Carl-Richard

"Possible psychosis prodrome, but not sure due to drug use".

There are other ways than social media. If you want to reliably create highly conscious people, ideally you would target them before they even know what social media is, e.g. in schools. That might seem far off, but it's possible to contribute to steering it in that direction.

Ok, ChatGPT.

No.

The power that some girls have Literally incapacitated. But I feel you. I think this happens to all guys at least once. I think you could get used to it over time and it won't bother you as much. If you stare long enough at the sun, it will burn a hole in your eyes and you'll stop squinting as much (that's a metaphor, don't try it ).

Wrong in virtually all cases.

If your memories are represented as a visual field, weed is like looking through a keyhole. You can see something, but you see very little at a time. It's also a keyhole into a magical and illusive alternate reality, because you somehow see more of what you want to see and less of what you don't want to see (if only temporarily).

In the stream he linked, he read the last blog post you made (somewhere around the 1:20:00 mark)

Can I ask how often you smoke?

Reacting to the death of yourself with unperturbed peace vs. inconsolable terror is a level of palpable change that could qualify as material. I thought you liked flowery language . Here is the drier version which I tried to find but which my mind didn't let me: "lack of emotional reaction". You can experience yourself peeling back the layers of "material reality" and have the intuition that whatever sits behind all of it (the Void) indeed is the source of material reality and comes prior to it, which is good enough for me to conclude that consciousness comes prior to material things. But I concede that it's based on an intuition and that it's possible that, no, in fact there is a hidden material world generating that entire experience (which is ironically also based on an intuition), but it seems highly unparsimonious and backwards. Does it seem logical at all, that you can go from being an embodied human and step-by-step strip away the components of that experience; having a butt, having a torso, arms and legs, having a head, having thoughts and emotions, being located in space and time; a process which leaves you with essentially nothing but pure experience; but somehow it's the things that you've experienced and thought out while being an embodied human that truly informs you about the primal ground of reality? Meh. I've integrated that shadow red flag. I know how unappealing it sounds but I know no better word for it.

@Keryo Koffa

If there is a thought that enters your mind and you can say "I'm fine without this thing" or "whatever happens is OK" and you exist in the same unmoving sense of tranquility, then you're likely not attached to that thing. Of course, the real test is to actually experience being without that thing. Now, the problem is that some attachments are particularly sticky, and some might not even be consciously available to you, like some attachments around traumatic experiences, repressed desires and insecurities. So those can require some work to identify and work through. But honestly, the process of letting go is quite simple. It's just that, again, some attachments are stickier than others. Some of the big ones are the sense of being in control of your bodily movements, thoughts and decisions, or being a sane individual who can operate in the world, or being alive rather than dead. These are attachments you will have to face when enlightenment knocks on the door.

Countless which I've forgotten about. If they had an obvious meaning to them, I probably wouldn't have forgotten them that easily.

If there is a meaning, you'll probably get the meaning.

If there are things you want to do or need to do but weed is regularly stopping you from doing them, then that is a warning sign.

Hahaha he is going through the "glazing" blog post he made

Did Wilber mention anything about this alone self that was spatially bound?

Is Ken Wilber's circle spatially bound?

The journey of going from the "alone" to the "Alone" is to go from the small circle (which is hard to communicate between, hence a feeling of aloneness there) to the big circle (which is only One, hence an even more profound sense of aloneness).

What did he say? Let me also clarify that the larger circle is not spatially bound (it's infinite).

Wilber (small circle on the podium) is telling the other small circles in the audience how it's possible to experience yourself as the big circle and feeling alone in that because there is only one big circle. That doesn't mean the smaller circles are all empty. They are still within the same larger circle. In that sense, the larger circle is imagining them. The problem is that the smaller circles are largely separate, so it's hard to communicate between them, and certainly to communicate things about the bigger circle.

Then there is no awareness behind your eyes either.

He is interested enough to have an interesting discussion about it. He has had some discussions with philosophers, and some touched on metaphysics.

Gary's experiences resonates very much with my own path. It's really about the attachments.