Carl-Richard

I listened to a song once when I was in the most stressful state of my life many years ago, lying, stealing, doing drugs, etc. I think the song was "Low Life" by Death or something (or one of the other Death songs where he sings about "lies"). I felt like the song was about me, like every lyric was describing me exactly, talking to me, about me, broadcasting to me in real time. Thing is, I was also a bit psychotic in that state, things were starting to become quite wonky. I specifically thought in that state "oh god, I'm turning into the guy who believes the radio is talking to him". That said, an expanded sense of identity need not be pathological. But it might be concominant with pathology, so it can be a sign to watch out for. But maybe more related to your question, almost a year ago, I was putting up posters in the city advertising the study for my MSc. This lady comes up to me, starts talking to me about what is on the poster (which said "do you have smartphone and negative thoughts? Join a study at _"). She was like "smartphone? I've not had a smartphone since forever". She really started rambling a lot, but not incoherently. I asked about how she manages to pay for shit without the mobile app for entering your bank ID in various places, and she had some elaborate answer which I won't bore you with, then she starts talking about how she has decided over time to live a more simpler life, not care too much about friends, simply taking time for herself. And then as her talking came to a conclusion, she sort of ended on a lesson (which I can't quite remember, but I think it was about not working yourself to death or something), and she was like "remember that" with a sense of passion and sincerity in her eyes. The entire interaction felt like she was either a bit cuckoo or tapped into presence, and it felt like she was sent there in a weird way, like as if this interaction was orchestrated. And of course, I spent that entire year working myself to death and I gained a noticeable amount of grey hairs.

It might attenuate the dysphoria but it might also attenuate the trip (unsure).

Whatchu poppin?

I just posted this here because I couldn't find a retardation examples mega-thread.

If you only eat fatty meat (unless it's like more than 50% fat), you will have problems eating enough because it's so satiating. So the problem is usually not that, but the refined carbs.

I don't want to do that now. I want to do the inquiry into direct experience that I talked about in the other thread. It's very step by step based on what you answer, not a lecture. But you will find that exercise patronizing, so only if you're open to that.

Being mentally healthy, as in free of mental conflict, with yourself. Because if you are in conflict with yourself, all the resources of your body are turned against themselves. Then it matters less that you better any single resource, because the resource goes into supressing another resource. What you want is all your resources to align under a shared goal. That's what an organism fundamentally is. When a part of the organism deviates from that goal, you have cancer, you have civil war, you have neurosis, inner conflict. It eats itself up. To be healthy, to be whole, the whole organism must be playing on team with itself. Self-determination in behavior, on all levels.

@How to be wise Watched until 46:00. (By the way, this is not me doing the guided inquiry into direct experience as I said above, as you did not give your own sentence, and I also have to counter Leo's points in full, which is at the level of concepts). What Leo does is he makes the case for groundlessness of experience, i.e. it is not sourced from anything but itself, hence there is nothing "outside" of it. But where the limitations of this experience is, is not grounded in anything either. The groundlessness is symmetrical with its infiniteness, which ironically goes beyond its limited appearance as sounds, colors, sensations, feelings, etc., the very things Leo erroneously puts as "base reality". Also, postulating an infinite mind where everything arises within it, outside the limitations of sensations, feelings, etc., is identical to this notion. Because you cannot find a limit on it, only through carving out, which we do here through the act of language and thinking, but which we also do instinctively through the act of perception. Once you deconstruct the very act of perception, the limitations cease to be and you get pure undifferentiated awareness. That is what I want you to do in your direct experience by the way. And I will help you along the way.

@SQAAD Are you of the belief that you need a perfect job?

Sometimes expectation is a hindrance. If you are in a situation where you do not expect to be spiritual, maybe that is what will happen. And if you try to be spiritual, that is of course generally a hindrance also. There is a song about this that goes "my struggle to free myself from restraints, becomes my very shackles". It's also what tends to happen after a first spiritual experience. Suddenly you start grasping to it, and then it disappears, because the experience is not grasping, it's simply letting what is, is. Spiritual practice, be it psychedelics or meditation, is kind of a game of getting off at the right bus stop at the right time. You generally want to take the bus, the bus helps to take you places, but to land at the right place, you have to go off at the right time. Grasping sort of becomes inevitable, so you have to teach yourself when it's time to not grasp anymore, when it's time to let go, give up the current technique and just see what happens when nothing is on the agenda, where you can just go to a festival and be there without trying to be something.

Who started this rumor? 😂 Here is an open invitation to anybody willing to take it: I can talk you out of solipsism, through a guided inquiry into your direct experience (no conceptual jargon, no philosophical understanding required). We can do it right here, right now. Just let me know. All you need to do is give me one single sentence that describes your idea of solipsism and we will take it from there.

Can you describe "this right now" to me?

