Carl-Richard

What is it?

To return to your true self, you must first have lived as a separate self

I believe this quote can help:

I often feel like a simple man when I say this, but we have a model for how alcohol works in our society, and putting the production/distribution issues aside, I don't see a big reason why it couldn't be emulated for most other drugs (and of course improved upon). Don't get me wrong though, the prospect of legal heroin scares me when I think about the amount of people I know who have drank so much alcohol to the point of spending the next 3 days dry heaving. If there is anything that shouldn't be emulated, it's the drinking culture of young people.

The funny part about keeping the production and distribution criminalized is that as long as you don't get caught, you have a totally unrestricted and unregulated market . I believe a lot of the social harm stems from exactly that extreme lack of restrictions, and that if you wanted to legalize it, you would naturally want to go in the direction of regulation.

I remember from a long time ago that he mentioned it explictly, and I thought it was on that podcast (I'm rewatching it right now), but regardless, he does build around that point during the podcast when he talks about arguments like "pharmacological determinism", which he gets into it at 0:12:45, 54:47 and 1:06:47. It's hard to find a definitive statement because he talks about so many different topics. He gives some anectdotes from his own use, like how he thinks that methamphetamine and normal amphetamine feels almost identical, how he tried heroin once and didn't like it (says that cannabis gives an arguably superior feeling of euphoria). Then he also talks about how all drug scare stories "is never the drug" (0:57:54). I don't even know if I would want businesses in charge of it, or atleast I would want heavy-heavy-heavy government regulations. The legalization argument that seems most persuasive outside the pharmacological debate is about getting the production and distribution out of the hands of the criminals. Whether or not leaving it in the hands of businesses is better, I don't know. You could say that I'm primarily in the camp of decriminalization, but I also have an idealistic view of some aspects of legalization; the efficacy of which I can't really substantiate. The pharmacological/social side of the debate is more about the hard/soft drug dichotomy (and so-called pharmacological determinism). The issue is where to draw the line on which drugs are too irresponsible to sell for recreational use. One can always bring up pharmacology statistics and dependence charts and argue either way, but I believe the most pressing argument against the significance of the dichotomy is to question which role drugs are playing in social harm after all: is it primarily a causal factor (of course it is to a great extent) or primarily a symptom of other issues, and to which degree does it warrant a certain solution? One can also question the state of alcohol and its relationship to social harm, and how despite it being on the top of that list, it's still legally sold everywhere. Either way, I don't use drugs (anymore), so I'm not too concerned personally one way or the other. I'm open to be persuaded either way

Hamilton Morris addresses this argument and calls it "pharmacological determinism": the person did "x" and had drugs in his system, therefore the drugs are mostly responsible. It often overly simplifies the problem. I think there are additional factors that are more responsible than the drug in question, which you can describe as "lifestyle" (being poor, desperate, mentally ill, unhealthy, socially neglected etc..). The question should be how much does legalization/criminalization impact that dynamic and is it significant? The problem is we don't know the answers because we haven't tried it out. The intuition is that legalization would just be adding fuel to that fire of vulnerable people with volatile and erratic social behavior; but firstly, we don't actually know that; and secondly, this also has to be seen in relation to the other benefits that legalization would bring.

2:29:00 There is apparently a drug that inhibits implicit racial bias, and it works on the adrenaline receptors, which essentially supports the claim that xenophobia, racism, and white nationalism is based on nothing but fear hahaha

@SirVladimir

I used to have that view myself, but Hamilton Morris made me reconsider that position (I'm still on the fence though). He essentially doesn't believe in the hard/soft drug dichotomy. I recommend watching his latest Joe Rogan podcast appearance:

I know. My response to you was me agreeing with you.

I believe you should approach spirituality from a place of inclusion, wonder and love rather than destruction, exclusion and detachment. Go towards beauty, towards what draws you in, towards what seems the most interesting for you, towards God. Extend your consciousness, unfold yourself fully and accept all aspects of reality. The deconstruction of your ego and detachment from your wordly self will happen naturally as your seeking intensifies.

These thoughts feed on insecurity and indetermination, creating an evil spiral and self-recurring feedback loops. Recognize that those thoughts are a normal part of life, and accept them for what they are. This act of self-acceptance plants a seed that will grow and later starve the thoughts of sunlight until they dwindle away. This is primarily a solution for irrational, repetitive, non-sensical thoughts that only serve to impede your growth as a human. If you feel that these thoughts are trying to guide you towards growth, then you should try addressing them directly by creating a real-life solution rather than an internal one. You want the inside to match the outside as much as possible. The specifics of this you just have to take on intuition.

I hope so.

The mud gets fertilized and grows new life.

Notice the distinction: it's the lifestyle that is the problem; the drug is only a requirement. Either way, whether it's legal or not will not have much of an impact on whether or not somebody picks up that lifestyle. There you can make another distinction: the lifestyle is a symptom of society's dysfunctions, not the cause of those dysfunctions.

One of the world's most successful chefs ever talking about evolving from orange to green: 6:05-15:58 Mentions giving up his achievements, emotional and spiritual growth, revisiting trauma etc.. 11:44 It gets really interesting. Such moments rarely happen on talk shows.

That is a second-order construct, based on symbols, based on thought. Go to the first-order, pre-construct, pre-symbolic, pre-thought space.

The US isn't even ready for green yet.

There are an infinite amount of possible answers to a question.

This is actually my favorite clip on youtube omg

First test at keys2cognition looks like this (INTP):

Not sure if this is some sort of conspiracy theory or if it's just a case of conflating the relative and the absolute.

This is called "ostrich spirituality": sticking your head in the sand and calling yourself God. You should be totally involved in the world, just not identified with it. To quote Sadhguru: