Carl-Richard

You got me 😭🙈 That's embarassing, you caught it while I was editing my comment 😅 The electricity was a bit too quick there ⚡️ I broke my rule of don't post while fatigued after near-death gym session 🙉 The semantic territory which my brain was hovering around: there is this dangerous idea that we tend to use flow as a heuristic for truth. The trouble is that sophists use it to fool people, and it can be used to fool yourself.

Things. Things depend on context. Things exist in the context of everything. The way I feel about this discussion is: you can spend a lot time drawing semantic connections between words just for the sake of doing that (or you can do it really quick and get on with your life), or you can simply use words in a larger context of solving or understanding a larger problem, and you will build your understanding of words that way while actually doing something productive with your life. The odds are if you take an average well-read person or intellectually engaged person and you ask them what context is, they will be able to come with everything you guys have come up with and more, and likely also in a way that is more structured, concise, streamlined and insightful. Because learning what words mean requires actually using them in context. And once you have learned a bunch of words, constantly asking "but what does it mean??" eventually just becomes an exercise in trying to force an understanding that doesn't exist.

It's a hyperbolic implication, as you say you are more awake than some of the most awake people around, alive or dead. And that you felt compelled to debunk hyperbole, as if it was a reasonable possibility to entertain, is, let's call it interesting. I didn't ask. Why keep drawing attention to how awake you are? Keep it to logic. I didn't ask. Again, putting other people's experiences down and elevating your own, as if it's an argument. I didn't ask for how awake you are. Martin Ball has taken more 5-MeO-DMT than Leo and he says solipsism is not non-duality. Ok, I didn't ask about that either (about genetics), nor about a sermon on being God. And again, to top it all off, putting other people's experiences down and elevating your own. I didn't ask for how awake/insane you are. 1. "God is alone" is not "your life is a videogame and only your bedroom exists". 2. Because people disagree about frame all the time. It's not something to comment on. What to comment on is those who say their frame is not a frame but the truth. That's an assumption. You can also say that existence is simply what is, beyond shapes, colors, sounds. The absolute truth is you are not experiencing anything. Existence just is. You granting assumptions such as "existence is colors, sounds, shapes" is a choice you have made. It's not implied by non-duality. It's a choice in the realm of logic, or concepts, language, frames, speech, thought. Solipsism is an idea in the realm of logic. It's not the Absolute. Your writing is vacuous. Out of six points, only one was a substantial one, and it was only a rehash of the same point you made earlier in another comment. You make a facade of teaching, you repeat how awake you are, you deny other people's experiences and elevate your own, instead of making points.

I care about your arguments. We disagree about logic. Yeah, and you're apparently the most awake person ever. I didn't ask. Which ill intentions?

I only see non-native English speakers use this phrase when trying to be verbally impressive.

Razard86 (I can't even pretend to do the practice of saying someone's name in the beginning of a sentence because it's so cringe), nobody cares about your experiences, nobody asked you about your experiences. The problem is not experience. It's that you dismiss other people's experiences to validate your own limited framing of them. Did you know I can disagree with your framing without denying that you're awake? Is it maybe a little weird to try to prove how awake your are every time somebody disagrees with your framing? By the way, mr. non-narcissist here claiming to be more awake than Sri Ramana Maharshi, Rupert Spira and Peter Ralston.

