Carl-Richard

@MuadDib Yup. The disclaimer is already a vibe killer (it already was for the Curt Jaimungal appearance). It is highly unusual (nobody does a 4-minute pre-written disclaimer before an interview) and creates a rift between the viewer and the interviewee. The disclaimer can be revealed step-wise for each question when required. In an interview you're supposed to reveal information in a sequential fashion in the rhythm with the questions. Or else you break with the format and it comes off as forced and unnatural. If it's really necessary, I would just give a one-sentence disclaimer at the top of your head before you begin answering the first question, like "just as a quick disclaimer: we're going to use a few words today that might be loaded for some people, like God, Absolute Truth, but if you keep an open mind, you will maybe still appreciate what I have to say". And perhaps "also, questioning reality might be destabilizing for some people so be aware of this when deciding whether to watch the video or not".

"Normal" wheat bread gives me brain fog. By chance, I discovered that spelt bread does not give me brain fog to any similar extent, so I started eating it instead. But an explanation for why always puzzled me; explanations like higher fructan content in wheat did not seem satisfying. I always knew deep inside it had to be something with selective breeding for millennia, and lo and behold: It also explains why I can eat pasta with fewer problems, because it uses durum wheat and not the semi-dwarf wheat variety, and likely the cooking process (boiling) removes or deactivates some of the anti-nutrients.

The way you open the link and it just stares at you covering the entire screen, full on jumpscare 😂😂😂😂

DemystifySci?

What dose? And no co-factors? (Not completely co-signing everything this guy says before I do my own research but anyways):

My friend tripped and said he turned into a literal window. And he had the strong sense that "today is the day windows are to be sold". It's sort of the drug 70s anti-drug commercials wanted you to believe LSD is. There are some wild videos on YouTube of Salvia trips gone let's say not so good. It really scrambles your entire reality. And then you of course have Eric, my look-alike, doing Eric stuff:

Correct. It is as simple as that. Solipsists around these parts tend to take the witnessing of objects as absolute, while the witnessing of objects is in fact relative. They will maybe protest this characterization and vaguely proclaim "this is everything that exists" but then also add a bunch of other statements after that (e.g. "if your grandma is not in your field of vision, she doesn't exist) which implies that only a certain configuration of objects exist and anything outside that configuration cannot be the case. "But my visual field is not an object". Well, objects are defined by exclusion (or distinction), and if your visual field can exclude or be distinct from your grandma, it's an object.

Solipsism around these parts are very concerned about denying the existence of certain spatio temporal entities (hidden forms and objects), while clinging to other spatio temporal entities as ontological primitives ("currently visible" forms and objects), and calling these primitives absolute, seemingly for no coherent reason. But there too, the answer is to simply dissolve any primitive that is not limitless.

Why?

One time at my old gym in another town, I was walking over this glass bridge where you can see down to the first floor through the floor. And I spotted this absolute heterosexual visual black hole (hot female) and the song said exactly at that moment "do not look down, do not look down" (like in an extremely audible way, as it was the chorus). I will never forget that.

You can be an outlier not captured by the data. That's the role of body signals to identify (but one has to of course distinguish between simply tasting with the mouth and tasting with the body; distinguishing between hedonic and eudaimonic signals). And that's of course also not an excuse to not experiment with the more meta-analytically rigorous options.

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: