type of coffee, the quantity, the caffeine content, the preparation method, the person's weight, etc. - but I wouldn't recommend it if you feel anxiety, or want to be calm/er. @inFlow

I spontaneously quit for 5 days last week, but since then I've been back on it. To be honest, I hadn't intended to quit - just to start using it more sparingly from now on. I didn't experience intense withdrawal symptoms, just slight irritability, some tiredness, and a lack of focus. I also felt more balanced and calm overall.

What if space turned out to be a form of context, too?

For context: For example, what turns meaningless symbols into language? Symbols could be considered a form or structure, yet on their own, they aren't language. Can language - which is a context - be said to be an idea, a form, or a structure? To begin with, I'd say there's nothing strictly objective about language: it isn't found anywhere, and yet it exists. Is context the way or space in which something is held? A kind of holding? Trying to phrase this into a neat definition might actually do a disservice to the exploration. It gives the impression that it's a simplistic matter. I see, thank you. Say the self and language are contexts - what do we make of that? The more we look, the more we realize we don't know what the nature of context is. edit: the question "What turns meaningless symbols into language?" above should have been something like: "What turns squiggles into symbols?"

I'd say the self is the context for your experience. Again, language as a context is a useful example for our purposes here. Consider Helen Keller: This makes it real, not just something to intellectualize about - even though it is still quite an abstract matter.

@Sugarcoat The stories are invented and extraneous to the simple action of not doing something - of not thinking one thought over another thought. Didn't you do the exercise? It should have clarified that principle to a degree. Bear in mind that by thinking, we don't just mean the usual internal chatter as a superficial activity. What and how you "think" at a deep level is what creates your experience - perhaps. Entertain the simple idea of not doing something. And then practice not doing it - like fear or depression. As you suggest, this may require some practice, since our habits are strong. But it can be done now. Okay. So what is it you're inquiring into? We don't need to get into any of this right now in order to solve this apparent dilemma. Actually recognize "where" you are generating the activity - and that by itself will allow you to stop generating it. What are you not feeling right now? Are you "not bored" or "not excited"? How come? It's because you aren't doing those! You just need to make that process conscious for yourself.

@funkychunkymonkey Thank you. I guess The Avoidance of Truth is a good video for that.

Just stop calling it psychedelic awakening - it muddies the waters. What's absolutely true about existence is absolutely true of existence. Wouldn't you agree? The short version is: you are existence. So there's no reason why existence couldn't become conscious of itself. That idea points to a real possibility. But I get where you're coming from. To address your point more directly: it sounds like you're expecting something to happen to you - some event, state, or experience. But that belongs to the relative realm. You keep thinking it is not possible, in part because you assume that it is something relative - huge, special, "infinite", out of bounds - like "perceiving the entirety of space" or some such. It is exactly you in the very place you are now. What is that? Whenever we attempt a direct consciousness of existence, by definition, we don't know what's on the “other side,” so to speak. We use the mind, intellect, feeling, perception, brute force, emotion - all of it - in search of truth. But eventually, we hit a wall. You try every method and means available, and still no breakthrough seems to be forthcoming. Up to this point, you've failed to grasp what's true. And it's precisely in this place - the place of failure, of uncertainty - that your deepest and most powerful contemplations can begin. Just hold that it's possible, and stay open. You really, deeply don't know. And that's true for everyone. Have that as an actual experience instead of looking for an intellectually graspable 'thing' or answer that will satisfy you. So, it's either possible or it's not. If it's not, we might as well go have lunch and forget about the whole thing. But history tells us that there have been seemingly sincere individuals who claimed to have accessed some kind of direct knowledge or consciousness of the nature of reality. If it's been done by one of us, it means it is possible for the rest of us too. What's needed is, essentially, openness, questioning, and intent - now. And you repeat that over and over again until you break through.

Can you elaborate?

I see, thanks.

Appreciate it.

Is conceiving - imagining what isn't - what you are referring to as 'unknown' here? Rather than Being as what is immediately known, I'd just consider that to be the act of perceiving and experiencing. Depending on what you mean by that, but if Being were already immediately grasped, that would suggest that direct knowledge of its nature has already occurred. Still, it is only graspable through consciousness, instead of any other conventional means. I'm not getting where you're coming from. I need my fucking coffee.

What allows the whole to contain the pieces? Ok, maybe that's not a good question. As @ExploringReality said, what is the substance of context? This is mighty abstract. Can you provide examples of holarchy, part, and whole?

Nothing, perhaps? - as nonsensical as that might sound. Or space. Although how is it space? Certainly it isn't or doesn't need to be physical space - but there's something there. At the risk of oversimplifying it, the frame of a picture is the space, or the possibility, for "picture" to exist. You mentioned the context of language, and I think that helps us focus on something a little bit more tangible and less abstract. Bring up another example of what you mean by whole and by part - if you think of 'whole' as context.

What? Quite the leap.

I'd suggest dropping all ideas about it and going after what's true.