Carl-Richard

@JoshB You are now using equivocating language. It's unclear what you mean by "you" (or "your mind"). Start using for example "personal you" or "personal mind" for the illusory ego self and "transpersonal you" or "transpersonal Mind" (or Consciousness, the Self) for the ultimate reality.

Bathrooms don't exist. You are labelling an apparent perception (which is itself a label). An apparent perception part of an apparent field of perception (which is also a label). The Absolute is pure being at its root, and the relative seemingly springs out like flowers (which we conveniently label "perception"), and then you label the perceptions with concepts, words. Only then, a notion of a " bathroom" can exist. And the notion of a bathroom being "the only thing that exists, ever, at any place, any time" does not follow from it springing out from the Absolute. Any form imagineable can spring out of the Absolute, anywhere, at any time. It's like looking inside your bathroom and saying only your toilet brush can exist. Why are you drawing a boundary at the toilet brush? Likewise, why are you drawing a boundary at the bathroom?

I have a theory (not a conspiracy theory): the people who get strongly drawn to conspiracy theories are the same people who get drawn to supernatural ideas, like God creating the universe from their own predetermined plan (not simply evolving spontaneously through "natural law"). They are fine with explaining reality top down through an elaborate narrative. There is a seeming plan behind everything, behind world politics, behind alien invasions, behind wars, behind ancient history, and they all connect to a grand meta-narrative of control, of manufacturing, of conscious creating, rather than natural systems acting spontaneously. Those who criticize conspiracy theories point out how that level of organization, of top-down control, is unlikely if not impossible, because of the natural tendency towards spontaneous order and the infeasibility of controlling complex systems. In the "naturalist critique", everybody is a victim of systems, even the supposed people in power, while in the conspiracist's mind, the people in power are the controllers of the systems and the powerless are the victims. Whether one is more correct than the other is actually hard to say, and a naturalist that claims otherwise would then become a conspiracy theorist in their own right, thinking they have the level of insight and knowledge to be able to predict complex systems. As for myself, as a general predisposition, I've noticed I'm fine with either (naturalism or supernaturalism). While for example Bernardo Kastrup says he is strongly opposed to supernaturalism simply as a personal predisposition (which is why he says he sees no point in doing philosophy if nature is not simply naturalistic; no "God" at the top planning it all, intervening into nature and changing the natural course of things). But I would also challenge this idea of naturalism, that you could still try to deduce the "laws" behind God's planning so to speak, and it won't be a completely pointless endeavour, simply a more interesting one. Like trying to understand the psychology of God rather than the "physics" of God.

You're talking about bathrooms and drawers.

It just came off as completely artifical and inorganic, ungrounded, meaningless for the intended context. If you got a conspiracy theory, tell us about it, don't try to construct it after the fact based on some standard of being as milquetoast as possible. Because clearly it ended up being completely artificial and not even fitting the term "conspiracy theory". It's like you fear your father is going to beat you if he finds out you're a bad boy but you want to also sound like you're a bad boy and then you say "I could have probably been a bad boy sometimes". No, you're not a bad boy. Way too nice, way too constrained. A conspiracy theory tends to be a specific narrative, not "something vague might have happened and it was covered up". Something very specific happened and it happened because of this specific reason and covered up for this specific reason. It has some power in the claims it makes, it actually makes a difference if they're true or not. An epistemically responsible approach to a conspiracy theory is to be consistent with the level and strength of evidence, and if you're for example a whistleblower with a lot of inside information, then you might have an epistemically responsible position thinking it is true. Same with how all the Epstein claims have tons of evidence now while before you had Alex Jones and essentially nobody else talking about it.

A life purpose.

That's the most impotent "conspiracy theory" I've ever heard. It's like calling yourself a rapist for thinking about sleeping with the teacher for 1 second.

Sure. The thing is just I can explain your experience too in a way that is consistent with the "narrowing" frame. That doesn't mean you yourself should/would prefer using that frame, because ironically, you're fixated on the mind-expanding aspects (or they're more relevant for you, and you're fixated on explaining your own experience, not other people's).

Then how do you explain why weed often makes people emotionally numb or indifferent? Or why it screws with their short-term memory and also parts of long-term memory? Or why the endocannabinoid system is intimately involved in habit formation and maintenance?

