Carl-Richard

Let's say homosexuality is not natural. What now? Why are you making the statement? And what's the deal about "natural"? Why is it important?

Can a fish make a video on water? Jk

>.< When metalheads try to play jazz, it's like a new guitar player trying to play Smoke On The Water. It's like "huehue, jazz is funny and quirky, let's play funny and quirky". It's not actually jazz, they don't listen to jazz

Who the fuck cares about natural? Death is natural.

Imagine being considered a menace to society by world's most famous robot 😂

Ask a person without eyes if they can see the door in front of them on acid.

I'm just scarred by experience. GPT-3.5 has lied to me many times. I know, but the types of mistakes and/or deceit is also very different from what a person would do. ChatGPT infamously makes very silly mistakes, like basic arithmetic or logic errors, and you can "hypnotize" it to give a particular answer. Also, the rate that it can produce wrong answers is not negligible: Also, for determining truthfulness, what people have which ChatGPT doesn't have is context markers like personal affiliations, platform/source (e.g. news outlet, organization, scientific journal), credentials, reputation, motivations, etc., and in real-life: body language, emotional information, subtle non-verbal cues, etc. Verifying answers and cross-referencing sources is good. When you do that, ChatGPT works more like a directory which can point you to relevant information, and it's your job to find the actual information.

@UnbornTao @Osaid Do you think you will get her to swallow the red pill? Through text? Mmmeh. I think a real-life face-to-face meeting would increase your chances; get energetically and empathically connected. Not that I'm encouraging anybody to break the guidelines though This suddenly started to sound very creepy ( @Sugarcoat I'm serious about the advice though: consider go seeing a teacher in person).

I feel that intentionally using a technology that reliably produces false information, or just the idea that there is not a conscious agent that has an internal understanding of the text that is being produced, is corrupting me on a spiritual level, so I try to limit it as much as possible 😅 I've recently had a related insight about understanding and communication, especially face-to-face communication, where there is a sense that you only truly get to understand what somebody is saying if they have a clear understanding of what they are saying themselves, somewhat despite of what is actually being said: For example, if you were to communicate something which on a second look appears decently understandable, but the way you said it in that context were to cloud the message, maybe due to the hesitation in your voice, or the fumbling of words, or the length of the pauses, or the amount of "uhm"s, or more importantly the word choice and its level of coherence, elegance and flow, or simply the general emotional/energetic state of doubt and insecurity, etc., then these signs of a lack of understanding is actually what largely ends up being communicated, and it might leave the recipients unsure if they actually understood it (or rather, they're not left with a decent understanding at all). In a sense, deep and profound communication is partially about empathically tapping into somebody's mental state and receiving their authentic understanding in its entirety. So when somebody understands something deeply and profoundly, then this understanding will likewise resonate deeply within you. Now, when I communicate with AI, there is this uncanny valley where I never truly get that deep and profound connection, like "ah, that really makes sense!", or "ah, that's amazing!". Maybe it's because I don't generally ask AI any profound questions, but again, I think it's because it lacks not just a deep authentic understanding, but any understanding. Even relatively simple things can be explained in a profound way and a less profound way, and I think AI generally falls short of that. That said, it's still an incredibly useful technology.

One of our professors told us to use Perplexity instead of ChatGPT for academic questions. It's specifically tailored towards academia, and it provides you the sources it used for the answers, which is useful for detecting errors (which definitely happen with ChatGPT). I'm incredibly paranoid when it comes to errors, so Perplexity is a step in the right direction for me.

I see, but there is something very special about this technique I'm talking about. You do it at any place, any time, all the time. It's a very subtle tightening of the left side of the abdomen. It's not supposed to hurt, although it could actually help to do it until it hurts in the beginning to test out how it feels and to calibrate a suitable level of tension. You want to find the place that gives the desired effect without too much side effects and keep it like that all the time. Just try it. If things really are as bleak as you say they are, then what do you have to lose? As for other alternatives, in a sense, I'm giving you the "blue pill", as the simplest path is acceptance and surrender, but as you say, that seems impossible for you now, so it's of course not that simple. However, you could also benefit from seeing a spiritual teacher (preferably one who specializes in unwanted spiritual emergencies, if that is a thing) who can help facilitate the process of surrender, helping you to swallow the "red pill". Or you could try conventional mental health approaches (although be careful to find somebody who actually understands your issues). There are many options.

It might very well seem that way to you now (it used to be like that for me as well), but I would still recommend trying it out. When you're in the state you're in, change might seem like an impossibility, but take it from somebody who has experienced a change (and continue to "benefit" from it, in the sense that it achieves what I want it to achieve). Exercise is an extreme and short-lasting way of inducing resistance, while tightening your stomach slightly (the left side) is a more mild and persistent way of inducing resistance. If you find out it really doesn't help in the slightest, consider looking up "dealing with unwanted spiritual emergencies" and use some of their advice. They will give similar advice to the other techniques I mentioned, but not the abdominal tightening technique (from what I've read), and I believe it's the most effective technique when you learn how to do it right (which you do through trial and error), and I think it will be like that for you as well by the virtue of the fact that you're currently relying on another technique that induces resistance through physical means.

The thing that is the focal point of your experience before ego death, which disappears during ego death, and which returns after ego death.

Well, that is what worked for me, sort of. It took about 3 years before I stabilized more in a separate sense of self and I could wean myself off the aforementioned techniques, but no earlier than last week, I had a deep "relapse" episode where I almost panicked and had to ground myself again using the techniques. But that has become increasingly rare (or at least, I've become used to dealing with it, using the techniques I discovered/invented). Anyways, when it comes to you and where you are now (early in the process), you just have to be consistent, especially with the abdominal tightening technique. That is your main anchor. Just trust in it and try it out for a while. You found out that working out creates some resistance which helps you regain a sense of self. Well, the abdominal tightening is a way to create a persistent type of resistance which doesn't require a lot of work. In fact, overtime, it becomes fully automatic or unconscious, and you will have to consciously relax it for it to stop (which I could see becoming somewhat problematic for me in the future, but oh well). I chose this route because I believe that I had a lopsided approach to spirituality and overdid it on the meditation and didn't work on other aspects of my character. So when I actually did start to dissolve my sense of self quite consistently (and eventually spontaneously), I started to run into this resistance, which I think can be worked on (if not solved) through "burning karma" so to speak, living life as a human and exhausting various desires and drives, until maybe one day, I see no other choice but to surrender. I don't think this is the only viable route for a person in this situation, but at least it can spare you of a lot of suffering if you need some time to consider what you want to do.

I think it fits with the topic 😂 Truly far-out yogic shit. I see myself in it very much, the vigorous DIY investigation into your own psychic system. You gotta be a certain type of crazy/obsessed/high-focus person to take it to this level.

Learn to tighten the left side of your abdomen perpetually every hour of the day, in a way that is uncomfortable but not unbearable. Sit, walk and stand with a sub-optimal posture (slightly crouched over), eat big meals and over-eat slightly (not junk food though, real food). Constantly distract yourself with something (your phone, computer, etc.).

I better like this pointer: enlightenment is to be awake in the dream. Like lucid dreaming, only in "real life".

The Absolute is Oneness, not-two, non-duality. That is what is being pointed to. It sounds weird when it's put into words, but it becomes clear that the individual has stepped aside and what has been realized is far beyond the individual. But do you buy non-duality? Because that is equivalent to no self ("no separate self"). It's fine you don't buy no self, certainly solipsism (as it has nothing to do with enlightenment imo, or at least I don't like the word). But then why talk about it? 😅

Firstly, that is not Neo-Advaita, just Advaita. Neo-Advaita claims there is nothing the character can do to awaken. Secondly, it's true though from a certain perspective that the character doesn't awaken. That said, the awakening "looks" like something, an enlightened after-image so to speak, in the form of an "enlightened individual". But it's not this individual that has grasped the truth, rather that the individual stepped aside and reality poured in. But yes, again, that looks like something in the individual.

😂 That one knocked me out by an unexpected left hook late at night.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluency_heuristic This is one of the reasons I reconsidered my approach to communication that I had developed in the last year or so. Fluency is great, but be very careful not to compromise the truth. Now, this doesn't mean you can't give a generalized or simplified account of something, but that usually requires some kind of transparency on the part of the communicator ("in general...", "put simply..."). Transparency is of course an attempt to be as truthful as possible, even while signalling that you're compromising the truth. Maybe we're perpetually compromising the truth by speaking about it (not maybe, but obviously to you non-dual folks). Still, we can at least try to not make it worse than it needs to be. Now, the more fluency and the less truth you have, that is called sophistry. An adequate balance between the two is called philosophy (philosophia - "the love of wisdom") That said, fluency can also be a good indicator of truth. For example, if you're struggling with typing out a forum post, maybe as a response to some argument that points out a flaw in your reasoning, and you're kind of lost for ideas and try to dig for at least some kind of answer that could add up, it could be an indicator (not certain) that you're wrong. That is however not a reason to give up trying to work out a difficult problem or really grinding it out. Maybe you're just around the corner for the true answer. But it can help you to become aware of times where for example the cognitive dissonance is actually very apparent but you're just in denial or a stubborn mule wanting to win an argument. Conversely, when you notice that the words just seem to fly out of you without much effort, even though you might be paying a lot of attention to detail and polishing various parts of your message to make it beautiful, that could be an indicator that you're tapping into an authentic source of inspiration which is likely tied to truth.

Like we agreed on earlier, the desire to kill what we believe has no right to exist is what morality is. I think having a sense of morality is a useful skill of the separate self. An enlightened being may talk about how God is fully accepting whatever God is, and that you should aim to identify with God in this way. But the person that the enlightened being can still be said to be does most likely prefer things like not killing innocent people over killing them. Hence, they still have a sense of morality, and again, it's therefore necessary to distinguish between the separate self (the person) and the Absolute Self (God) in this case, and to recognize that they do co-exist with each other in an understandable way. The enlightened "person" recognizes that they're not the person in the most ultimate sense, yet the person keeps existing just like it has existed up to that point, and a person makes moral judgements (or at least what can be perceived as moral judgements).

As long as you have a body and a mind, preferences, discernments and judgements will arise, even in the Enlightened person (albeit to a lesser extent). It has a specific name in Hinduism (Prarabdha karma).

Which involves ultimately not condemning your own judgements when they arise (the judgements of the separate self), because God doesn't even judge that. But you as a separate self should of course be vigilant with what judgements arise. But God is beyond that. You have to be clear when you're speaking from the perspective of God and when you're speaking from the perspective of the separate self.

Sorry in advance for being unable to make this less painfully abstract: so if we were to pull back to when I was talking about a different way of framing how we should judge things, and also if we use the definition of judgement of "asserting how someone should act"; if I were to frame what you're now saying in my qualitative frame, judging something in a condescending way could be classified as a low quality judgement which you should generally avoid. It's not that we should avoid to judge as much as possible, but rather that we should avoid less appropriate ways of judging, like condescending judgements. So in the end, I think you also agree with my qualitative framing more (and you seem to be saying so yourself). I think terminological discussions like these tend to get unnecessarily complex for what it aims to accomplish (clear communication), because you have to constantly signal when you're jumping between different definitions and framings. Sometimes it's just easier to concede to whatever definition of words that the OP has decided. The problem of course is if the way they are using the word is not consistent with the definition they themselves provided. But hey, what can you do?