Carl-Richard

They're talking about Destiny's recent IRL streams with Nick, and Mr.Girl wants Destiny to hold Nick more to account for his views. I wrote a comment after pausing at 2:04:00: Then 40 minutes later, at 2:48:55, that was the exact argument that made Destiny reconsider. Imagine if I could've jumped in and saved 40 minutes of spinning in the mud

McKenna had a period where he was scared away from psychedelics. I think he started hitting on the more spiritual ramifications of tripping, and he didn't like it. I believe McKenna used psychedelics primarily as an insight-making tool, of the intellectual and visionary kind, not as a self-help tool. So intention and cultural machinery matters a lot. You might hit on the same insights without it (like I think McKenna did), but you might interpret them differently and find them undesireable, which is of course not a surprise. Hardcore ego deconstruction is no joke.

Can you give an example of something toxic and non-toxic?

Thank you for being so succinct.

??? Did I write "Andrew Tate" as my male role model in that thread? The only thing I've learned from discovering Tate is that I have a similar kind of energy inside me that I've been neglecting most of my life and that I should work on integrating, but this has nothing to do with buying Boogatis or reverting to ancient gender roles.

I never said he wasn't a piece of shit.

I remember back when I first started smoking weed, I felt that a part of me was starting to fade away; that neurotic and conscientious part of my identity that was nagging me about what to do and who to be, who and what to care about, and who cares about me, and it struck me as both freeing but also a bit eerie. "Am I just letting a part of me die like this? Who could I be if I didn't hide away from these feelings? Why are those feelings there in the first place? Am I maybe supposed to have them?" Anyways, soon this feeling, along with pretty much any feelings about that aspect of myself, fell on the backside of my mind for years as my life was crumbling... which eventually lead me to spirituality and my first awakening. There the same thing happened. Suddenly my mind had entered this very different place; quiet, serene, but also empty and in some ways severed from an even larger aspect of myself. It was on a completely different scale than before, and this same eerie feeling caught me: what have I lost in this new change? Have I forgotten something? Not many days ago, I remembered back to this eerie feeling, and then I viewed it in context with my current self who is 6 years older, and then I realized: maybe I have forgotten something. This idea of self-transcendence being preceded by self-actualization, of burning karma, of uncovering the shadow, is what my mind was trying to tell me about all those years ago. What I was trying to ignore through substances, and then later meditation, was the very thing I needed to face. It's so obvious, because the same feelings are still there, only magnified and projected out into my actual surroundings: my lack of social aptness leading to less relationships, lack of direction and decisiveness leading to being years behind my peers, etc. That change cannot be reversed either. My mind will always be different. There is no anti-weed or anti-meditation. I'm also intrinsically less inclined to address those feelings, as I've become accustomed to bypassing the entire machinery. Neither did it help all the spiritual bypassing tropes I was engaging in ("there is only now" = you don't need to work on your future; "practice is ego" = self-defense mechanism for having squandered my plans to join my friend to a year of music school, etc.). Anyways, the lesson is that the thing people call the ego, you should probably listen to it sometimes, because it does have say in your life no matter what you think about it. Then again, maybe I wouldn't be here at all if I didn't take this path. What did I actually lose??

You're talking about concrete things. You want me to make you a grocery list for things to do. I'm doing something different. I'm talking about abstract concepts from which you can derive which things to do. If you can truly understand the concepts that unite all healthy things, that is much more powerful than just following a list, because then you're the one who knows what to do, and it creates intrinsic motivation towards applying that knowledge. This goes back to meaning again: merely engaging in the process of meaning-making; of making sense, of understanding; is in itself healthy. I'm trying to make you do something healthy

Ok.

You make it sound like the police was hunting him down. He said he moved because there is generally a lower chance to be falsely accused of rape. There is no #MeToo hysteria there.

Dispelling false information makes me a supporter? I'm disappointed in you.

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.