Carl-Richard

You ready for that?

Firstly, I think the label of "self-referential thinking" could be misleading. It's better to talk about neural correlates. Secondly, you think you're thinking, but you're really just reporting ;D The unconscious mind is really what is driving the show. Gary Weber talks about it in the video (he uses the analogy of "the rider and the elephant"). But yeah, about the neural correlates: When you're problem-solving, you're primarily using the task-positive network. "Deliberately reflecting on yourself for whatever purpose" sounds like problem-solving to me. On the other hand, when you're not doing any deep problem-solving, most people primarily switch to the task-negative network (i.e. compulsively thinking I/me/my thoughts). Nobody is advocating for eliminating the episodic memory, only for reducing prolonged stays in the task-negative network.

Yup. It's really just different variations of selflessness. I remember my downward spiral at 17-18 years old, and it was exactly what the video above describes: the adult child who burrows down into his fantasies and doesn't want to take responsibility. It's "me-me-me". The adult wakes up and realizes the sacrifices that need to be made. The ultimate adulthood is when the "me-me-me" dies, and life becomes pure service (to God).

It serves a purpose, just like ejaculating sperm serves a purpose. That does not mean higher functioning. But again, how (or when) you go about getting there matters. You probably shouldn't aim for shutting down self-referential thoughts if you don't have your lower needs met.

Generally, the less time you spend compulsively regurgitating episodic memories, the more functional you'll be. There is really no way around it. Now, the techniques to get there (and the fashion they're used in) can certainly be questionable.

That was before I learned all this, 5 years ago. It was a big part of the learning process.

Happiness is a state. Health is a structure. In your search, you've been dealing with structures. The end result was not a state. It was a better structure. People who say "all you want is happiness" are teenagers and heroin junkies. I suggest upgrading your existential vocabulary. Really Examples of better words: health, vitality, functionality, intrinsic joy, integrity, virtue.

They do, but you can aim for (and experience) happiness in many different ways which are not healthy. If @Someone here is against that, he is actually aiming for health over happiness. In every example he gave, he mentioned health.

I agree. This thread seemed like it was cooked up as a quick response to what was already happening. It could be useful to clarify the nuances. @Leo Gura

Is it happiness or is it health?

Most art is largely manifested through unarticulated and embodied doing. You can't separate the art from the process of making it.

The distinctions aren't perfect, but it's clear when there is an active and large scale recruiting to a "space", not merely through personal connection, but as a numbers game. There is an emphasis on the "space" part.

Not if you're actually ready to finally let go. It's when that is the only thing that is keeping you from proceeding in your spiritual growth. That is what you're building up to anyway. The problematic types of letting go are as I said when you play hide and seek with your own mind instead of facing yourself fully and taking responsibility for all aspects of yourself.

@integral You have to work on things, exhaust them, and then you can let go of them for good. "Practicing" letting go in the moment as some kind of temporary symptomatic relief is not what I mean by "letting go" or becoming "detached". If the patterns aren't dealt with at the root, they will arise again. You can't let go of sex, of your work, of your children, if you haven't built up to the point where that is appropriate. The ultimate conclusion to this is letting go of everything. That is all that matters in the end.

Let go of your entire life right now.

You can't practice letting go.

The concepts of "force", "energy" and especially "substance" could easily harbor Cartesian-Newtonian assumptions.

It's specifically when a sub-group within this forum secedes and creates another space. The ban is a deterrence from people participating in that process. Speaking generally (not just about the current issue), when the process is done and the new community is established, then if other people join it, it makes no sense to ban those people. Those people have nothing to do with the aforementioned process.

@Oeaohoo @axiom Convenient fictions. Go.

You can't practice detachment.

"Wdym?" ?

The higher you climb, the harder you fall?

@The Mystical Man Coom joins us fertile soldiers :>

Cancer and heart disease.

Boom spike, boom crash. Sleepy sleepy time.