Jacobsrw

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    884

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jacobsrw

  2. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    So I run an online platform and business and plan on releasing a journal which assists in psychological benefits.

    I plan on naming the journal ‘The Geographical Mind Map’. Which will essentially act as a daily blue print for recording ones mental and behavioural activity.

    I have started writing up drafts for it and designs etc. However because I wish it to be succinct and not overly complex I feel I may end up overloading too much. 

    Just after some feedback on these draft sections which would be exemplified on each page:

     

    •Reactions:

    What did I find myself reacting to?

     

    •Impulses:

    What urges did I find myself indulging in?

     

    •Thoughts:

    What thoughts pervaded my state of mind?

     

    •Creativity:

    In what ways was I creative and innovative?

     

    •Growth:

    In what areas did I notice growth and development within me?

     

    •Areas of Improvement:

    What areas do I most require improvement?  
     

    Just a templative draft needing much improvement. Would appreciate thoroughly feedback ?

  3. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    @EternalForest Oooo thanks for the idea! I’ll look into that :)

    @EnlightenmentBlog yes I aim to do that actually. I’ve used psychedelics for spiritual work not creativity as of yet. I plan on trying that method however, I don’t wish to externalise my creative source too much. I feel psychedelics are powerful in that they can provide profound revelations unique to each person. As @Oliver Saavedra stated they must be used wisely.

  5. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    @The observer that makes sense and I feel we agree on all those points.

    As I mentioned earlier, all that we say will never hold the capacity to communicate the very thing we are trying to. Language is a redundancy, though a useful one. You may have misunderstood my contention regarding the limits of the mind. They should already be implicit in what I’ve said earlier. The mind cannot be used to interpret the core of reality, yet we still require it.

    To me, meaning is relative and in fact, meaningless. However, meaning still plays a part. It allows for mind to be used in a distinction based manner. Which is where metaphysics and rationality hold different purposes. That was my the main point I was attempting to convey. Even though they may be figments of imagination within a field of nothing, they still remain  useful to a finite self dominated by ego - which all humans are. 

    You could be right I may be fixated on pointers for the time being. The irony is, they are a necessary inflection point to cross. One consumed by ego cannot simply skip over them. Anyone who is unawakened fears privileging them self such a title, that’s the chief deception. Nonetheless, I’ll do my best to exercise the humility to still admit it.

    I agree. Pointers are important but fundamentally must be disposed with, I stated this earlier I believe. Although, that doesn’t render them useless. I guess I was expressing how pointers although stemming from the same place (nothingness) they still exemplify inherently different qualities in supporting ones journey. I still maintain that metaphysics is more useful than rationality when conceptualising spirituality, but again, when speaking about these topics to those attached to either one, they will either revere what I say or completely disagree with it. Or worse, confuse what I am saying for idealism. 

    Ultimately, it’s not a matter of whether people disagree or not but the understanding for how each cog of reality has a purpose.

    To know how to leave an illusion one must have first been deluded by it to know it was never real.

    I feel we are trying to do the impossible here by trying communicate the incommunicable. I appreciate our dialogue but I feel we may now be wasting our efforts.

    I feel the best we can do is just BE and derive our our understanding from the void ?

  7. Posted

    @Oliver Saavedra great information, thank you! 

    Yeah I do a bit research around concept ideas but reflecting it into art in a pleasing manner can be difficult. My perfectionism plays difficult haha.

    The funny thing is I don’t struggle to come up with ideas to draw but I struggle in converting them into a concept of art that will best represent what I want it to. Maybe I just need to let the art speak for itself.

    I like what you said there, more experimenting. I’ve recently bought paint aim to flow with that :)

    @Free Mind it is when I’m in the follow state! Haha when not I fumble with which way to approach my art.

    You just need to find the medium of expression that suits your skill set. Experimenting is great for this. Give a few different mediums of art a go :D

  8. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    @ZenAlex I feel you there. She appears to share useful insight and practical tips yet the depth feels extremely shallow.

    I don’t consume much her content but from what I’ve consumed in the past and of recent I don’t really resonate with her.

    I get more of a public figure idealist feel rather than an inspirational visionary feel when viewing her. I feel she may be there for more the accolades and notoriety of spirituality than spirituality itself. I could be wrong though.

    Small doses of consumption in my opinion.

  9. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    5 hours ago, Someone here said:

    Shooting me will produce enlightenment. The ego is the veil. Once the ego dies all that is left is pure truth. Lol

     Haha no. You believe that conceptually because of what you’ve been informed of. Go do it and then tell me of your awakening.

    If you shoot someone you will still remain as deluded as you were before, that’s the point. There are different avenues which assist ones awakening more so than others. Claiming all to be equally effective in doing so is just a constructed deception. Awakening is not binary.

