Carl-Richard

Do you celebrate birthdays?

I'm sorry that I don't have anything relevant to say, but your choice of substances primed a memory in me which I'll nevertheless share here, as I typed it out rather spontaneously: One time I microdosed on LSD, took L-theanine, 5-HTP, cannabis AND meditated. I tried a Zen gazing technique on a tree maybe 2 miles away, and while I was intensely focusing on a specific point on this tree, I started to see a tiny version of those morphing effects that happens when you look at a grainy texture on LSD. Then I realized that what I was looking at was not physical, because it felt like I was looking at the tree as it was rendering, not like I was looking at a tree that "was there". Just as this happened, I had a tiny realization of "oh shit this is ego death!", and then I stood up and went for a walk, because I was not expecting that level of action. I then sat down on a bench surrounded by some tall trees on a hill overseeing a gravel football field. I felt fine just sitting and enjoying the peace. As I was looking out at the scenery - the football field, the gravel road leading up to the bench, and the houses across the football field - I did a slow, blissful blink, and my imagination flashed an ethereal-looking eagle taking off slowly, which was rather random but interesting. Just after that, I felt a sense of connection to my relatives on my dad's side, most of whom have some kind of psychotic illness, and I had the distinct insight that "this state of being, it has been experienced many times before; it runs in your blood." I then felt my body slowly getting lighter and less solid, and then I had the distinctive feeling of having to resolve a dilemma: "should I dissolve or should I go home?" I chose to get up and walk home, just as I chose to stand up during the previous meditation, just like I did my first meditation, and my last. I'm still standing up today.

mRNA vaccine technology has been under serious development for over 10 years since the founding of Moderna Inc. in 2010 (ModeRNA). Combine this with the fact that we've completed multiple clinical trials for several mRNA vaccines, it's clear that any skepticism about side effects is now confined to the domain of the potential and the long-term (e.g. "what if something happens during the length of a lifetime?"). With this in mind, let's test the consistency of people's long-term threat sensitivity: Are you worried about the potential long-term effects of Wi-Fi on your brain and body to the point where you're not using it? Are you worried about EMF from your mobile phone so that you're not wearing it in your pocket or having it close to your head? Are you worried about GMOs to the point where you're not buying it? None of these things have been tested long-term, yet you most likely don't care. Let's also not forget about Neuralink. At the risk of being reductive, I'll still mention that the psychology behind vaccine skepticism is very much tied to the fear of poisons, which is a deeply ingrained survival drive. The idea of a foreign substance being intentionally and certainly introduced to your body is threatening on a very primal level. Maybe even more importantly, you have the tendency to prefer the analytic lens (individual bodies, individual substances, certainty) over the systemic lens (collective forces, degrees of influence, probability). On the other hand, invisible forces like viruses that spread collectively and probabilistically from person to person, or undetectable electromagnetic frequencies, are conceptually much more abstract and vague to attend to. They don't have the same primal punch as actually being injected with something that you at some level interpret as a physical poison. Obviously that isn't to say that vaccine skeptics are not able to think abstractly, but it's rather that the primal fears often precede, co-opt and drive higher thinking. There is no rationality without emotions, and the mind rationalizes its own survival. Then add some collective hysteria and skepticism about institutions on top, and you have COVID-19 denialism.

The relative is dual. The Absolute is non-dual. Duality is comprised of two parts that make up a whole (e.g. hot-cold, up-down, big-small). From the relative perspective, duality is two. From The Absolute perspective, duality is one.

If you meditate to fall asleep, then you're supposed to be sleepy, so it's good. However, if you want to maximize your meditation ability, then you should do it at peak wakefulness.

I think in most cases, there is a much simpler explanation. If you haven't slept enough the night before, your body will cease the opportunity once your activity level drops, and one such situation is during meditation. A similar effect occurs if you meditate straight after a heavy meal, because your body will secrete prolactin (which is literally anti-dopamine), and most of your blood will be directed towards your digestive system and away from your brain, thus you'll experience a dip in mental clarity and energy levels. This is how to optimize your meditation habit (in order of significance): 1. Get enough sleep. 2. Have an almost empty stomach (but not too hypoglycemic) 3. Do it early in the day. 4. Be completely sober from any psychoactive substances (even caffeine). 5. Schedule your meditation (do it the same time every day and use a timer). Scheduling your meditation puts a weight off your mind both outside and during the meditation with regards to questions like "when is a good time to meditate?" or "how long should I meditate?" and expectations of progression like "I'm not feeling meditative yet" or "this is not working." Once you have decided to sit down for x amount of time, there is nothing for your mind to do but to be relaxed and focused, and you reduce the chances of terminating the meditation early or not starting in the first place. Besides, spending your day obsessing about meditation is not a good strategy for cultivating a meditative state of mind in your daily life.

The trailer threw me off.

Sentience is consciousness (of form). Sapience is self-consciousness (self-awareness). Sentience is when sensory input is represented within our minds as internal experiences (perceptions). At the most basic level, these experiences are simple, direct and concrete (e.g. sense of touch, smell, hearing etc.). These may be reconstructed independently of live sensory input in the form of mental images (cognition and imagination), and virtually all animals are thought to be capable of this to some extent. Sapience comes from the ability to abstract out symbolic/iconic representations from a set of concrete experiences. At an even higher level, this ability is expressed through an internal narrative structure, i.e. representing icons linearly across different contextual frames (situations and time frames; story-telling). This is what distinguishes humans from animals: we create narratives that try to explain ourselves and our environment. From here, complex language, culture and an individual identity is born (self-awareness).

Let's say you're a pre-rational tribal warlord and you say you want to understand something. What will satisfy your request? Maybe an animistic explanation like "the wind is the breath of the wind god." You also say you want a comprehensive explanation, but you don't know about things like the scientific process or reductionist-mechanistic explanations which are definitely more comprehensive explanations, and in your relative ignorance, you're satisfied with the animistic one. In a sense, you doesn't even know what he is asking about, and in a sense, you're this warlord right now.

You don't know what that means.

#O-gang

Genius

He allegedly grabbed a boob.

What does "figure out everything" even mean?

Haha nice.

Brilliant

Make snow angels ❄❤

The reason I could list all of those things and it struck you in some way is because I've been there myself. For me, the only way out was spiritual awakening, cutting out lies and establishing a trajectory of growth on multiple levels.

...OK? You trust cyanide? Ricin? Any other natural poison or venom? This is not a trivial point that you can just brush away. Let's stick to the potential and long-term here, as that is what we're so concerned about (and we might perhaps have an original discussion for once). The idea that the less lethal variants outcompete the more lethal ones is only true in a very local sense, because the dominant variant can always mutate to a more lethal one, which over the long-term will look like sporadic bursts as they get outcompeted again. Then in the super-long-term, you might get a hyper-lethal burst, and that's not good. I only wanted you to engage with these two points about long-term threats, but now you brough out a bunch of other points that have been brought up a dozen times already, which I have no choice but to respond to: mRNA vaccines limit the spread by reducing the likelihood of being infected. It's true that once you're infected, you will transmit it at basically the same rate, but infections are nevertheless reduced. The benefit in the long-run is that fewer infections leads to fewer new variants overall and that various systems like the economy and the healthcare system don't collapse. If you get infected while vaccinated (which there is a lower chance of in the first place), you will experience fewer symptoms. Long-COVID is still a thing, and the virus is known to cause various degrees of organ damage and neurological damage. Your choice. If your bar for whether something is harmless or not is set at the probability of having heart problems as a side effect from the vaccine, then you cannot say that the virus is harmless for younger people.

@BlackPhil On mRNA skepticism: you're concerned about potential long-term effects because it's a new technology previously untested in humans, right? Are you just as afraid of the same type of potential long-term effects from a new virus previously unknown to humans (COVID-19 infection)? If not, what is the distinction there? Also, what about the long-term potential for new hyper-lethal variants? On that note, if you really want to piss your pants, look up "viral recombination" and ponder the potential disastrous outcomes of that, if you dare ?

That was just a fancy way of describing getting so stoned that you're completely useless as a human being. It's one of those times where you come back from a long break and get sent into another dimension. The thing you're describing just sounds like the general deterioation of cognition that happens when you're a full-time weed couch potato: hyper-prolactin state, inflammation and no resilience-inducing stimuli (controlled exposure to stressors): fapping to porn all the time, overeating shitty food, smoke damaging your respiratory and circulatory system, no physical exercise, no mentally stimulating activities.

That is where therapy comes in.

Good insights. I'm Norwegian. English is my second language. True. It's easy to discard any push-back from "mystics" once you completely disregard the legitimacy of their view. Yes, like I said: people who pursue self-help or spirituality, even relatively healthy ones, are more predisposed towards such problems. You can appear to be healthy in one moment but become sick in the next. Probably. MHC is a meta-theoretical model, which is a so-called "model about models". At the lowest level, a model is a system, and therefore the simplest type of meta-theory would be meta-systematic. There are more complex types of meta-theories that try to understand the more simpler meta-theories, and there are even more complex meta-theories that try to understand the more complex ones again. Then MHC tries to understand all of that, which means it's at least at a level above that, which means it lands at the highest level of complexity (meta-cross-paradigmatic). The highest level includes a caveat ("performative-recursive"), and the way I interpret it is that there is really no highest level. It can go on forever. So in a sense, MHC seems to model itself, infinitely. Meta-theories are notoriously self-referential, and MHC truly takes the cake in that aspect. The lowest level are the easiest to study quantitatively, but they're so simple that they're not that interesting. Surveying children goes into qualitative studies, and those are always difficult, but yeah even more so with children. I think it's most helpful to use it when trying to understand abstract systems themselves, i.e. scientific hypotheses, theories, meta-theories, paradigms etc., rather than trying to specifically understand cognitive development. For example, how complex is the paradigm of evolutionary biology compared to the paradigm of biology? What about cross-disciplinary approaches? Though of course, you can use it to assess your own or somebody else's main mode of operation in your daily life. I think it's particularly useful to explain the different levels of context awareness, construct awareness and theory pluralism (see my topic on Systems thinking), or in other words the ability to see a larger perspective, having high self-awareness and openness to different views. How to accurately pin yourself on a stage just boils down to the willingness to investigate your own psyche. Not in a strict physiological sense, but other than that, it's up to you. If you like to party, sure. Phytochemicals is a humongous class of substances; basically anything that comes from a plant. It includes everything from poisons like cyanide and ricin to narcotics like morphine and cocaine to medicines like Aspirin and Aloe Vera. What I meant is that the word "chemical" usually refers to something synthetic in everyday speech, but from a chemistry perspective, everything has a chemical basis. It's modelling the level of complexity of cognitive operations, so in a sense yes. Misunderstanding a chemistry question isn't necessarily a sign that your mind is too simple and that the level of analysis is to complex, but maybe that you're just not identifying the correct level (i.e. it's be much simpler than you think). That is usually the insight people get after they finally get the answer: "was it really that simple?" Getting the answer might be simple, but that doesn't mean it's not complicated.

The systemic communication theorist Gregory Bateson calls this "context", which is your interpretative framework, and everybody has a different one based on previous experiences. His work is all about showing how communication is not a straightforward thing.

Read slower, breathe, feel