It's like you're not even reading what I'm writing. But that's ok. Had any weed lately? 😂

If you actually inquire into the effects weed has on your mind as you're on it and in the ways I mentioned, I don't think you would disagree with what I said after that. If you go into expanded states, you are narrowed out from narrow states (e.g. negative emotion or mind-racing obsession), get it? This is not just a word game: it explains why sometimes or in some ways you experience a seeming narrowing and sometimes you don't. If you get locked out from your Default Mode Network or long-term memories or your short-term memory goes to complete shit, that's a narrowing, even if it leads to an expanded sense of awareness in another sense. "I feel at one with everything" can still be narrowing if you also can't remember your name. "Then aren't other psychedelics also about narrowing?". Not necessarily as much, because you don't see people on psychedelics as much lying on the couch eating cheetos every hour of the day (habitual narrowing) or indeed getting addicted to it and having to puff it everyday. The incredibly tricky part of weed addiction is that you can get fixated on weed itself, and it gets exacerbated by the cognitively fixating effects of weed, which creates an evil reinforcing loop.

I've been in both camps: using weed everyday like a crutch and using weed once and then having a full blown ego death experience. Weed is good at magnifying whatever is there (other psychedelics are too but in their own way, and they're perhaps more rude sometimes pulling the rug from under you). If you're a manic guy stuck in his mind, weed will magnify that. If you're a couch potato stuck in your couch, weed will magnify that. If you're a non-dual or psychedelically expanded guy, weed will magnify that. What weed seems to do is it narrows your cognitive lightcone. Your access to memories becomes less wide ("dissociation"), your focus becomes less fluctuating (unless you are in a state of paranoia or mania, which weed will magnify by focusing in on that paranoia or mania). It is associated with the neurochemical system of habit, which is by definition a narrowing of cognition. So whatever is there, or whatever you focus on, or whatever habit you have, weed will focus in on that. And as for the emotionally numbing effect of weed: the way negative emotions work is they are supposed to break habit, interrupt usual processing and make you shift your focus. "Look here, danger — fear, move, retreat", "look here, a problem — rumination, access memory storage", "look, uncertainty — anxiety, predict future scenarios", "look, an obstacle — engage anger, focus on obstacle and eliminate it". Weed just makes you like "whatever man". Most of these things receive a general dampening, unless of course you get focused/fixated (obsessed) on any one of them.

Have a goal that never gets fulfilled.

It's like my friend said: you become a bit like a grandma.

Ego grasping for what it thinks is the ultimate until it dies.

AI allows for laziness because it's so powerful, but you can use AI in a not lazy way. And imagine how powerful that makes you.

If I were to point out corruption, I would never shut up.

Yeah. He talked about self-realization (which to me seems like death) like it was just another experience.

I think if we start bringing back the Stages of Enlightenment models to the forum, these problems of solipsism won't arise, because 1. they don't contain solipsism, and 2. it's harder to deceive yourself (but not impossible) about the stages (especially the Shakti-Shiva progression models, i.e. self-realization, God consciousness, Unity Consciousness). It's harder to deceive yourself about concrete things like presence of shakti in the body or in the spine. And it's harder to get lost in conceptual stories when the models are only reliant on the interplay between shakti (dynamic energy) and shiva (pure being).

I'm re-watching his first interview and I get shakti activating too (I always did but it's still there). And it's such a smooth and flowing interview because Rick Archer is also self-realized so two self-realized people talking to each other is like such a resonance and Rick knows exactly how to add on something Jan says. Gem of the internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpellation You said phantaclesis is: Give me one example of phantaclesis which is not described by interpellation. Maybe the difference is in style or tone: phantaclesis could perhaps be described more for cults, while interpellation is more about culture in general. Cults are more "enticing" and "alluring", they call on you, they reel you in, while culture is more like the environment you just exist in and passively soak in.

Here is like the best examples I could find of each extreme of the spectrum: Fact-based: Narrative-based: List 25 is like "here is a fact, and here is a fact, and here is fact, what you do with them is up to you". Meanwhile Spirit Science is like, well, it speaks for itself.

Neodingus 🤪

I'm saying economics is epistemically more aware than e.g. physics, similar to psychology, for the reasons I listed. Maybe you didn't catch the context of my earlier comments. Psychology is also "barely" a science for its own reasons. That doesn't mean I think economics or psychology are crap.

Neologitis. a) Trying very hard to come up with a new word (and usually failing, or rather there was already another established word for the same concept). b) constantly coming up with new words. You guys are a), Eric Weinstein is b). https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Ericisms Here's an excerpt of words starting with A (just A, there are many more letters):