  10. Posted

    @remember very interesting. I like your idea here. I might actually give that a go. Naturalistic drawing is more engaging but also more difficult. Using images is much easier since they are static. I like your idea though. Thank you for your contribution :)

    @EternalForest thank you! Haha but I’m always learning. And in fact, I especially love learning from those who feel to be the least experienced. Deep wisdom can be derived from everyone :)

  11. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    @The observer I feel you are misconstruing what I have been saying throughout. And once again, you’ve created a straw man. I’ve already stated concepts and language need to be transcended in order to interpret the essence reality. Then here you are denigrating what I say by using the same concepts and language to bolster your argument ?

    All imaginary aspects of mind are truth. Even illusions have a reality to them, they just aren’t of the same equivalency. You seem to ignore this. Your argument against imaginary illusions is itself an illusion, yet still a truth. Because whatever is occurring is truth. Nothing = everything (full circle). Your analogy seems to be dualistic. Nothing = existence and Illusions = non-reality. This is a tu quoque fallacy. Ultimately, theres no “truth” and “not-truth”. All is truth. Just because an illusion misrepresents reality doesn’t mean it holds no truth (this is from where I was stating some things hold more efficiency than others).

    Existence or consciousness if we want to call it that - which you seem to be critiquing while equally using - is but full of degrees and gradations.

    Yes ultimately there is nothing and no term can represent that. However, that doesn’t help your point. You’re making criticisms against using conceptually driven terms to explain the uncommunicable while having to equally do it yourself. You’ve painted yourself into a corner, then put yourself on an elitist pedestal. I recommend being careful of this.

    Nothing of what we say will ever impart nearly at all what we are attempting to explain. That may be something we can both agree on.

    Ill leave it here, since you’ve seemed to have concocted a list of ad-hominem projections that assume much about who I am and where I’m coming from. You’ve missed the crux of what was first shared. Nothing I can say to change that unfortunately.

    Appreciate your contribution nonetheless. Take care ?:)

  13. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    49 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    I totally understand that. And that's exactly my point!!

    Without having a frame of reference to contrast the two different perspectives how could you know that?  You have to first experience what's it's like to be ignorant deluded rational person in order to be able to transcend.  The first thing that a blind man does after he gets healed from his blindness is throwing away the stick that guided him for lots of years  

    I agree and have already touched on this earlier. Rationality is used in the conceptual domain to understand mind. To move into metaphysics one must leave concepts and rationality all together. Both are useful but at different times.

    This by no means validates rationality efficient in the domain of interpreting consciousness itself which is my point. Ones own experience is the only force of guidance in that regard.

    Also consider that one can be awakened without having to be deluded and requiring rationality. Some individuals in the past have been reported to be born awakened with no distinction otherwise. Or some reached awakening spontaneously via intuition where existence of rationality we’re completely void. Rationality is not a prerequisite to awakening.

    @The observer You are straw manning while contradicting yourself. You are vouching for rationality in one breath then disregarding it in another. You are in fact, demonstrating relative and objective in your own argument.

    Your argument undermines the purpose of mind in the domain of consciousness. Relativity is the activity of mind from which concepts are organised. Ultimately none are any truer than any other. However, this doesn’t mean rationality is as useful as any other approach or that it will provide you access to truth. This is your conflation. You creating vague statements that assume because rationality is a reflection of truth it will serve just as equally valuable in deriving it. 

    Just because a gun is truth, doesn’t mean shooting someone will produce enlightenment. 

  14. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    24 minutes ago, Amit said:

    @Someone here read it again I said rationality doesn't have limits

    haha of course it does. You can’t rationalise without language. Rationality is completely limited and reliant upon the order of symbols concepts and linguistical formulations. No language = no rationality.

    You are confusing the infinitude of consciousness for the finitude of rationality.

    @Someone here I feel you have completely misunderstood what I have stated previously. Rationality has a pragmatic use in the relative domain when conceptualising and formulating ideas. Beyond this it is redundant. Awakening is beyond rationality. You cannot understand this without having had a mystical experience.

  15. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    36 minutes ago, Amit said:

    @Jacobsrw

    Rationality is not just limited to expressing oneself aka language, but it's a process of using intelligence to derive truth, without it, you won't be able to recognize falsehood masquerading as truth.

    Nothing could be far from accurate. Ultimate truth can not be understood through the sphere of logic and rationality. Hence why it is not revered in spiritual practice. One is informed to use everything but rationality when awakening to truth. 

    You cannot rationalise you’re way to truth, this is just more materialistic delusion compounding itself. You are privileging your mind over your experience.

  16. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    @The observer You are conflating relative truth with ultimate truth. In a relative perspective, rationality is not equal to other dimensions of mind. 

    I have no favour for either one, I can just simply see the varying degrees between different states of mind. Not all states of mind are equally efficient in their duty. 

    This is obvious even from a non-dual understanding. Some are more efficient in regards to different aspects one is attempting to accomplish. Rationality is superior for sequential, organised logical understanding. Metaphysic philosophy supersedes this when conceptualising reality. It’s not rocket science.