I see this distinction between the direct consciousness and the communication of it as a massive abyss. Yes, you can have a kind of intuitive flow and traction which resonates viscerally when reading it, and it can be one of the most effective ways of pointing. Energetic delivery in person is even better. But the abyss is still there. It's between the actual experience and the words, concepts, pointers, philosophy characterizing it. And if the communication is through philosophy, a deeply rigorous philisophy can be warranted. And just generally, engaging deeply in philosophy cannot negate any spiritual experience. It's very freeing when you see the ultimateness of spiritual experience that cannot be negated, that whatever you engage with in the world, is the world, the ultimate remains ultimately.

Clapping. Raising a toast and saying "cheers". And this video:

If you move more, you can eat more carbs (in fact, you probably should). 80-90% of insulin-induced glucose control comes from skeletal muscles. But yes, a food pyramid that tends to place hyper processed foods at the bottom, for most people, that's good.

@Nemo28 AI naughty naughty

Brother, is this you? https://www.youtube.com/@RuslanMalyshev

I want AI to make me a meme gif of a person shooting a gun that has "pointing is not it" inscribed on it and who says "shut up" *reloads* "shut up" *reloads* "shut up" *reloads*, just so I can post it in every non-duality thread when the time is ripe. Yes, I did walk into a potlid-locked piece of terrain filled with cooled-down trapped weed smoke in -10 degrees celsius two days ago and I'm still high.

A friend of mine who I celebrated New Years Eve with is aware of Actualized.org, Spiral Dynamics, has meditated for hours at a time, has taken psychedelics, knows about the ramifications of attachment, and like me, he comes off like a normal guy (maybe he won't vouch for me) when you talk to him about normal stuff (which is what happens when you are a spiral wizard).

Vibez. Thinking well about reality means you are able to control reality well. The mix is substantial.

I have to re-frame my past exclamations of "it's so simple, literally spend 10 minutes to learn the distinction between personal and transpersonal", as that is more a wish and a rhetorical quip than reality. It was not the case for me, it was a paradigm shift after years of intentional grasping for something more than my vibez-based solipsism (which I did subscribe to for quite some time). I think it's almost a default to subscribe to solipsism once you get into non-duality. It's seemingly so elegant, simple, but indeed only if you are kind of simple yourself (in the conceptual department, not necessarily spiritually). Yes, to make philosophically sound statements, you have to do a little digging into philosophy, into science, into trying to be logically consistent, into expressing your ideas in a clear and unequivocal way (which does not equal simple). It was a process for me, and unless you're exceptionally gifted in the conceptual department, it will be for you too, if you decide to go down that route. And I do believe it's worth it, because you are always making philosophical statements on the spiritual path. You are doing it right now. You are never exempt from stating things logically and from trying to provide an argument. Even if you're a vibez-based solipsist, you are providing a philosophy. It doesn't matter if it's based in direct experience. I believe my philosophy of idealism is based in direct experience. It's the way you communicate it, the level of consistency, the conceptual rigor, that might be entirely different, that makes it come off as different, but it can be based in entirely the same thing. It's about how well you think, not how well you "are" in terms of spiritual attainment. And if you are all about spiritual attainment, then the pointing business maybe is not for you. There are other ways to spread your insights. You don't have to do it through words. But again, if you choose words, you take on the responsibility of being rigorous, logically consistent and unequivocal, or else you delude yourself and others.

Bernardo Kastrup, contemporary idealist philosopher, and about to blow the shit out of the AI market and spreading idealism on top of billion dollar budgets: "Europe's last hope in the AI race - Europe must gain AI sovereignty; here's how they can do it": https://iai.tv/articles/europes-last-hope-in-the-ai-race-auid-3453?_auid=2020

I was not referring to you specifically but the problem of projecting in general. If you want direct: the fact of the matter is anything can exist, and denying that anything can exist has nothing to do with non-duality. Even more direct: there is no "this" in my direct experience. That's a projection. Show me "this". You can't. Here is a 3-minute "overly conceptualized" deconstruction of solipsism having anything to do with non-duality, if my words (and Ramana lineage student Michael James') are too complicated:

The I that is God is not an avatar. That's the problem with projecting your own idea of the word. That's why I elaborate with what the "I" is. The entire linguistic enterprise is dualistic for God's sake. And I'm saying God is in everything. What is dualistic about that? "Sounds weird" means you're coming at this from a "feels" perspective not a logically consistent and conceptually informed perspective. And that's the problem. Something that is logically consistent sounds weird. We're barely logical creatures. The pointing game is ridiculously limited. The best way is sometimes to shut up. But people keep asking so we keep pointing. God and avatars are one, God and perceptions are one. God and feelings, sounds, colors are one. But you saying "only these sounds and colors exist, not these other sounds and colors", that's fantasy, that's illusion. Because show me "these sounds and colors". Point them out to me. If you can do that, you will see that is in fact dualistic. You see, solipsism in the way you seem to conceive it can ever only be dualistic. Ramana's solipsism, is radically non-dualistic. It's going inwards towards yourself, not outwards towards the world, things, feelings, perceptions, experiences, sensations — inwards towards the One, not outwards towards the many. The One and the many are united in the journey inwards, united in an infinite way, not in a "here is the border of my limited avatar-based experience, anything outside is not real" kind of way.

Why does an omniscient God care where your grandmother is specifically?