Carl-Richard

Notice how nobody asked.

Stop eating shit and go for a walk. Veggies, glucose control. ADHD is children not listening to their mom.

Who? Osho? Charles Manson? L. Ron Hubbard?

Biology.

Np I also find it particularly interesting that it notes that ages 25-30 seems to be where meta-systematic can start to develop, and that's when I started to have "original" (or "organic") insights into my own field (psychology) that seemed to connect different parts of the field together. Particularly how all mental illnesses involving negative emotional cognition seem to involve a lack of perceived (or actual) control (thread).

Same. Meta-awareness becomes particularly prominent at age 7 or so. That's around the first time I started pondering my own mortality. But the core of meta-awareness comes online at age 3 or so. You could perhaps map it onto cognitive complexity theory (Model of Hierarchical Complexity): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_hierarchical_complexity I asked ChatGPT 6.1 Sol Max some questions about it: https://chatgpt.com/share/6af117ce-50a0-83ed-8b57-498fbd68b013

Remove the padding and you have my sentence. But now you're making a big deal out of it. Like, can I not call out what I consider to be "low development" (I never use that term unless I'm forced to, it disgusts me) and people will consider me just a good ol' inspiring person? Can only you "spiritual people" do that? Seems hypocritical.

I'm literally uncertain about the word. Now you're being uncharitable ;( Honestly, I never use the word, I always found it a weird word, and it seems to have at least two separate meanings that are equivocal in this discussion. So feel free to engage with me 'charitably' and not simply mind-read your way out in a hurry.

Can you define uncharitable?

It's a feeling. And it's not necessarily something the person is very aware of (what I'm judging them about). So asking them about it may not give much answers. Again, difference between deliberation and simply acting. I can tell you what I think and mind-read you without you knowing better than me, even if the feeling is based on scant evidence, or indeed the fact that it is a feeling and not a legal trial. It's just a feeling, but you may not even feel it.

"hehehe you guys know how all these normies are so dumb right, yeah, how not-dumb do you feel recently?". Put hyperbolically.

"Attempt", it's more subtle than that. An offhand remark can tell you a lot even if it's not very deliberate.

omg duh, but in this context. Hello. He's talking about "exponential curve". There are some concepts by Hanzi Freinacht where he distinguishes between state, depth, complexity, and code. I feel very often people take state for almost everything (of course they will tell you in words that it's more complicated but their repeated behavior and actions tells otherwise) and especially discount depth. When you scoff at a 60 year old person who is kinda brash and rude as "not developed", you're discounting so much depth. It's like those teenagers who look at their parents like "they just don't understand meee", meanwhile they understand you 50 times over in a circle.

The distance between one moment to the next is infinite.

Does "rate of change" in this case not imply linear change towards a higher ground? What sense would it make to talk about the rate of change of something (consciousness) that goes up and down? "So guys today I changed really quickly between being very banana to being very orange to then very apple-y, ain't that amazing?" And yes I'm very done with people thinking they're special for having some spiritual high. And thinking other people are dumb, simplistic, lacking in depth, from their surface-level reading of them, perhaps somebody they haven't even met.

A different flavor, perhaps more the one I intended: The time between one moment and the next is infinite.

That's the reason I shared it. Or else by which basis would I judge whether it is powerful or not?

No. There is no pointer either. And that's the point with the pointer. To ultimately show how the pointer isn't it. The pointer is inherently inconsistent, to show the inconsistency of putting infinity into language, and thus collapsing the mind. The pointer invintes you to investigate what a moment is, it invites you to try to find the moment, where it begins and ends, and it (the mind) will realize it can't find it and that the distance between one moment and the next is indeed infinite because it doesn't exist. You can keep looking for infinity and not find it. And you can keep measuring each supposed moment infinitely more fine-toothedly and you'll see you can do that too for infinity.

Ever since I started meditating, I always found it funny. ">:( go away, I'm trying to be 'spiritual' over here". By the way, the character is a recluse monk in the woods who a more worldly monk tells you to talk to for help during a quest. I.e., he has not yet taken the vow of the bodhisattva and is stuck perhaps only intermittently indulging in meditative states, as that is often the case when you are principally opposed to the world which is yourself.

If you want to coin your own term with your own definition ("emotional triggers"), you can do that. But they can experience emotions, it's just an appearance like any other. Although the level of control is immense compared to a normal joe. The enlightened mind is like a perfect flow, a perfectly transparent screen. Energy passes effortlessly through it like an unimpeded beam of light.

Meta-awareness is the ability to self-reflect on experience. This happens around 3 years old in humans. You'll notice that this is often where your first memories are from. It's the first time you have gathered a coherent sense of locus of autobiographical memory that you can start to self-reflect on it (i.e. recall it and say to yourself "this is indeed this thing" implicitly). Sentience seems to arise before reflecting on it. You didn't start feeling your ass only when you focused on it and said "I'm indeed experiencing sitting on my ass right now". You just focused on it and re-represented it. Meta-awareness is a re-representing of contents in sentience. And the core of sentience seems to be about representing the boundaries of our bodily vehicle. We may extrapolate the primacy of sentience of our experience as illustrated above evolutionarily, in that we evolutionarily started to feel things before re-representing them. And where do we draw that "boundary"? Perhaps at the existence of bodily boundaries. And if you look at the evolution (and ontogenesis) of multicellular life, it all starts at a single cell dividing. So where does the boundary of inside vs outside start to be defined? Perhaps the boundary of the cell membrane. And as the organism grows into a multicelluar one, perhaps at the bodily boundaries of that organism. Because the cells grow out from each other and work together in a coordinated organic fashion. And they all act to maintain the same bodily boundary. In fact, it might even be more accurate to think of it as a single cell differentiating itself "inwards", rather than multiple cells growing outwards. You can even see this visually when a cell is diving in an animal embryo. Although it becomes murky for some earlier forms of multicellular life where the cooperation between cells is less coordinated. Also, some colony lifeforms, e.g. slime molds, fuse individual cells (dissolving the cell membrane and keeping the nuclei) into a single big cell and operate in a coordinate unit. You could imagine that the individual selves dissolved/sacrificed themselves and became a part of a larger whole.

Oh stop it. You can have heaven taken away from you any moment. And you don't know how other people live their lives. And comparing yourself means your state is not that high. The baseline change does not need to be linear, that could just mean you've not experienced much in life. Insecure narcissism pervades the mind that compares and asks for confirmation. Spirituality is but another cloak for its misfortunes.

Please watch, the madness starts at 3:00 (current timestamp is for lead-up) and ends at 4:39 (not really but that's the moment). I started howling "noooooooooooo" when I realized it.

Norwegian West Coast rap about dropping acid and biking around looking at the nice mountains: https://open.spotify.com/track/6E6junaHD8FBijkxqVCEV7

We all start at Linkin Park and end up at Pig Destroyer. It's a process of desensitization/learning (those two concepts are closely linked). There is like a niche of musician YouTubers (usually vocal coaches or professional singers) that started doing reaction videos to metal music and in the beginning they were like "🥴" and then several years later, they're basically completely into the music. Charismatic Voice is one of my favorites :,) I think the fact that RuneScape PK videos from my childhood had that kind of metal music (early 2000s music like Atreyu, Linkin Park, Bullet For My Valentine) primed me for that kind of music. My (metal) development was from metalcore and nu metal (e.g. Linkin Park and BFMV) to thrash metal (e.g. Metallica, Megadeth) to death metal (e.g. Death, Opeth) to black metal (e.g. Emperor) and then later forms of death metal (e.g. Decapitated, Nile, Cryptopsy, Suffocation). That's of course strictly limited to metal; I started listening to other genres as well.