Carl-Richard

Freedom of religion is now rage bait.

Sigh... Why do I even bother. I don't know, the people who put people in jail? The people who constitute society? The people we're asking whether they dislike something very much? As if it has to be explained: you put people in jail if they bother you very much. Ugly people do not rise to that level, not even close.

You claimed porn is "not even close to" ("worse than") drugs. Which does not specify "physical" or "non-physical". Maybe porn does destroy your brain after all.

Because they have to support New Agers like you, the kookiest of religious people in the world.

Change science, education systems, politics. Working at something for many years produces results. The everyday person is concerned about getting a check and eating food and going on a holiday. A person with a vision works towards a goal and gets things done.

You gotta change society to what you want it to be.

You aren't actually saying this literally in your post. You have to learn to write more precisely. A drug addict's life is about getting drugs. If they don't have it, their life is in the pursuit of it. That you can engage in porn more often makes it somehow worse is not really a good measurement. Suddenly the hyperbole deflated if not completely reverted.

Why are you so hyperbolic in every post you make? 😆 (I know you will post-hoc narrow down what you said to the pure behavioral/habitual aspects and not "peripheral" things like cognitive/health effects, but you made your bed, now lie in it): I know three people my age that I've interacted with at multiple occasions that all died before they filled 30 years old (possibly more that I don't know about). Drugs were involved. If you want to tell me porn addiction is more likely the cause or is even in the same category, you don't know what drugs are.

This seems to have struck a group from Isha foundation of 80 people. Apparently, if this had happened one day later, Sadhguru himself and his group could have been hit.

I was walking outside at night during the full moon listening to Morbid Angel's "Covenant" album ("Oldschool" Death Metal from 1991) maybe for the second time more comprehensively. Then I felt compelled to stop in a field just at the most perfect aesthetic spot (I even "dialed it in" by walking back and forth a few steps) and look up at the moon, and then this mystical interlude song came on which goes right into this other booming song and I stood there for the rest of the album. Felt like one of those rare once in a lifetime moment: 33:37-41:11

They say that good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise. Too familiar becomes boring, and too surprising becomes hard to follow. Musical improvisation is the manifestation of this in real time, and you can usually notice when the player is engaging in well-established/familiar patterns ("licks") and when the player is creating something completely original. I'm used to improvising a lot on guitar, and I've noticed that I'm able to imagine impossibly intricate and original lines of improvisation in my head, but I'm in no way technically advanced enough to manifest that through my instrument. When I listen to the most complete virtuostic improvisational players out there, even though they can come very close many times, I always feel a tension between boredom and impenetrability. Of course, this desire I have of hearing the most hyper-creative lines of notes that I can possibly imagine is impossible to fulfill. It's completely relative to my unique conception of music, and I would probably never in a million years get to hear somebody produce even 10 seconds of those exact notes (which would be absolutely transcendentally orgasmic if it happened). Nevertheless, I know two players who come extremely close, and I'll try to weigh to which extent they're too "boring" ("musically conventional" is a better word) or too impenetrable (too melodically or harmonically complex) relative to my impossible standard of imaginative perfection. Guthrie Govan (obviously). It's tricky, because he is so versatile that he often fluctuates between too conventional (like bluesy bendy stuff) and too complex (like jazzy shredding stuff). I'll give an example for each player: Allan Holdsworth is notoriously known for being impossible to imitate by other players. For reference, Guthrie Govan can imitate virtually anyone but him. He often becomes too complex. I sometimes have to listen to his songs 30 times to understand what he is doing (like the run at 1:28 in the video below). (Btw things become more interesting around 0:40).

We don't put ugly people in jail.

Inner and outer lies at the basis of so many philosophical/life conundrums (the Hard problem of consciousness in materialism, the decomposition problem in idealism, the combination problem in panpsychism: "If all is One, why are there many things? (and vice versa)", "Why do I and others seemingly have a mind that is hidden from the outside?"). That's a part of introversion, going deep. I listened to only Metallica for a year when I was 12 (which at that age is ages). I listened to every album back to front again and again and again and again. I only stepped out of that mode (of going deep) due a sort of integration of superego: people on the outside pushing me in one direction, and then over time identifying with it and wanting to explore it ("maybe I should expand my horizons a bit, maybe I should know the classics, maybe I should be intellectually interested in the music I'm listening to"). (Sort of combining integration in Self-determination theory with Freudian psychology).

