Carl-Richard

? Try it.

The concept of a male escort, especially a high-rated one, is really fascinating. Notice the personality type. Notice the social status, the philosophy and values, the type of interactions that women want out of it. They (the good ones) seem like highly caring, sensitive heroes.

I mean does he suffer now with his current behavior (e.g. while maintaining his Blueprint protocol)? Does he feel it's a problem that is negatively impacting his life in some way? Even if he hasn't commented on this specifically, what would you guess? To me, there is a distinction between say a Howie Mandel ("I don't feel in control of my thoughts") and Bryan Johnson "we will conquer mortality". I guess unless he is so much in denial and blind to his own mental life that anything he says about his mental state is inaccurate, it would probably be hard to label it a "mental disorder", but perhaps again "personality disorder" is possible.

It's ok, go marry a mannequin. Yes, there is a tension between the benefits and utility of AI and it invading and corrupting every human domain. That's exactly the problem.

In what way though? Does he suffer a lot due to it? Or is it merely a "personality disorder" in that he doesn't suffer from it personally but it just seems extreme to (or bothers) other people? And it doesn't seem to be limited to food: it's his entire routine. Some people are just highly orderly/industrious and they feel quite fine.

High on A-I. That's what's going on.

Human substrate zapped, cursed, soul-banished, lifeless powder extracted, sprinkled in the shake we call internet.

Taking a multivitamin makes your biomarkers look good, but they make me feel overly wired and funky. Feeling overly wired and funky for 80 years vs not, what effect does that have on lifespan? Bryan Johnson's idea of "trust the biomarkers, not bodily signals" is what clashes the most with my view and might be his Achilles' heel. It might even kill him acutely: Recently, he said he had been doing sauna "all wrong" because according to the way he measures core body temperature (from the insides of his stomach), he was supposedly not getting a release of heat shock proteins. So now he does over 30 minutes of sauna in 93.33 C° at one time. He says it's excruciating. Yet he enthusiastically recommends this. Imagine what other extreme things he could end up recommending if only the numbers tell him to, despite using questionable methods of measurement and questionable conclusions. For me, I leave the sauna when I feel like I'm ready. Not only do I feel benefits despite sitting there for shorter, I could very well be getting the heat shock protein benefits Bryan claims he was missing, because increasing the temperature of the insides of your stomach, a spacious internal organ insulated by skin, muscles, intestinal walls, containing food contents, surely happens later than more peripheral body parts.

At least it's real. There is nothing worse than living in a fake world where there is literally no soul. Even materialist capitalist spiritually dead people have a soul compared to a piece of text printed out by a large language model.

Attracting women (or rather making them experience attraction) is one thing. Satisfying them is another. If you care about merely attracting women and dumping them after your 5-second performance, do your looksmaxxing and psychopathmaxxing and whatever. But if you care about developing lasting, meaningful and deep relationships with women, be someone they want to be around. The desire for safety and being cared for is what underlies "eww what a creep" and dumping the attractive guy who is an asshole or is unable to provide, and perhaps paying a male escort who is sensitive and caring. When they're in the situation of willing to pay for a set and planned deal, they're already looking for safety, for care. So that need perhaps becomes more readily apparent in that situation. That doesn't mean they won't experience attraction from perhaps somewhat of an asshole, or just a good looking guy despite of their behavior. But you have to take into account the former if you're looking for something prolonged.

Imagine a zoomer meeting a medieval Buddhist and they start talking about auras.

Dick so flaming it developed bioluminescence, functioning as a flashlight. Hence enlightenment. We have to be open to alternative historical interpretations. I'm the Graham Hancock of buddhist history.

Thunderbolt of Flaming Chlamydia.

It's not going anywhere when you're not engaging. People also drink alcohol every day.

People are doing hard drugs every weekend and going to work. Viewing a thing as either completely good or completely bad for all people at all times in any dosage or any context, that is religious thinking.

Resilience only takes you so far when your own resilience is used against itself. Big muscles when smashing a hammer against your own skull. Inner conflict is the ultimate pathology because it turns your resources into resources for self-destruction. In fact, being very resilient and active in response to inner conflict (by actively ruminating and trying to find a solution) is over time a losing strategy if the problem doesn't seem to have a solution (you're essentially just wasting energy and beating yourself up for no seeming reason), so you move over to helplessness and a more passive state where you don't entertain solutions, and this is directly tied to the experience of low mood and low energy (it comes from a lack of movement, lack of discovery, lack of action, a more passive form of suffering). What people with depression usually do is they oscillate between states of rumination and helplessness and opt for pseudo-solutions and various coping mechanisms and dissociate themselves from the causes of the internal conflict (which limits their cognitive scope, their emotional attunment) and end up in this overall lousy and low-functioning state (and if they get really helpless to the point of hopelessness, they might take their own lives). You don't take your own life if you merely have poor cardiovascular health. That's at best a contributing factor among many others. Calling poor health "depression" is understandable due to the symptom overlap but overall a bit misleading. Therapy and identifying the source of conflict might ideally be the first course of action, then getting to the point of solving it might involve trying to increase resilience again.

If there was ever only one technique that could be described as "the key" to Enlightenment, it's the letting go technique he describes at 4:47:

You can point to specific physiological mechanisms in either case. You don't need to gather some college students together to make a plausible conclusion. An analogy is not an equivalence. I know what to tell me: tell me why I cannot make conclusions based on mechanism and only conclusions based on highly specific (but also limited) empirical dispositions.

Distinguish between manic thinking and depressive thinking. The distinction is the level of perceived control and harmony with one's wants, desires, values. I don't think it's the majority of depression. The majority of depression is in being in conflict with yourself, and in the more severe forms, you see no way out. Can you be in conflict with your values, desires, wants while being physically fit, and how does that look like? I would say poor health brings you into a low-functioning state which can exacerbate existing internal conflict and depression. If you simply lack internal conflict, poor health just comes off as e.g. reduced working memory, brain fog, lower energy capacity, exhaustion, numbness, lower sensitivity, bodily aches and pains. It's the distinction between having a car with a poor engine vs a car where the steering wheel is stuck in one position so you can only drive in circles. Even with a poor engine, you can go where you want to go, but it may be a bit harder or take a bit more time or work. But if your steering wheel is stuck, even with a good engine, you will be stuck driving in circles.

The evidence isn't "conclusive" either that stabbing yourself in the eye with a toothbrush impairs driving skills, but there are other ways of concluding that than waiting for a scientist to gather a group of college students together and asking about their wanking habits.

Our current prime minister Jonas Gahr Støre, as a person (his recent politics is a range of flops but it's not really about corruption on his part), is pretty good. Same with Minister of Finance and ex-NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg. Stoltenberg is probably the most liked politician across party lines in our country and is considered a living legend in many respects.

LMAO

"I just follow the dietary recommendations from the national institute of public health; they have 1000s of scientists that have done more research and better research than I could ever do".

His daughter is a vegetarian, sometimes pescatarian, not sure how he thinks about that yet 😀 Maybe he is projecting some frustration with her onto me. He is very like "rational", "I take every vaccine that comes out", he says like it's a point of pride, like he is scolding those who have a different opinion (not that I'm principally anti-vax). He seems to have placed me in a certain "wacko" alternative box (which I have actually done myself over time through a realization about how alternative people work, but I'm of course of the belief that I'm coming from a more principled and nuanced position and not some sheep-like trendhopper): I one time on a holiday with them refused taking antihistamines (offered by my doctor mother) to reduce symptoms of mosquito bites, and he was like to my mom "is he antivaxx also?". Then he said the most ridiculous thing: "I knew a guy once who got cancer who refused to take modern medical treatments and only took alternative treatments. He died". That actually blew my mind how ridiculously presumptive and also just brute way to respond to someone who refuses to take some pills for symptom relief for mosquito bites.

40 was probably hyperbolic. But I've thought a bit about it. 😃🔫 I didn't bring it up. He sort of confronted me about it. I was just explaining why I don't really eat fish (they asked me). And he was like "but what about this: ...". Yeah, in a weird way, even though I know what I want, the argument really dug itself into my mind. It's like a really alluring prospect that "what if you can just read a few sentences and that's it?", even when you know about the limitations or downsides of that. So I wanted more reasons to not entertain it as a good argument, even though again I have assessed it essentially for what it is (e.g., I don't have a problem with using institutions as a baseline, but it's the exclusive position of "only that" which is so - disturbing). I think I really just wanted to reground myself in the position that being open and interested in information about all kinds of things is ok. All my life I've been surrounded by relatively open people. It's a first where I've ran into someone this principally not-open.