Carl-Richard

For my BSc, only one half of a single course (out of 17) was dedicated to "abnormal psychology" (i.e. mental illnesses and their treatments). For my MSc, essentially the same (out of 5). But of course, different mental illnesses are mentioned across different courses (maybe particularly in a course we had on trauma and attachment), but other than that, really a lot of other stuff. That said, I did not do a MSc in clinical psychology (which also includes a year of practice); I did it in behavioral neuroscience (which is still psychology), so maybe if I had taken clinical psychology instead, I would've probably dove more into treatment and associated mental illnesses. But then again, that's my point: it's mostly in treatment it shows up. I get it. But yeah, we're talking about philosophy here. And I don't think you strictly need the practical sides to attain high levels of theoretical knowledge in either engineering or biotechnology. But it's of course good if you're going to practice in those fields (as is virtually always the point with getting a degree).

That's a feeling you have, I see no argument for why that is. The baby in the bathwater is that making concise and precise statements (e.g. not making imo trivial expositions on infinity; "infinite infinities"), and being coherent in how you use language ("God is one" ≠ "Gods"), be it inside a single video or across your entire framework, can be very helpful for communicating your ideas. It's ok if you consciously don't want that, but I probably won't stop talking about it (unless you make me).

I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to say the statements "in" the video itself were incoherent. I don't care to refresh my memory on this, but he does after all go on about saying how he is challenging a prior notion (the very notion in question: the supremacy/absolute "aloneness" of God) and then he goes on this step-wise process of deduction. The problem of course is that "God" the way it is usually used, even by Leo himself, presents it as absolutely supreme. No twoness, no separation, no "other" outside of it. So when you say "Infinity of Gods" in this context, it is incoherent. So it's more "externally incoherent" than "internally incoherent" (although again, I could be wrong, I can't be asked to check through the whole video again). Nevertheless, the problem is using language in an incoherent way, and all for exploring a particular exposition of infinite regression (and if you were to take my advice, "Infinity of Demigods" sounds trivial, because it is, as trivial as "Infinity of Turtles").

I wouldn't say that's true. It's more that treatment in psychiatry and clinical psychology is pathology-focused. Psychology is much more wide and diverse than just clinical treatment. I learned a shit ton of stuff that positively impacted my self-development. If you ever get the chance to take a course in psychology of religion, or positive psychology, or even social psychology and personality psychology, it might actually be worth your time. What makes engineering so special? When I started reading neuropharmacology in my MSc courses, I can honestly say I already knew 85-90% of it, and that's from me reading for a few years when I was 17-18 on my free time, just because I was interested (and because I felt it was an obligation because drugs are dangerous mkay).

It doesn't take much reading to surpass an undergraduate level of understanding. And if you're genuinely interested in something and you've pursued it for many years, it's essentially a given.

Same with ours (Norway).

The way social circles work is that they are concentric and layered. You will only ever expect to find a relatively small core doing the most niche things. Meaning probably most of the names in the files are probably not guilty of the most severe accusations.

What is wrong with you? 😂

Every day, a new thread on genetics. I beg to differ, that the scientists who are capable of big picture thinking are the greatest scientists, the ones pushing paradigms ahead, the ones leading strong idealistic charges, the ones being driven by truly meaningful causes. Big picture vs detail focus is a constant flux, it happens all the time in our cognition. Some are more slanted to either side, yes, and yes some pharmacological states could impede certain aspects of either side (I avoid all stimulants, partially for this reason, but for other reasons as well; call it big picture).

There could definitely be more context, I'm just explicitly referring to this one message on its own.

Firstly, I don't think Deepak Chopra is "enlightened", I believe he has even said this himself explicitly. Secondly, yup. People like to infer what cannot actually be supported by evidence. Imagine you have a friend who you know dates a lot of girls, some on the younger side. And you make a joke in a mesaage about his way of life. You have otherwise no association to his way of life, you just know him as a friend for other reasons. Now imagine this message popping up in the Epstein files.

Surrender everything.

The issue is thinking your puppet ego self and its visual apparatus (and other bio-engraved sensory channels) is Absolute. It's for those people the relative-Absolute distinction serves a function. Never have I encountered a solipsist on the forum who used it to spiritually bypass (unless you did that once, but I think the problem was much larger).

It's a culturally contaminated term (bunch of materialist philosophy tends to get smuggled into it), and it's a horrifyingly fertile breeding ground for relative-Absolute conflation. These two are also connected.

I don't want to give you one thing (I disagree with the question), so I will give all the things I can think of: What religion is (hint: you're it), what spirituality is (and how to practice it, and much of the dangers of the practices), how to talk about spirituality (e.g. how scientific can you get, how conceptually engaged can you get, perhaps how precise, concise and unambiguous can you get), what New Age is (hint: you're it), what mysticism is, what solipsism is. Essentially most things worth talking about (except the latter). Some more: the limitations and scientific status of Spiral Dynamics (it's a Western-only model as far as the empirical data goes, and Turquoise is baloney).

@Ramasta9 This shit's important, yo.

But how do you do it while managing self-deception and sensitivity to outside signals? It's always a balancing act. If you go too far to the one end, you become Andrew Tate "depression doesn't exist". If you go too far to the other end, you become a fragile snowflake paralyzed by uncertainty and doubt.

👌Cooking 🍴 U on that brain training? (😂)

Locked for low quality.

