Carl-Richard

That is what you should absolutely not do.

Why? Well yeah, childhood conflict and trauma is not everything, but it's something. It's fascinating how accurately trauma can predict behavior. There was this one case study of a lady in the ACE study who was a victim of childhood sexual abuse by her grandfather, and she was exclusively working night shifts at an elderly care home, because then all the old people were asleep (and not able to hurt her). Illusions exist. They just aren't what they appear to be. Even a criminal has to discipline their id. I experience the superego every day as my voice of conscience ("do the dishes", "take out the trash", "deliver that assignment", "read that chapter" etc.), and id as my impulsive animalistic side ("I want to play videogames, jerk off, eat more food, sleep" etc.).

I'm talking about what is common across all those things: meaning. It's not enough to talk about things. It's also about the approach to those things. Meaning is not just structure or order. It's dynamic, self-organizing, intelligent. It's that which orients you between order and chaos. It's optimal grip, elegance, balance, flow. It's resilience, self-sustaining, vitality, organic, aliveness. It's morality, reason and consciousness. Like meaning, I approach the concept of health as a deep metaphysical thing, not just as something concrete like diet or exercise. It governs everything you do. Every action you undertake is either more or less healthy, and exactly how that works has to do with meaning. This is also not just me. The mainstream is also going in this direction: the biopsychosocial model, salutogenesis, anti-paternalism etc.

Wut

That's a stretch. It's easy to view your childhood development as a conflict between lower emotional desires (id) and sociocultural expectations (superego), that most of the conflict is unconscious, and that the "resolution" of that conflict (adulthood) is often not unproblematic. Then you have the need for therapy, and Freudian concepts can be useful for structuring that process. The way that psychoanalysis generally focuses on the past for understanding the present is effective for some conditions more than others (e.g. CBT is generally more "now"-oriented and effective for other conditions). The ACE study is one example of how many problems in the present can be anchored in the past.

@thisintegrated Lol. What @Raptorsin7 said is accurate. Tate has debunked all of these points, and his explanations sound way more probable than what these sensationalistic headlines are trying to paint him as.

What did I miss?

I mean, I've already written a topic which lays out my approach to health if you truly want a long answer. I'm just going to give a summary of that here. So basically do things that create meaning in your life on all levels simultaneously, be it adding some structure to your daily life, or aligning yourself with a life purpose, working on the roots and dynamics of your emotions, physical exercise, diet etc., and of course balance all of that with spiritual practice. These are all things that have worked in my life, and I started almost from scratch, implementing them one by one. So while I sometimes reference actual science, for me it's not just theory. I also have other similar things like that in my bookmarks.

@Tyler Robinson I'm eating. 2 sec

Again, Daniel is looking for what the world needs. What you're offering is a different answer for what the world needs. This has been a semantics game this whole time. The incessant need to edit your phrasing ever so slightly indicates this. It shouldn't be this hard to communicate what you're trying to communicate: you're disagreeing with his prescriptions, his methods, his thinking, his worldview (your perception of it).

Then you wouldn't be so concerned about what Daniel thinks the world needs. Daniel is looking for what the world needs. What you're offering is an answer for what the world needs.

Explain why it's a false statement.

@Devin Explain yourself.

So what Daniel thinks the world needs is actually not what the world needs. It only needs less fear.

Let's bring it back then: what is wrong with fear? Why bring it up?

Stop lying.

Oh my god... "The only thing the world needs is New Age spirituality". No, get a grip.

10/10 Slay

"You see guys, it's possible to either view things through a set of action-oriented, pragmatist-realist glasses, or a set of New Age rose-tinted glasses, and because viewing it through the latter is completely irrelevant to the mission of actually making a change, I'm going to dismiss their spiritual chops for no reason"

I see no other way that you can raise these kinds of objections against someone like Dan who grew up within a non-dual community.

"Defensiveness, difficult emotions, striving, struggling, survival etc. must be avoided at all costs." That is not true acceptance.

Ladies and gentlemen; New Age brainrot. "This guy has serious plans and aspirations. He is surely not as spiritual as I am."

I don't think trying to avoid an outcome means you're fearful.

Some people are more focused on writing poetry than conveying clear thoughts, which is ok. That is a valid form of self-expression. But some people can certainly work on streamlining their writing if they want people to understand, let alone read their posts. On the topic of debate (or just conversation in general), there is an interesting phenomena that often happens where there is no real progress in terms of covering new ground, but it's rather about engaging in different "modes of thinking" (e.g. saying something common that almost everybody agrees with), which is then often treated as if it is new information or an actual disagreement, but which in reality is just a difference in timing or circumstance. This often causes conversations to get needlessly heated. For example, I think everybody can agree that being overly verbose can be detrimental, so in that sense, you're simply engaging in a common mode of thinking. Then somebody might respond by bringing up some opposing mode that is also a source of agreement (e.g. "you need to be informative though"), just as a way to balance it out, all the while there is no actual disagreement to be had. That said, it's not a complete waste of time, because it can be used as a springboard to talk about differences in nuances and emphasis on those topics. For example, I agreed with the general premise of your topic, but I responded by adding some nuance. So keeping this in mind can be another tool for making conversations go more smoothly.

I'm interested in what effect psychedelics have on spirituality. Tell us about how you got into psychedelics or meditation. Which one came first? EDIT: added a new question about awakenings.