    They are equal in an ultimate perspective, but from a relative interpretation this is far from so.

     

  17. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    @The observer Ultimately, language is limited when explaining reality. To best explain it, one should be silent.

    However, it still has the caliber to be expressed and represented in varying degrees and qualities. Rationality is only but one formulation of linguistical expression. Many other forms of language far exceed it. That’s the main point.

    @TheAlchemist great point. I think the purpose here was to more clearly delineate the differences between them, not assert whether one is bad or good. 

    I also have Sam Harris’ waking app and sometimes listen to his podcasts. He provides value undeniably, but it must be noted he is  extremely limited in what he can provided when regarding spirituality. This must be understood otherwise listeners will interpret his level of metaphysics as accurate when it is more so explanations through a materialist lens.

    @Preety_India rationality has its purpose. It’s knowing when to use it and when to abstain from it.

  18. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    @Amit correct, I am unawakened. However, from the few mystical experiences I have had I can attest of the insufficiency rationality contributes in explaining them. Rationality is effective and useful in the world of mind and concepts, beyond this it becomes redundant. Inability to notice this, only exhibits one’s attachment to the realm of conceaptuality.

    The true depths of reality are unexplainable from the vantage point of rationality. 
     

  19. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    @Amit you misunderstand the purposes of rationality. Metaphysics transcends the parameters of rationality. Materialism and rationality are useful up until a point from which pragmatism is required. Beyond this point, one requires using tautologies, paradox’s and esoteric conundrums in order to explain reality. Neither materialism or rationality are competent in this endeavour.

  21. Posted

    @Amit Sam Harris fails to make existential distinctions that explain metaphysic matters. He completely deduces all his formulations and postulations down to a rationalistic analyses.

    Leo accounts for both the rational and metaphysics areas, which turns out to be far more integrated and holistic. Harris is very limited to materialistic propositions. He even goes as far as to project a materialistic lens onto his mystical experiences with psychedelics. This is an extremely limited way to interpret.

    Harris has many leaps and bounds to make before he really understands the depth of what Leo discusses.

  24. Posted

    24 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

    Here is a tip that I can give you: Just let go and let the art happen. Just freestyle a drawing everyday for a month or so. Let what happens happen and don't listen to your inner critic. Do that again and again and after a while look at all your drawings. You will notice that there will be a lot of similarities between your drawings. A lot of things that you do purely out of habit and routine and so on. When you are in a state where the critic doesn't exist you will start doing the same thing over and over again. I, for example, noticed that I use a lot of similar melodies in my songs. Do exactly that. Notice the things you do over and over again and write them down. This process is for your inner critic entirely. Just critique the things that you find boring, stale, repetitive or unsatisfactory in any other way and write them down. After that read through your own critique and you'll have a pretty good overview of the things you have to learn.

    Practice these things for a while and then repeat the circle again. Let go and let art happen, critique and analyse your art, practice the things you need to practice.

    It's good to keep these things apart. Leave the mind out of the process of creation. This process is for your intuitive part only. You inner critic would only interfere with your art! But don't leave him out entirely. Once the art is finished you can use your mind to analyze what you'll have to practice next! Don't make the mistake of overthinking your art or you'll end up blocking the flow of art entirely. But also don't make the mistake of UNDERthinking it, or your growth will end up stagnating. Find the golden balance between these two! Once you find this balance your growth will accelerate quickly!

    The perfectionist within you can be a very valuable part, but he needs to know when it's his time to shine and when it's not.

    I hope I could help you a little!

    Third magnificent! Man, I love what you articulated. It’s so true there’s a required balance between perfection and flow. This is what i feel I need to establish more deeply.

    I’ll try what you suggested, i see powerful and profound things arising from that approach. I’ve been wanting to let things go for quite a while now I think it’s time to begin haha

  25. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    @mathieu thank you! Not as such. I base most of my art inspiration from photography and combing images together in a creative way. I do however, find William Blake and Salvador Dali extremely inspiring. But most of what I draw is self-generated concepts.

    @DrewNows thank you! That’s some good insight. I do enjoy similar things to what you mentioned. Especially higher order existential concepts. I was writing up a list previously but I found it hard to remember what I meant by some of the ideas I wrote coming back to it later haha. I’ll be sure to look at doing it better in the future though.

    @Preety_India thank you!

    @DefinitelyNotARobot that’s beautifully worded! I really resonate with what you wrote, also I do my best to operate in this way with much of life. Yet when it comes to art, perfectionism takes over and I feel the need to have art be presented in an accurate way. I find this very disruptive to the “flow” state. It contorts my fluid ability to create. 

    This might have to do with the fact I draw realism which works to imitate “real world” appearances.

    I might just try sitting with a blank piece paper with no ideas and see what happens when I meet it with a pencil. Reminds me of Peter Ralstons ‘Empty Your Cup’ exercise. Thanks man!

    @Moon thank you!