Yet there is short-term and/or long-term damage. I know somebody who knows somebody who allegedly developed Celiac's disease after an antibiotic treatment. A cohort study found a correlation that would support this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30836095/ Yet there is short-term and/or long-term damage. "How chemotherapy damages the central nervous system" — https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2397491/ The point is not that you should. The point is it does happen. All examples are false equivalence. The important part of the equivalence is that there are things that do damage or reduce functioning in the short-term (and perhaps sometimes even in the long-term in some ways), that are often unsustainable in the long-term, and that when taken short-term, they can lead to improvements in functioning over time. And perhaps even if dry fasting does lead to long-term damage (like chemotherapy), if you have a very debilitating disease and there is a chance that dry fasting could cure it, maybe the trade-off is worth it?

This one also has a very Opeth-like riff at 3:50. Makes sense as Ihsahn and Mikael Akerfeldt has collaborated at a later occasion ("Unhealer") and Still Life and possibly Blackwater Park was out when this was released.

When I think of extroversion, I think partially obviously in Big 5 "social" terms, but also partially in Jungian functions terms: somebody who wants to experience everything "external", be it social (Fe) or purely sensory (Se). But intuition also becomes a means of experiencing, of driving exploration of those things. Even if extreme intuition tends to drive you inwards, intuition can fuel and amplify your exploration of the external. "Oh this song connects abstractly to this other song, let's listen to it". That's a lot of what made me explore more bands at one point, because I got interested in the interconnection of genres, their history, how one lead to the other. For example, I had always listened to metal music, and then I got curious about what created metal music, so I started exploring hard rock (Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Queen, Rainbow, etc.). And it was in fact partially prompted by me meeting the super extroverted guy and also another guy who also listened to a lot of music (both of them listened to the same stuff as me, and so much more, and I was like "hmm, maybe I'm missing out?").

Don't mistake me explaining what an insanity defense is for me claiming that the claims to insanity in this particular case are valid. So eager to jump to conclusions eh. Almost exactly what I criticized these kinds of threads of doing earlier when trolling and insulting was the main part of the discussion (and which it still is apparently). Really a shitfest here.

I was simply testing your position that you should be punished for things you did in a psychosis. Why is an exogenous cause more forgivable than an endogenous cause? Let's assume she got a brain hemorrhage instead (no seeming external cause) and that seemed to cause her behavior. Would that change anything for you? The point of an insanity defense in the case of claimed acute psychosis is that the intentions and actions in the psychotic state do not represent the intentions of the person in the normal state. And that if we assume the person will not become psychotic in the future (which may or may not be likely), we should expect the person would not have such intentions or act on them. And if we think they are likely to enter such a psychotic state in the future (or they are currently psychotic), then we've decided that it's best to try to treat the problem with psychiatry (meanwhile non-psychotic anti-social behavior is notoriously hard to "treat" if they even are treatable).

🤔🤔🤔🤔🌝

Imagine if you were just living your life and then somebody spiked your drink with some ridiculous dose of amphetamine and you go into a psychotic state where you end up killing somebody as a result (the police even heard you shouting "they are evil, I must find out a way to kill them; aha! — a knife", implying there was planning involved). Should you be jailed for that?

The first guy I wouldn't actually describe as stereotypically "extroverted" (he was quite shy and quiet when I met him in high school), he is not super high energy or enthusiastic/manic (I'm arguably more like that in some ways). He is just very drawn to talking with and getting to know and feel people, perhaps more deeply than a stereotypical extrovert (which would be more surface level). The second guy is definitely more stereotypically extroverted, a Russel Brand type of character: manic, talks a lot, thinks out loud, very intuitive but also engaged in senses (I think extreme extrovertion dovetails again with openness in a way that makes you both intuitive AND sense-based, not just sense-based; i.e. a very broad and exploratory mind). The first guy I would classify as more sense-based than intuitive (I think extreme intuition dovetails with openness and manic tendencies); he explores a lot of different videogames but he is less intellectually engaged (e.g. does not care about politics at all).

Which are?

Very interesting avant garde black metal, final Emperor album before Ihsahn turned to more prog-oriented solo projects:

Np. Playing a murky and dangerous game, prepare to get hurt 🌝

I'm sorry that sarcasm does not translate well through text.