I might add that even within the pathological psychological frame, especially within clinical psychology, the field as a whole is moving away from targeting individual DSM-5/ICD-11 diagnoses and towards "process-oriented approaches", directly targeting different cognitive and behavioral processes like rumination, worry, avoidance, attentional bias, self-criticism, etc. These are "transdiagnostic" processes, which seem to link different "disorders" and explains comorbidity. Also, the approach is more individual-focused and context-sensitive (idiographic) than looking at data from groups and then generalizing down to the individual (nomothetic). So unfortunately, the "neurotypical-neurodivergent" framework is becoming a thing of the past, and like I've said earlier, you should rather focus on the goals you want and the processes related to them. The role of the individual in the coming era of process-based therapy (Hayes et al., 2019): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000579671830158X?via%3Dihub

So we've recently been introduced to the frame of "neurodiversity" (thanks @Cred, and welcome), which is implicitly (or rather quite explicitly) a pathological psychological frame, concerned with describing dysfunction or things that are broken. Notions like "executive dysfunction" get intermingled with "passion", notions like achievement-oriented behavior get intermingled with "narcissistic coping". Those who are different in some way or another, or "neurodivergent", are proposed to disengage from "normal" society, behaviors, activities, people (those who are more alike each other in some way or another). And those who are different are encouraged to identify with various labels from pathological psychology (ADHD, autism, psychosis, etc.). This pathological view of psychology is quite prevalent. I recently watched a video of Dr. K describing how high-achievers are "broken in the right ways". Interesting how you can take a pathological and essentially negative view of something which is so obviously non-pathological and positive. It's of course not surprising, as Dr. K is a psychiatrist, and psychiatry is in essence, in its historical root, concerned about fixing pathology, healing the sick. And hence it frames the problem a certain way, and I believe the way you frame the problem has a lot to say for how you go about not just fixing the problem but relating to yourself and your own mind. And I believe pathological psychology can (not coincidentally) breed pathological frames of mind, of course inadvertently. Viewing yourself as broken, as something that needs to be fixed, and that is "other" than some ideal, is inherently disempowering, stifles autonomy and the feeling of being in control of your life, which as I'll get into, is one of the main drivers of health and functionality. Now, there are cases where taking a pathological view is necessary or useful, but this ideally comes second to taking alternative frames when the pathological frames don't work. And I also believe these alternative frames can address many of the same issues as those proposed by the pathological ones, also especially the concern addressed recently by @Cred in the neurodiversity frame of "are you doing the right thing?", or "are you doing what is right for you?". And what are the alternatives? Well, not coincidentally, there is something called "positive psychology". It is concerned with notions such as happiness, well-being, health, motivation, mindfulness, meaning, etc. Also notions like self-actualization and life purpose, familiar to those interested in Actualized.org, also fall under this category. You also have "salutogenic" perspectives on health, i.e. approaches towards healthcare and public health policy that are concerned about how to "increase health" rather than "fix illness" (i.e., it's about framing the problem in a positive rather than negative way). And it leads to notions such as empowerment, resilience-building, sources of social support and adaptive cognitive styles. You of course also have more Eastern psychology and religion and also Western religion with its spiritual frameworks of moving towards Enlightenment or sacred states of being, intermingled with moral and ethical philosophy on how to live a good life (Dharma, Jesus' teachings, Buddha's teachings, ancient stoicism, achieving eudaimonia). This ties back into well-being, peak states, peak performance, flow states, sources of purpose and meaning found in positive psychology (positive psychology is in large part a recapitulation and Western rebranding of ancient wisdom). And how do they address the questions of "are you doing what is right" and "what is right for you" or otherwise? If it is not self-evident in that you simply have to explore some of these perspectives (which I give my own orienting framework of here), I can give what I think is the most efficient, elegant or powerful model, and it's from positive psychology. You might've guessed it: Self-Determination Theory. You can choose to read more in-depth explanations of it (I will leave some links here; [1], [2], [3]), or you can simply take this summary of the model: do what you want to do (autonomy), do what you are good at (competence), and do it with the support of those who support these things (belonging/relatedness). The question then is of course "but how do I do this in a world that is dangerous and other to me and against what I immediately want to do; taxes, bills, people who disagree, culture, law-makers, naysayers, squares, disbelievers?". Find a way to make it work, find the golden middle way. Life is not infinitely forgiving. That is the harsh reality. But once you have staked out the correct orienting framework — do what you want, do what you're good at, and do it with the support of the right people — you will sooner or later end up in a more and more suitable position, a place where you truly feel that you belong. Even if you feel that you don't fit quite anywhere, if you keep trying, you will find something, and it might find you.

Because hate is retarded, and we only "accept" racists in so far as saying "aww, look at the retarded kid".

That is the most LeoGPT comment I've ever read probably ever.

I don't think being a systematizer is the best or even a good predictor for awakening. The best predictors I can think of is being obsessive, open, sensitive to subtlety and detail, and a bit neurotic or manic combined with being creative (your mind flies fast, it tests a lot of strategies, and you're not emotionally at ease, because then you won't seek something better). I think being a systematizer or feeler is a better predictor for what your challenges will be when awakening or for discovering awakening. Systematizers will have to deal with over-intellectualizing awakening and being stuck in their mind, not grasping it experientially. Feelers will (probably) have the issue of being less moveable if they are in the wrong boat (not identified with awakening): you'll (probably) have less leverage to lift someone out of a feelings/value-based perspective, be it personal values (Fi) or group values (Fe).

"Insight" the way Leo has appropriated the term is so rife with self-deception. It's conceptual, it's belief. When did I say that? 😂 Thinking, assumptions, beliefs. Then I will leave it on a commiserating note: To avoid the logical error but still communicating the same general idea, you could do something like this: Imagine God but ignore for a moment that you can only have one God. Let's it call it a demigod for the sake of clarity. So imagine you have a "God" (this big expansive thing) which we now call a demigod but then you also have another one, and another one, in fact infinitely many, separate from each other in/as their own "universes". "Ta-da!". The infinite "God" onion. Now, hang on for the next video on infinity of turtles, turtles all the way down.