What brain training is to merely challenging your brain, especially intellectually (e.g. by reading, writing and thinking in-depth on difficult topics), is a bit like what weight training is to working in construction (or any job with heavy manual labor, e.g. foresting). Like weight training, brain training optimally taxes "general load-bearing functions". For weight training, this is particularly the musculoskeletal system. For brain training, this is particularly the working memory (the "general workspace" of the mind). Both also tax even more general systems like the cardiovascular system, general metabolic capacity (your brain needs oxygen and sugar), etc. They do this because they consist of short bursts of very intense exercises, broken up by smaller periods of rest (reps, sets) and also longer periods (training days, rest days, maybe even meso-cycles if you're a geek like Dr. Mike Israetel). The intensity is what recruits more of the basic load-bearing structures of your mind or body, again, be it muscles, or your ability to "hold" (carry) and manipulate (move, shape, build, destroy) things in your working memory. On the other hand, challenging your brain intellectually, e.g. by working in science/philosophy/academia, is a bit like working in construction for your brain/mind. You do develop your working memory capacity (or muscoloskeletal capacity) quite a bit, and you also develop quite specialized skills ("functional strength") that are very useful and which you don't get from mere weight training or brain training. But you do not necessarily develop your working memory capacity or muscoloskeletal capacity themselves optimally. For that, you need an optimally balanced and structured schedule of intense work and rest, practiced consistently and with progressive overload. That is training done right, be it brain/mind or body. In a nutshell: construction workers are not bodybuilders, academics are not Chris Langan (that's a convenient inside joke 😂).

Yes, you become a good construction worker by working in construction and working a lot. But you can also lift heavier logs if you also do some deadlifts on the side. And only working construction, that's narrow. Deadlifts and building a bigger back translates to more things. So that's more broad. And doing both things, that is even more broad. I'm not suggesting you should only do brain training and nothing else. I do 20 minutes of brain training 3.5 times a week. That's nothing. I sit on the toilet more. Similarly, you only deadlift a few minutes a week. The thing is they give very intense training over a short period of time that seems to generalize in their effects: you become stronger in more domains for a relatively small investment.

You say that shit with a straight face. That's all we need to know.

You're not gonna post your paint experiences in the psychedelic sub-section are you?

Meditation is simple, not easy ☺️

Less immediate feedback means less flow. Fast forum is moving meditation.

I can't sit like that 😀

This is not a state issue. You're making statements. It's a statement issue. Sri Ramana Maharshi did not have a problem with state. Rupert Spira does not have a problem with state. Yet they disagree with your statements. https://tomdas.com/2024/03/30/aham-sphurana-book-excerpt-solipsism-and-the-shock-of-hearing-the-ajata-teachings-sri-ramana-maharshi-advaita-vedanta/

You did it again. *Pulls frog out of pocket* Just kidding. I'm happy to report no frogs in the vicinity (in thought, perception, or dreams), so this one is all on you 😝

It's uncalled condescension (not in a teacher-student dynamic). But that's not the real issue. It's that your condescension is irrelevant. You're making a logical case, and logic is not awakening. I have a problem with your logic. I didn't ask for how egoless you are. It's definitely possible to be condescending without intending to be. And thanks for saying my name, it's the coolest name in the world. Narcissist gaslighting is a very specific term. https://www.charliehealth.com/post/things-narcissists-say-in-an-argument-and-what-they-really-mean Anytime you're arguing for solipsism, you're arguing from a position of logic. It can be condescension even if it's true. Ok ok ok ok, we get it, you are not a narcissist. Thanks for reassuring us.

"You just need to awaken" is condescending. "You're just imagining that it's condescending" is gaslighting.

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68adfb3c0a788191922bf02764080b78

Wow very narcissistic gaslighting you got going on here. Wow.

He is talking about experiencing brain damage from his health problems, not his psychedelic use?

"It's interesting you take it that way" *continues being condescending and doing exactly what I described you were doing* Listen up: just because I disagree with your psychotic ramblings about life being a video game and only your bedroom being real, does not imply anything about personal experiences of the absolute. "Hua hua, you just lack awakening my friend". No, you're just psychotic. It's like you're talking about Red Pill philosophy and then somebody disagrees, and then you say "haha that's just because you're a virgin".

The reason people get confused is because people like you use fuzzy language while speaking with big authoritative capital letter exclamations and calling any sign of disagreement with your position as lack of awakening.

"No distinctions", yet "video game". Brilliant, Nobel Prize, bring it.

🫡 Straight shoota, shoota poo thoughts straight outta yo head. Ok I have to go to bed (that rhymed). (Btw, the first thought was "so you're walking your dog" but I did a logic thought afterward which destroyed it, oh well). Nice dog btw.

😂 So you just walked your dog, ok. Playing psychic darts right now.