Carl-Richard

It was like I was experiencing grounding through my hand. My adrenaline and heart beats and exhausted energy all got sucked into the tree like it was channeling it into another dimension or into the ground and its roots. We should spend more time with trees.

I would say some form of resistance training 2-4 times a week and some high-intensity cardio training 1-2 times a week, but be mindful whether you're getting enough rest at higher frequencies. I've been doing resistance training 3.5x a week (every other day) and sprints (lately also rotated with 4x4 intervals) 1.75x a week (every 4th day) for 1.5 years now. I've realized I should probably cut down on some of the sprints/4x4 because I sometimes don't feel fully rested even after sleeping well. I will maybe try rotating between sprints/4x4 every 4 days and every 6 days ([1.75+1.17]/2 = 1.46x a week).

😂 That's literally what I thought or felt like. The few moments after sprinting (after the last set) is like a micro psychedelic trip. It's like your sensitivity to things is at a moderate dose of LSD. It's just that you don't have the luxury to sit down and relax but instead you're trying not to die.

How much is that? You can do a rough estimate by comparing the lifetime heartbeats between an average untrained person and a super-athlete (and remembering to factor in heart rate when working out). Yes, that's what I'm saying. Working out is wear and tear, just over a short period which causes an adaptive response. So you have to figure out the right balance between wear and tear and adaptive response. According to Mike Israetel, you get the most effects per time spent (important caveat) if you work out 2-4 days a week with maybe 45-minute sessions where you perform high-intensity resistance training with short breaks so that you also get integrated cardio. But you could definitely get more effects if you want to sacrifice more hours in the gym, but then you also of course lose those hours outside the gym, so from a purely "usable" longevity standpoint, it's maybe not worth it (but from a health and wellness standpoint, it could be worth it). Me personally, I work out for health and wellness (and because it's fun), mental functioning, and of course to look like I work out, and then longevity (maybe not the very last thing but somewhere later in the equation).

Time for AI to make autonomous personality trackers not based on self-report. Let's go.

Had I been talking hyper-intuitive shit to myself or my roommate or on this forum and she saw that, I would probably not have her hit me up (or who knows). I think it mattered a lot that I talked to the girl specifically (that's also what I thought immediately when it happened). And I know she wasn't just after talking hyper-intuitive shit (from my roommate 😉😆).

U talk to woman, woman want to talk to u (other women). I experienced this super strongly once. I was talking to this hyper-intuitive girl for 2 hours in the university cafeteria, and then some other girl my roommate had talked to wanted to hit me up (my roommate said she watched me talk in the cafeteria about hyper-intuitive shit, and she was apparently also hyper-intuitive and vibed from afar).

@NewKidOnTheBlock Bernardo Kastrup thinks single-celled organisms have a private conscious experience. It does sort of make sense when you see the analogy between the bodily boundary of its cell membrane and the apparent mind-body centeredness of our private experience. In his paradigm, upon dying, the cell's private consciousness re-associated with the larger mind, just like its body re-associated with the larger environment.

You're such a troll. There is no inside or outside. That's the overreach you're making. There is no subjective mental reality inside either. This is the lunacy of what is going on: "there is only what is", but then you also want to start making distinctions. There are no particular distinctions that follow from "there is only what is". You are making those distinctions based on something else, some other conviction or notion you have.

Did you try becoming a bike curier yet? The hiring process at least in my country is virtually automatic and you don't even need a proper interview. Ken Wilber worked waiting tables for many years while meditating and studying on his own and writing his books. You can often treat such jobs (including bike curier) as meditation practices. And they should be physically healthy for you because you move a lot and most likely in healthy environments. Also try applying for jobs for companies like McDonalds and Burger King.

I asked you to clarify what you meant and you gave one sentence. You didn't ask me to clarify.

If you want to communicate with single sentences, go communicate with yourself, zero puns intended.

What the hell does that mean?

You are not left with anything but what exists, and it has nothing to do with postulating whether or not a meat suit comes concurrent with a private point of view or not.

I think it's more important to be associative (be able to connect things), often in creative ways. The more you are able to associate things creatively and the more quick-witted you are (which is a bit about IQ but also about being spontaneous, uninhibited, intuitive and not being too stuck in your mind), the more you will naturally gravitate towards being funny. But if you take yourself too seriously, if you view everything through a serious lens and you are not willing to risk looking like a fool, you will not allow yourself to be funny.

Solipsists don't understand this.

I severely doubt there is any data on that. But hey, doing anything changes the structure of your brain. It's just a question of how much. As for the topic, I'll tell you as someone who has studied drugs on my own obsessively for a few years and also studied some of it in university and related psychological phenomena: there is nothing that makes me want to pull my hair out more than people mouthing the phrase "weed is only psychologically addictive" or "it's not a drug, it's natural". There is a culture of ultra delusional and factually incorrect coping that is forming around weed and which has existed around for example alcohol, and it will keep people addicted, dumb and stuck in their ways until legislation or a cultural revolution counters it. But that's not endemic to drugs, it's of course just a microcosm of being a human.

Brainwashing, paradigm-lock, grifting, political outrage, moral outrage. Sounds like the average "spiritual person". Next Jubilee should be "one true spiritual person vs 20 fake spiritual people", and at the end, we'll realize they are all the same.

