Carl-Richard

Most people prefer to do it in small installments

Anything you do as a human is in some way biased, so yes.

It's even wilder than that. I used to hang out with people who believed that normal people can harbor harmful energies, and even though I told myself that I didn't really believe it, I literally started feeling bad around normal people. In fact, even when I stopped hanging out with the people who believed these things, it took several months before I went back to normal. It taught me that beliefs aren't chosen; they sneak in through the backdoor. So that means you should be even more careful than what you're suggesting. It's the same reason why you shouldn't let your kids hang out with bad people. You're inevitably shaped by your environment, especially when you're young and have not developed your worldview.

Probably.

Correct. I could agree Nahm used to bring up the absolute a lot in threads that weren't explicitly talking about the absolute, but I didn't get the impression that he would for example directly quote someone and try to contradict their statements ad nauseam, or at least not in an inflammatory or low effort way.

Not really. There is a fine line between providing useful and elegant pointers to the absolute in the appropriate context vs doing it in a way that for example derails a conversation. Context and style matters a lot.

Reminds me of the classic Advaita Trap:

At some point, ending suffering is seen as preferable over any singular life goal/experience. I think it's a new member thing. It will disappear over time.

What does that mean?

Can you turn off the sun just as easily as turning off the light in your room? No. There is obviously a useful distinction to be made between a personal "you" and the transpersonal "You".

There is nothing wrong with reducing suffering.

Sure, but you can still ask what is the reasoning behind it. Besides, recently there was a huge thread where somebody was claiming they're not conscious and that we are fine to kill them It's for those people you want to give the reasoning behind it.

Basically drugs.

To try to be unbiased is just another bias.

You can suffer while sitting in a silent room doing nothing and where nothing is hurting you.

Because it's so often used to deny any forms of knowledge that is not 100% certain, and people who get stuck in it have to perform the most fantastic feats of mental gymnastics to avoid having normal conversations about the most banal things, e.g. the idea that other people exist. And the reason people do it is because it's so fucking easy: just deny any forms of reasoning and stick to your "direct experience" and endlessly pontificate about how openminded you are for not entertaining anything that requires more than two brain cells to think about.

Why should I do that?

@blankisomeone Actually, let me try to re-frame the same question in the absolute garbage solipsist frame: will it appear to other people that you're imagining to exist like you've imagined your own death or not?

No. Forget solipsism. It's a garbage way of understanding life.

It's hollow in the sense that there is nobody operating it, no ghost in the machine, no subject who has private conscious experiences. Still, I don't understand what you mean. Will it appear to other people like you've died or not?

Isn't that basically just another word for group selection?

There is this girl I'm talking to that doesn't like it when I say that I have OCD in the colloquial sense (we both study psychology, and psychologists are taught very strict definitions of diagnoses), even when I'm explaining that I'm using the normie definition and not the proper definition. It's both of us being dofuses in our own ways (her for not being flexible with frames, me for succumbing to the normie frame ). You don't have to think 100% the same as somebody you like, but of course there are degrees to that question.

Whether it will be experienced negatively by the individual could certainly be a question, but whether it will be experienced negatively by the surrounding society is probably less up to debate (and it seems to tilt in the negative direction, contrary to what the myth would suggest). Here Sapolsky tells a really interesting story about the time he met a schizophrenic person in an indigenous culture: 48:22 Remember that it's certainly not off the table that schizotypal individuals could be more prone to taking up shamanism than the average person (which is somebody who is kinda on the "schizophrenia spectrum"), but those people are yet not truly "schizophrenic" as per the diagnostic criteria of "schizophrenia" that exists in the DSM-5 or the ICD-11. By those criteria, it's a very specific disorder, and if you want to treat it as such, you're better off listening to what the experts have to say about it rather than what Terrence McKenna said about it.

I gotta say, that is a weird intuition. So will your body stop aging at some point or be impervious to damage? When everybody else around you dies, your body will be just fine? You'll be praised as the first immortal man? Or is it that when you die, you and your dead body gets teleported to some alternate dimension where you get fixed up and somehow get to keep living, leaving behind a hollow copy of your dead body which is the one that will be buried, effectively preserving the illusion of bodily death for the rest of humanity?