Scholar

I find this conversation fascinating, because both sides are almost entirely on point with their critique of the opposite. They point out the limitations of Stage blue as well as Stage Orange, while both of them fail to address those limitations on their side. One of the main problems we currently have in society is solving the dysfunctional outcomes of stage orange. In theory, stage green should be that next step, but in practice social and technological dynamics lead to those stages never developing in a healthy way. The danger here, over time, is that we might see a regression to stage blue, simply because stage green has not successfully solved for the problems of stage orange. A big reason for this is because stage green is developing a toxic shadow towards blue and orange. What is missed is that, to become a healthy individual, one must step through each stage. This lack is the reason why people like Andrew Tate are so successful, they simply are filling the void that has been left by arrogant and toxic stage green. What Daniel described in the beginning is a monumental problem that we are facing as a society, but of course the arrogant atheist on the other side will not acknowledge any of that, because he can simply focus on the limitation of the religious systems. He is correct, obviously stage blue has it's problems, but he completely avoids ever even considering that stage orange might have fundamental problems that erode the foundation of society. This arrogance, because it is a denial of reality and truth, will bite these people in the ass eventually. Both sides basically don't realize that they are completely self-destructive by denying their own limitations.

If you are moderately experienced in meditation, try this: Imagine a person you feel a very strong loving connection to, it might even be a thing. Someone you would definitely be willing to die for if necessary. Focus your mind on the sensation of love, the need to protect them, to want the best for them. Focus on the relational construct, meaning, if they are a family member, focus on the family bond. Now, take someone you have difficulty loving, and project your bond onto them, try to imagine that they either relate to you in that same way as the object of love you have chosen, or they relate to someone else that way. Focus on that. It's a simple exercise, but I think it can yield great effects. Practice makes perfect.

Potential and practice is not the same. The potential necessarily is higher because of the nature of neurological structures. Can you amplify your potential using 5-MeO-DMT? Sure, but none of you are doing this. You guys barely practice, because the type of practice it takes to genuinely create robust self-amplificatory strcutures is insane. You will never get there. You will never get from 5-MeO-DMT the types of experiences you can create by designing amplificatory neurological structures yourself, because the variance and functionality of those structure is far greater than what you can achieve by blasting and stimulating certain neurological receptors. There is also a conflation between intensity and sophistication or clarity of experience.

The difference is that, because of the nature of meditation, which is basically adjusting and changing your neurological structure to give it new functions, is that to get there you must change the neurological structure. This means that you will have developed the tool with which you get the effect. And like a muscle, you can strengthen that tool. So, with practice, you developed the neurological structures that are capable of stimulating parts of your brain in such a way as to create this experience. This is itself actually a new structure. With psychedelics, you simply stimulate certain parts of your brain to achieve the effect. While you will get structural changes with psycheledics from your baseline, you will not get the self-amplification structure, because the entire point is to circumvent construct that structure so you can get the effect immediately. Psychedelics is like this: Stimulation of Structure (STRUCTURE B) -> Divine Experience + Changes in Overall Neurological Structure (B) Meditation works like this: Creation of Stimulatory Structure (STRUCTURE A) -> Stimulatory Structure (A) stimulates Structure B -> Divine Experience + Changes in Structure B Because you can build Structure A and strengthen it, the potential for experience in the end is expontentially higher. The overall sophistication of experience will be greater because you will be granted more conscious control over the effects. With psychedelics you can much more easily get a far more powerful experience, but it will not be a harmonious neurological event, therefore you will not actually even get to see certain aspects of existence, because you will not be able to maintain the necessary clarity. This is why psychedelic usage will more likely get you to delude yourself, simply because it erodes and changes neurological structures in ways you have little control over.

I already take Vitamin D throughout the year, it's very unlikely that it is related to that.

Also called winter depression. Anyone in here have any special, uncommon tips that help against this? Maybe microdosing psychedelics, or any special practices?

This is getting ridiculous, I am developing much more empathy for people who commit suicide, even though I'm not the type of person to consider such a thing. But I can see how if someone felt this way for half a year or so that one could easily completely lose ones rational perspective of things. The emotions are so all consuming that it's really hard to even imagine a framework outside of it, and considering the influence these emotions have on ones thoughts, it can easily spiral out of control. Obviously I am just describing the experience, I don't want to concern anyone, lol. I simply don't remember having ever felt this doom and gloomy this intensely before, and I am not the most emotionally regulated person in the first place, in terms of my dispositions, so it's not like I don't have a sense of what even intense disregulation can feel like. The therapy lamp seems to have helped at first, but there seems to have been a backlash effect.

It's just impossible to be creative in this state of mind, I can't afford to continue to be like this for weeks or months. Genuinely frustrating. LSD microdosing seems to amplify the depressive effects.

I am not one to easily be convinced of such things, but over the past few days I had certain experiences that seem impossible to be coincidental, and if they are not, it probably means I am somehow connected to a greek Goddess, as absurd as that sounds. I don't have much problems accepting this as a real possibility, and as of now I consider it to be likely the case. The question I have here, does anyone here have experiences with such things? Now, this could be coincidental, but as the events which are very unlikely to be coincidental transpired, I also had a very intense and strange mood disregulation. Before I connected the dots, I assumed this mood disorder event could be caused by the LSD I took months ago, some sort of delayed side effect, or maybe the onset of bipolar disorder. It's simply extreme emotional disregulation, on the level of a relative dying or going through a really bad break up. But now I consider it a possibility that it is somehow connected to these events, whatever they are. The experience is not really negative, but because it is so intense, it can definitely induce suffering. There is simply a feeling of deep and intense longing, it is hard to describe because I never quite felt exactly like this. So, I would just like to hear some thoughts. I asked around in a couple of circles and people say I should start worshipping this god, or start connecting to her, and all sorts of things. I always felt a deep connection to what this Goddess represents, so I would not mind forming a connection if that is possible. The problem is, of course, that most people believing in such things are just not being rational, so most people will be giving me bad advice. So, to whoever here is of rational mind and also had such experience, I would very much like to explore my options here.

I'm doing it for several hours daily. I'm just a little desperate, the depressive symptoms I am getting are making me completely unfunctional in terms of my work, so I don't have the patience to wait for weeks for it all to kick in.

People don't quite realize it, but treating animals like commodities does not only have an effect on the animals, but on humanity as a whole. This effect goes far beyond just these slaughterhouse workers, it affects the whole of our collective psyche.

Bought one of those lamps, going to see if that makes any difference.

Yes, it all started with those pesky women's rights and homosexual deprivation. We should have never abolished slavery!

This is as hilarious as it is dangerous.

You are incoherent to me, I don't know how to engage with what you are saying. If you want you can try to clarify, in more than one sentence, what exactly your position here is.

People avoid incest because they they don't feel attraction towards people they grow up with and consider family. And relationships don't necessitate children, and even if you wanted to have children in an incestious relationship, you could do that by means that would avoid the genetic disease problem, assuming it was legal. Anyways, none of that is relevant to whether or not it is moral or should be illegal.

Who is they? I'm not sure how this is related to the discussion.

That would be morality. When you look at the negative consequences of something and conclude that you ought not to do that for that reason, you have engaged in a moral calculus. Inbreeding of course is a seperate issue from pure incest. Although even with inbreeding it is hard to argue that people ought to be prohibited by law from having children that way. There is a cost to freedom, and the higher the freedom in any given society, the more responsible and mature society must be to avoid the negative consequences.

Firstly, we are talking about morality. Most of the things you listed are immoral because they are a fundamental undermining of someones will. Rape, murder and so forth is immoral not simply because there is a likelihood of suffering occuring, but because the individuals do not consent to such things. When we are talking about laws, even if something causes harm, we have to be careful not to restrict human beings rights to autonomy. Sexual freedom should have a significant burden to be restricted between consenting adults, because of how fundamental this aspect is to human well being. And furthermore, we have to be as precise as we can be when restricting the freedoms of individuals. Meaning, we cannot just ban homosexual relationships because there might come harm from them to society (if that was the case), we would attempt to actually specifically find the thing that is causing the harm and target that. If we cannot do that, and the harm to society is proven to be exceptionally high, then you might have a case. But then, still we are not talking about morality but simply about maintaining society. Now, I will propose this hypothetical to you again: If 90% of interracial relationships lead to abusive dynamics, would it be immoral, or should it be illegal for consenting adults to engage in such relationships? And remember, when we target the specific thing where abuse mostly occurs (which is in child exploitation incest cases), you will probably see that the rest of the cases, because then we are talking only about consenting adults, probably are not significantly more harmful than any normal relationship, aside from the social costs associated with the taboo and the obvious costs coming from engaging in illegal activity. If you want to restrict adults from engaging in these types of sexual relationships, what you would need is actual evidence that these relationships cause a level of harm to society that would outweigh the need for the sexual freedom of consenting individuals. But you don't have that evidence, because all relationships that you do have data on now already require a willingness to engage in illegal activity, which will heavily bias this towards individuals who lack moral integrity and so forth. By nature of how society is constructed you basically are selecting for the most dysfunctional dynamics. I wouldn't be surprised that when homosexuality was outlawed, a significant amount of homosexuality was things like child-abuse. By this standard alone, we have no right to restrict the freedoms of these individuals, because we have no good evidence, nor really very good reasoning, for it. And remember, what would you consider the necessary harm to society to say that interracial relationships should be outlawed? Is it if a lot of them end up in abusive dynamics? Even if it is 90%, in my view, it would be unjustified to outlaw these things, because again, we cannot use the law for every activity that could potential bring harm to society. And we are talking about abuse here, unhealthy relationships. While this is undesirable, it is nowhere close to things that undermine individuals will fundamentally, like rape, murder and arguably many cases of suicide. If there is no clear violation of the will of individuals, as is the case with rape, murder and so forth, or an activity which cannot be consented to, we need a very high standard to the risk of society, and clear evidence for such claims, to consider outlawing an activity and restricting the sexual freedom of consenting adults. There should be an awareness here of how significant of a violation to freedom it is when a state starts interfering with your choice of consenting sexual partners. Potential for abusive relationships, even if astronomoically high, cannot be the standard here, it would have to be a significantly higher cost to society, backed up by actual evidence. The only real restriction we make in terms who consenting adults can engage with sexually, is in professional relationships, where you basically make an oath to the duty of care, or the work environment regulates sexual activity in certain ways. Remember, individuals consent to that type of restriction when they enter these work places, and they can at any time leave that type of work place. You cannot simply do this to just consenting adults out of nowhere, becaue of risk of abuse or such things. We don't ever do this. And I guarantee you, being a pornstar is probably far more harmful to someone than being in an incestious relationship under the assumption that you are consenting adults, that the incest does not come with some sort of tremendous social cost via taboo (and even then you can argue when porn did come with that taboo, it was as harmful), and that you are not legally punished for it. And the worst part is even that, you outlawing this and creating a social taboo around this activity might actually lead to a prolifiration of abuse, rather than a reduction. Most incest, in the current societal context, will occur in child exploitation cases. The shame associated around the incest taboo could very well be a primary reason for why victims of such activity are so hesitant to come forth with their abuse and therefore cannot get the help they need. This case you are trying to make is just exceptionally weak. I understand why there is a desire to make this case, but it just doesn't appear sound to me. And this is just incest, we can discuss something like bestiality some other time. That is an even more interesting discussion because there we go into what informed consent is and what makes sexual activity in humans who are incapable of informed consent so problematic. There is an even more repulsive activity (and I am not talking about pedophilia) that is currently considered completely immoral and illegal, that is exceptionally difficult to argue for why it should be considered immoral and illegal. But if we can't even get past incest, we certainly won't have a productive conversation there. But these are the juicy moral discussions that I think get to the core of moral reasoning, and I think it is benefitial to have them.

You are mislabelling what is wrong here though. When abuse happens in a homosexual relationship, that doesn't make the homosexual relationship wrong, that simply makes the abuse wrong. So, whether or not it is common, it is not the incest that is the immoral thing, but the abuse. But you are constructing your hypotheticals in an inappopropiate way. What you described is wrong for several reasons that have nothing to do with potential, but inherent, known risks and inability to understand. A child firstly, cannot conceive of risk, so of course it is wrong. Secondly, there is not merely potential of risk, but absolute risk (meaning, we know there is a bullet in the gun and there is an actual risk involved, which is not the case in relationships). If two consenting adults engage in an incestious relationship doesn't mean that there is a risk involved (even though I don't know if for such relationships that did not have prior grooming, between adults, is actually significantly risky in that way). Whether or not a risk is involved will not depend on whether or not it is incestious, but whether or not the individuals are dysfunctional in relation to their psychology and how they relate to others. So, the risk isn't inherent to incest, it doesn't make sense to attribute it to that thing. But a teacher holds inherent power of the student, this is not necessarily the case in a relationship with two consenting adults that happen to be related. Teachers and students are a bad example because we are talking about minors vs adults, college professors and their students would be a better example, which I would not really consider wrong at all to engage in. Consenting adults should have the right to engage in relationships that are risky, there is nothing wrong with that. With professional relationships there are different arguments because of standards of care and so forth, and potentials for compromise of their duties. This is why I said, the only argument between parent and child you can make that is good (assuming both are adults and have not been groomed) are duties the parent might have to the child. Which, I personally find are not very robust arguments. Again, you are identifying what the actual problem is and then saying it is the incest that makes it problematic. It would be equally wrong whether or not the individuals had a blood relation or not. The thing that makes it wrong is the abusive of power. You can even have relations with significant power differentials. I would wager that, if you have more or less same aged adults siblings engaging in sexual relations, if it wasn't such a taboo and require a certain type of psychology to engage with, you would see that relationships between 30 and 20 year olds would have a higher likelihood of abuse. We don't even know what the numbers here would look like, because incest is illegal. I guess you could look at countries where incest is legal and if there are in insane amount of cases of adult consenting family members who end up in super abusive relations. But either way, people have a right to engage in these risks, in ending up in abusive relations. It might be stupid, but it's not immoral. Adults should be given the choice to evaluate these things themselves, even if the likelihood for abuse as calculated by some statistic were to be 90%. They are not children, they are not playing russian roulette, they are making choices about who they want to engage in romantic relationships with. If you want to prevent abusive in relationships, educate people, treat the root cause, instead of morally condemning incest. It's not necessarily wrong. But with minors, we decided they cannot consent, and the only reasonable way to legislate this is by having clear, defined lines. With consenting adults the whole game changes, because they do have the ability to consent, and can make bad choices if they want to. People make all sorts of life choices that are incredibly stupid. Smoking is probably far dumber than engaging in incest with your family members (assuming it was legal and had no taboo associated with it). Obviously in a society in which incest is a taboo and illegal, the only cases when it will happen will be exceptional, meaning as a result of sociopathic behaviour and the like. This is the problem with children: Children cannot engage in informed consent, therefore they cannot consent to the risk of harm that could fall upon them for the act they were to engage in. Adults are capable of informed consent, so they are capable of consenting to even a significantly high risk of abusive relationships. In fact, adutls can consent to abusive relationships full stop. There is nothing immoral about it. How insane would it be to put people in prison because they are in an abusive relationship? You put the person to prison if they abuse someone, that's it. There is no evaluating whether or not a relationship is potentially abusive, we don't do that with adults and then call them immoral for engaging in such "potentially risky" relations. Contemplate this: If we found that, interracial relationships lead to an 80% chance of an abusive relation (which is probably significantly higher than what would be the case with sibling incest if it was legal and acceptable, and I wager even if it wasnt, and in fact I wage even between parent and child adults), would we call interracial relationships immoral, or prohibit them by law? No, of course no. People can take that risk if they want, they have every right to try and be one of the 20%, or even the 80%. Now, if someone does do something abusive, they should be persecuted at that point. But we can't be doing this Minority Report shit and punish or condemn people who engage in risky behaviour, especially because we then include those 20% who aren't even engaging in it. This doesn't make sense to me whatsoever, I think you misread the studies, or they got it wrong. But I am not that interested in this to make sure.

Yes, I noticed myself that I have gone through changes, people in my family have noticed too. Thank you for notifying me that you also noticed this change. It could be just the LSD. And I am not closed to the possibility that the LSD caused some spiritual changes in me that did allow me to connect to this entity. I have had a very significant aligning of my life purpose over the past months. But all of that is very speculative.

I don't think any of these are wrong whatsoever. Abuse is wrong, that's as simple as it is. Many things have potential for abuse, that doesn't make them abusive. It just means it requires more care and maturity to engage in such relationships. I agree that most incestious relationship, in practice, will be dysfunctional. And today, most relationships might even be abusive, simply because of the taboo, the type of individuals engaging in it will in most cases be abusers. But in regards to consenting adults engaging in these relationships, even if they are dysfunctional, they are not immoral. People have a right to do dysfunctional things, they always do. The correct approach is not moral condemnation of the act, but an attempt to help these individuals. Child parent relations would be wrong when the child is a minor. And you can make a case for the duty of parents to their children making it wrong even between adults. Grooming a child to engage in incest by the time they are adults is also wrong. But these things aren't wrong because of incest, but because of abuse and inappropriate relationship explotation, or simple pedophilia. I don't understand, we have an incest taboo, and you made the case that animals do not actually avoid incest in nature. So how can humans and animals not have a difference in incest avoidance?

Of course not, why would it be wrong. I don't quite understand what you are saying here. No difference in what?

Well by your logic we shouldn't engage in sexual relations at all, as the buddhists try to do, it just detracts from achieving unconditional love, no matter towards whom it is geared. In fact, this is why spiritual traditions argue for the dissolution of all familial bonds, so that you can have a pure love for reality itself. What you call unconditional love, meaning platonic love for family, actually prevents you from loving reality unconditionally. Either way, none of that really makes incest wrong, it would just be like most things human beings do, not an act that maximizes unconditional love. Your stance hinges on whether or not lust towards parts of reality will diminish your love towards it. Which would just mean lust is bad, full stop.

You are taking OP way too seriously. And I am not sure what else to do but repeat what I said to you before.