Carl-Richard

Yeah and they need to hug you in a circle like you do on MDMA with your buddies (like all people do, right?... Right? ?).

I mean like Sadhguru, Rupert Spira; any enlightened guru. But I thought you were an OG! It's also called "The Grace of the Guru". It's contagious spiritual energy. All energy is contagious, but some people are more contagious than others. I'm not gonna link him here, but search up "Jan Esmann shaktipat".

It's literally just empathy; emotionally attuning to somebody else's state. It just happens to work with subtle states of consciousness as well. Consciousness is not stupid. This is Oneness in action.

I get into this state if I watch any spiritual guru video. It's called transmission.

dundundundun dundun dun-dun, dun-dun-d-duun

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyMemes/comments/ohkbem/philosophy_iceberg/

Reading, lifting and eating ?

@ZenAlex Is Sadhguru psychotic?

I've performed music on stage before, and I guess I would go the acceptance route: accept the fact that you are going to be anxious and that it's not necessarily a bad thing (it sharpens your senses etc.). Acceptance as an attitude is a much more stable strategy than affirming some non-dual belief, because the non-dual belief is just a belief, and it's not certain that this belief will gain conscious traction when you bring it up in the moment (that you will embody it). The most certain thing is that you'll be anxious, and affirming it just for the fact that it's the most certain outcome is beneficial in itself, because anxiety feeds on uncertainty.

This is a common trap when trying to understand old philosophers. One must read past single words or sentences. Language of old is very different from today's language.

A smaller version than a strongman world champion from the 80s. Ok ?

Meditation is meaning, joining a monk temple is meaning, doing just enough to get by is meaning, avoiding drugs is meaning, even doing drugs is meaning. The question is just this: are you maximizing meaning or are you half-assing it? The experience of something being meaningful is not completely random. It's generally tied to something, and it's generally the things that sustain you as an organism; survival. Maximizing meaning is about maximizing that impulse across all domains. You wouldn't do spirituality or self-help if it didn't fundamentally sustain you as an organism. The end goal might be to transcend survival, but that is the opposite of failing survival. You're on the path of sustainable growth, and that has a certain structure to it.

@Michael569 ???

Literally what do you consume in a day?

When I say regulation, I'm not really talking about age limits for purchasing, or that this will have some kind of magical effect on deterring people from underaged drug use. That will happen anyway, prohibition or no prohibition. I'm mainly just talking about how drugs should literally be sold.

What do you eat?

It's simply the case that this level of wide-scale abuse of society's citizens through mass incarceration and willfully fueling a multi-trillion dollar criminal underworld, merely for trying (and failing miserably) to control something that is generally less harmful than the most common legal drug (alcohol), is obviously just complete and utter madness. People will look back at drug prohibition the way we look back at slavery today. The reason people are vary about it is because of fear, ignorance and stigma. If you have any experience with so-called hard drugs or know anything about pharmacology, it's patently obvious that drug prohibition makes zero sense. That said, I'm probably the most anti-drug person you can find. This is not a moral crusade. This about the health of society as a system. The specifics of legalization (e.g. what is sensible and safe) is a regulation problem, which will sort itself out just like it did with alcohol after the prohibition era.

1. Complete corruption of society. 2. Complete corruption of society.

I'm way less enlightened than you. I'm so not enlightened.

Finland: Rank 1 happiness. Also Finland: Rank 5 suicide rate.

Same with alcoholics, but no need to remove liquor stores. The main problems I see for legalization and regulation of hard drugs is how to ease the culture into it with the least possible friction. There will inevitably be problems in that process, just like with anything (look at collective electric scooters). But once that process is over, we'll be at roughly the same place as alcohol today. We already know alcohol kills millions each year, and it's considered the most harmful drug on most metrics, but it's still legal and regulated, because that is the least brain dead solution.

Should we abolish clean needle rooms? https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/09/07/645609248/whats-the-evidence-that-supervised-drug-injection-sites-save-lives The reasoning there is that people are inevitably going to shoot up, so we might as make it as safe as possible. Legalization and regulation has a similiar reasoning behind it. It's possible to make drugs available for purchase with heavy regulation like tobacco products in some countries which disincentivizes use: no advertising, all brands have the same boring packaging, have graphic health warnings on them, and they're completely hidden from view. In Norway, it's possible to grow up without knowing how to legally buy tobacco. https://norwaytoday.info/news/standardized-tobacco-containers-norway/ I could imagine other types of regulations like a national customer registry which tracks all your drug purchases and limits the amounts you can buy from any store at one time or over a certain period. Say if you were to max out your amount of heroin and you say that it's not enough, you could for example be offered a methadone treatment program or buy some weaker opiate substitute.

I've watched both rounds twice. Let's just leave it at that ?

Why do you have this weird obsession with drugging people? ? I'll stay far the hell away from you ?