Carl-Richard

Space and form. Consciousness is the space which everything arises in. Intelligence is the forms it takes. The reason "intelligent" people can tend to be unwise is because they are stuck on a limited set of forms, so they become prone to deception, bias, inflexibility, blindspots. Yet increasing consciousness increases the perspective, breaks the attachments to any particular form, and you start seeing between the lines, seeing details some people can't see. Increasing consciousness doesn't make you automatically wise, but across time, it will. Time is an important dimension of wisdom, but again, so is space. Space and time.

I prefer the shitty version (95% oxide/5% citrate) because I think the slight laxative effect has a better effect on my cognition than the magnesium itself (or I get enough magnesium with it).

He might be. That is essentially the entire tension between contemporary non-duality, analytical idealism, the mystical but still scientifically subscribing (naturalists), and Christians, Muslims, who are more open to the super-natural (and the brilliant cross-over: Christian perennialist panentheists, e.g. Rupert Sheldrake, who studies wacky shit like whether the Sun is conscious). Threading the needle is to remain agnostic: if you're a scientific andy, not that much evidence of a God that more or less literally speaks the world into existence through his divinely ordained plan (at least that I know, maybe somebody could make the case better than I can). But it's not exactly a divine impossibility either. I can't believe I'm linking this video of all videos on this topic, but Nick Fuentes (colloquially labelled neo-nazi) presented a similar tension here (not the meta-cognitive vs non-meta-cognitive God tension but the "tendency towards mystical phenomena associated with the Third Eye" tension, sort of tangential but anyway): 1:02-1:23 (when D starts talking, the clip is over).

I think @Cred is right about this forum after all considering this abominable display of context clue awareness 😆 "I confronted Vitality [...]" "Why I confronted Vitality [...]" Besides, you kinda have to think — if between the two options, when one of them is suggested to be light, you pick the one that is not light to contest the claim, not the other person — whether or not you know the difference. In other words, I thought it would be obvious I did not mean Vitaly was light, that's why I did not care to mention it. But sure, Vitality is the first guy that pops up on the screen when you play the first video, so that makes your heuristic prone brain clued to that rather than the perhaps slightly more demanding task of reading the title of the (two) video(s) beforehand (and moving your attention to the other person and comparing their energy). In other words, shame on you for being either a) TikTok brained zoomeroids, or b) merely human.

This guy is in some kind of state. Extremely light energy, piercing eyes.

Getting 2-3 eggs in the morning (I get 5, big boi) together with adequate vitamin D and co-factors should set the stage for the rest of the day. Fats and proteins seem to ground you generally (and pairing vitamin D with fats could make a big difference for absorption).

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.

There is an ego trip and then there is doing what you think is right despite the potential consequences, which is the inverse of an ego trip. Vitaly was arrested the day after. Whether or not the guy who confronted him was also on drugs, whether he lied when he said "I don't do drugs brother", whether he has a "psycho stare", whether his sense of calm in such a situation is due to some psychopathic wiring, he is obviously in some sort of "state", be it mystical or merely psychopathic or pharmacological. I don't pick up "Ramana Maharshi" energy or anything, but it's beyond normal energy, and it's palpable, hence "insane aura". That you use "aura" only to mean mystical genetic phenoms hooked up on that spiritual crack, that's on you. And whether he is indeed hooked up on adderall or coke, that's highly tentative given his calm demeanor, unlike Vitaly who is clearly erratic and jumbled in his speech. Consider your own emotional state while watching the video (or in general, maybe even the last couple of days), or your sense of skepticism, or your expectations coming into the video, how it's affecting your reading of his state.

Perhaps. Vitaly was definitely on stimulants in the video, but you see quite a different aura there.

"It's your character" is straight out of a movie. I'm sorry if you're so addicted to spiritual crack that you can't appreciate other forms of aesthetics.

It reminds me a bit of one time I talked to this girl from psych class and I said something like "yeah I know, that's pretty OCD". And she was like "NO, you cannot use that word that way, OCD means you suffer with OCD symptoms to such a degree that it cripples your daily life and you have problems going outside your house or getting everyday tasks done". And I'm like "yeah, I meant the 'normie conception' of OCD; people use the word that way, whatchu gonna do about it?" And she was like "yeah, but I still don't like when the word is used in that way ". That was around the time when I started realizing and accepting that language, words, are used in so many different ways so you might as well participate in it.

Consider that being sensitive means you can pick out nuances better, while if you can only pick out the very strong from the very weak, you're not as sensitive

The Time New Roman is triggering me in ways I could not anticipate.

Eat eggs for breakfast.

You can recognize that someone has an aura even if it's not a literal jivanmukti beaming pure shakti out of their anus. You can adjust your expectations according to the situation.

You won't knock me out.

Funniest was the Bang Bus.

Unless you are in a constant state of bliss, ego death, rapture, terror, no control, no past, no future, you are in identification with your illusory ego, so you might as well start treating it nice.

He recently got deported to Russia (he was released) then he returned to America.

The negative language is one thing, another thing is the typologizing and absolutizing (diagnosing); you are "this thing" and it has these specific criteria. A different approach is "how much of these traits do you have?", or "what specific goals do you have?" and the person fills in the blanks. The former is a subtle distinction (and the "neurodiversity spectrum" idea could seem to support this, but in reality, people typologize themselves despite this). I have very deliberately challenged typologizing "introversion" when it comes to myself, because I know the traps my mind creates when I go in that territory. I generally avoid describing myself as a thing. There is a saying "I don't care about who you are, only what you do". Or you can say "do what you want, do what you are good at, and do it in an environment that supports these things". If that is not happening, that can explain why you have so much trouble in life. And if you can't figure out why those things aren't happening and you've really tried your best, then consider that you have some dysfunction that needs special care. But even in that case, challenging the dysfunctionalizing and typologizing framework is helpful. You don't have to call yourself "autistic" to go to a psychologist to get help with your concerns (and yes, it can be an uphill battle to deal with diagnoses from the people trying to help you, but that is a microcosm of life and people always "diagnosing" you for various things and you having to say "no you're full of shit").

Dude moves like he could knock you out by breathing in your general direction.

Not Vitaly, the guy confronting him 💀 Vitaly is just on coke. He doesn't have divine metaphysical energy driving his actions.

Generally, I might add that questioning how things are framed, like I'm doing here, is a brilliant source of autonomy. It puts the power of reality (as far as it is framed, which is often) in your hands. This is a lot of what Leo preaches and is concerned about with notions like conformity, becoming epistemically independent, intellectually sovereign. Whenever you encounter a frame that you might consider problematic, ask yourself "how does this frame make me feel?". "Do I agree with this frame?" "Is there a better way to frame the same things?". Because frames tend to connect to other frames, they tend to smuggle in things that might not be necessary or relevant for the problem you're trying to address. I've tried to provide a frame that I think is more relevant for many people and which explains why so many people have had such a negative reaction to @Cred and his let's call it neurodiversity educational crusade. And this is not me saying my frame is necessarily better for you. I'm saying you should question the frame and ask "if" it is better for you. I am not doing like @Cred and insisting that you should adopt my frame. Those who know Spiral Dynamics know that this does not work. You have to meet people where they are at, and address their actual needs, not enlighten them with a view that might not fit them. @Leo Gura A video on frames and how being aware of how you frame things is beneficial (and how to be aware of it), might be good.

@Ramasta9 I might have some of their DNA considering my father's side has some Finnish genes (and subtle Lappid phenotypic traits) and Finland is not that far from Siberia (the Lappid phenotype "overlaps" with the Sibirid phenotypes) 😎