When do you have true knowledge of spirituality and consciousness? When you take incredible doses of psychedelics? When you have experienced God sober? When you talk about having spiritual awakenings? When you practice Kriya Yoga? Jordan Peterson has done all that. He has been distracted by life.

In that very debate, he intentionally and deliberately ostracized 1/3 of Christians in America by saying he doesn't care about what Evangelicals think. So that doesn't seem to be why he can't answer whether he is a Christian. Again, the most fitting explanation is that he simply doesn't care about conceding his frame to anybody else. What does that mean exactly? In what way is he attached to the Christian faith that needs him to be unclear? Ironically, what you said is unclear. Regardless, it doesn't seem like these explanations are mutually exclusive. I did not make it that simple. That's what I said in the first half of the sentence: he cares more about his expression of his ideas; his frame, his identity. You know, you don't have to always disagree with people, right?

What virtually all people think is themselves (the gross ego-mind self) is not what reincarnates. What you think is you must die before anything resembling reincarnation can happen. But once you have died, somebody might at some point recall a memory of the life you just had (and a concatenation of lives before that). They might also identify themselves with this "subtle body" that stretches across lifetimes. But if you are currently afraid of death or you worry a lot about what is happening your life right now, you are not identifying with it, so dying will feel like true death to you. But as far as you know right now, you've never not experienced, so you have no indication of that stopping. But also, that which always experiences (Consciousness) most people don't usually identify with either (if they did, they would recognize themselves as eternal regardless of what happens after physical death).

I have a thing for playing fast on guitar. I also like to spend most of my time improvising, often while playing as fast as I can. I very rarely spend time learning songs or things that others have made. But when I do, I find myself using the "start slow and increase speed slowly" approach. But again, because I improvise a lot, I rarely do this, so I just spend a lot of my time playing fast. Interestingly, this is the advice from probably the fastest guitar player to have ever lived (Shawn Lane) about learning to play fast on guitar: "Rather than going from one mental process of playing slow and getting gradually faster, you approach it from the way of playing it fast and sloppy and gradually learn to clean it up": 3:00 - 3:19 Similarly, Yngwie Malmsteen, also known for playing fast, has said "I never practiced, I never practiced once in my life. Ever since I was 8 years old in my bedroom, I was playing like I was performing. I was expecting to be blown away by what I was doing, I was expecting to impress myself": 0:05 - 0:27 So both players seem to have gotten to their level by mainly jumping right into the real thing and trying to take it from there. No "slow and controlled" approach, just going straight for the real deal. This interestingly connects to a principle for learning for school exams which says "practice the way you're going to be tested". For example, if you're going to write an essay for your exam, practice by writing essays. This is in line with a more modern and context-aware understanding of cognitive science, "embodied cognition". It says everything in the situation matters; the context, the energy, the way your fingers move; be it typing on a computer or playing notes on the guitar. It is relevant to the situation you're aiming for and how memories are encoded and how you build up the requisite skills. It's contrasted with the more traditional "symbol processing" perspective of cognitive science, which treats cognition as something that is mostly going on inside your head. The symbol processing perspective would favor techniques like flashcards, thought maps, rote revising and rehearsal. It doesn't treat context as very important. But it is. That's why "practice the way you're going to be tested" is so effective for test performance. That's why Shawn Lane and Yngwie Malmsteen are known for their speed. Specifically for guitar, when you practice by playing slow, you might be using certain techniques that don't translate well to the end product you're aiming for. So you might end up either taking forever to get there, or you'll just never get there, or you'll get a partial version, or an inefficient version. For learning for the exam, you just might not be using the same cognitive faculties that you will be during the exam (e.g. typing on the computer, putting your thoughts into words, answering a question, answering the right kind of question), which does have something to say for the end product. So if you want to get to a certain speed of playing guitar, or you want to learn for an exam, and probably many other things, practice the way you're going to be tested.

Yes, he is a superb monologist, where you don't get to challenge his framing, where you don't get to speak back and respond. He is a terrible conversationalist. Look at all his interviews, the memes in the comment sections are all about it. It's not that his style of framing things is purely without substance. It's that he sucks at inviting people into his frame. Because you have to be able to partially concede your frame to others to do that. Peterson only does that when forced down in a chokehold like with the Alex O'Connor clip or the Piers Morgan clip above, and with great resistance and tiptoing around. Peterson is brilliant to listen to when you extend divine levels of charity and openness, not so much when you question him on anything he says, which also makes him a great cult leader.

I like how your entire post is you making assertions and expressing feelings without concrete facts or argumentation. This is what Jordan Peterson's problem is: when asked by Alex O'Connor (paraphrasing) "but don't you think people will misunderstand you and think you mean Jesus literally arose from the dead", he answered "I don't care". He cares more about his expression of his ideas, not whether they land or not. There are pros and cons to that, but it's at this point an undeniable character flaw. Had he been able to empathically adjust his framing to the particular person he is talking to, he would not spend so much time and energy calling atheists religious, not accepting people calling him a Christian, regularly asking "what do you mean by belief?" not as a genuine question but as a defensive preamble to unpack his own views, telling fifty stories instead of putting it in brief terms; generally fumbling with communicating what he means all the time.

Or a lot of free time.