Carl-Richard

In the tree example, "shadow" has a very specific meaning. You've made it into a metaphor, which is definitely not specific. "Energy body" is also not a very specific concept. What even is an energy body? What does it have to do with geometric shapes? What do shadows have to with it? I'm just left with more questions than answers.

No ?

I don't feel like that is specific enough. For example, if you see a shadow on the ground that is shaped like a tree, what would be a suitable explanation for that? Well, for me, it would be that there is a tree that casts a shadow on the ground because the sun is shining on it, blocking out some of the light that is reflected off the ground. There are of course other ways to explain it which aren't as specific, for example "the sun is low on the sky today", but that would maybe be more suitable for why there is a shadow on the ground in the first place. The example I gave is actually very analogous, because it explains why the shadow is shaped like a tree and not say a rabbit (because there is a tree casting the shadow, not a rabbit). Likewise, I'm interested in why the tiny geometric patterns are shaped like that, or why they are moving like that and not in some other way.

What — you didn't find it relevant?

If literally anything is possible, why are you entertaining this particular schizo thought and not something else?

Instead of going deeper on SD in particular, you could read a bit about other types of stage theories, particularly in the field of developmental psychology, and contrast it to "non-stage" developmental theories there (e.g. Bronfenbrenner or Sameroff) to get a fuller understanding of the concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_stage_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_stage_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology

Regardless, you've reached the end of the explanatory tree.

Then I consider your reasoning to not be useful.

There are many things that are logically possible but which are not reasonable possibilities. For example, you have no way to prove right now that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, or that there isn't a hyper-dimensional space unicorn floating around the orbit of Neptune, or that every time you close your eyes at night, there isn't a giant spider that creeps up from under your bed and sits beside you. All of those things are logically possible, but they're just not very reasonable. My last post talked about this: if you want to reduce the vast potential of suffering that your imagination can conjure up, you have to make peace with the unknown and not let it bother you too much. When you're driving your car, your steering can malfunction and make you crash into a ditch. When you're flying a plane, a loose nut can get dislodged and get sucked into the engines. There is an infinite amount of logically possible scenarios like that. But why worry about them?

What is your view on the idea that individuated consciousness seems to be intrinsically tied to biology?

@Jehovah increases Thanks ChatGPT ?

Of course the concept of the ontological unknown is just a concept that the intellect makes up, but that doesn't mean the concept isn't pointing to something in reality. It's the same thing with the concept of non-duality: it's a concept pointing to something in reality. I guess what the non-dual tradition is saying is "just don't concern yourself with the ontological unknown; concern yourself with what is experienced directly". That is why it rejects things like matter, because nobody has directly seen matter, only direct experience. But that doesn't in principle invalidate the existence of the ontological unknown. It's just an ontological preference to say you only care about the known. Therefore, "the absolute" is only absolute in the realm of the known. It can also be the case that the unknown is just a fantasy, or a kind of artefact of the functioning of the intellect (which is to ask questions; "what if?"). In other words, for the intellect to ponder the unknown is self-serving to its very existence. Of course it will do that — it's in its nature. If the known is "this", it will ponder "not-this". If the known is non-dual, it will ponder duality. Also, I guess the non-dual tradition focuses on accepting the unknown, to make peace with it, rather than rejecting it. Because when you're obsessing about the unknown, you keep projecting "what ifs" all the time, which is the root of suffering. It doesn't get you anywhere other than existential OCD. So if you care about reducing suffering, accepting the unknown by letting it remain unknown and living in the known is the way to.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I've been thinking about something @SeaMonster once said. The unknown is often equated (maybe mistakenly) with non-duality or pure being. But what if non-duality is rather just the conceptual unknown, and thus still non-conceptual knowing (because obviously, non-duality is known)? So then, what about the truly "ontological" unknown? Does it actually exist? If it does, we can't know if non-duality is actually the true absolute, but instead only absolute in the realm of what is known. The only counter to that would be that the unknown is actually known. Thoughts?

To explain something in terms of something else is by definition relative. Also, you can't keep explaining things by pointing to something else forever. At some point, you reach the unexplainable, the absolute, the final reduction. Try it: what are chairs made of? "Wood". What is wood made of? "Cells". What are cells made of? "Chemical compounds". What are chemical compounds made of? "Atoms". What are atoms made of? "Quarks". What are quarks made of? "Strings". What are strings made of? "No idea".

?

I'm very much concerned about details like this (this video is surprisingly accurate): Like, why do you see those particular patterns and not something else? It has always fascinated me since the first times I tripped.

I'm fine with that I think a satisfying explanation would need a certain level of specificity relative to what is being asked. For example, I think explaining the occurrence of psychedelic visuals as having to do with the 5HT2a receptor is a satisfying explanation, but to explain the structure or form of the visuals I think requires a different kind of explanation.

You can still explain things despite all that. An explanation is when you reduce something to something else. I'm looking for such a thing.

So you've never encountered something called an explanation before?

A confluence of genes, environment and experiences, or in other words: statistics. People come in different shapes and sizes: some are very oddly shaped or very large, while some are very differently shaped or very tiny. Given enough people, you're bound to find some oddballs out there.

I sometimes have that fear myself, but just as a passing thought and very rarely, and I would think that's normal behavior. Any normal behavior can be taken to the extreme (because of the natural distribution of individual differences), thus some people will be plagued by that fear very intensely and which may warrant a diagnosis in a diagnostic statistical manual. There, I explained it — easy

I met a spirit phoenix once on a microdose of LSD and a bit of weed and a bunch of other substances ? (I'm exaggerating the story a bit).

Well, I don't.

"Just don't be mentally ill lol" ._.