Carl-Richard

Letting go is what Enlightenment is about. Having crazy experiences is what psychedelics are about. Time to graduate to Enlightenment.

Careful not to be too diplomatic here: they will agree with the former (on the level of words), but not the latter (unless they flipflop because they don't know the difference or are incoherent in their speech which absolutely does happen), which is the entire issue. Rewarding someone for saying what is seemingly right on the level of words but not on the level of concept (being "right" for the wrong reasons) is a punishment in disguise. You are not right if you think it's Absolute truth that your grandmother is a zombie because you're supposedly the only limited being that has an experience.

@Natasha Tori Maru I just see "guy do cool stuff" and I go "woo!". I don't see much philosophy in it, any more than I see philosophy in the fastest or strongest athletes in the world reaching for the highest heights. It's a celebration of life in a sense. "Being remembered in the 25th century" I think you took that a bit too literally, imo that's simply visionary ambition (I don't see it as him wishing to be remembered but he using that mental image, the standards of health in the 25th century, for the standards he strives for). "Ego" I want to use for people to use that ambition to grandstand over others. Direct comparisons and low vibration.

Bryan might want to find the engineering secrets of hacking lifespan. That's his life purpose. But if lifespan becomes infinite and people are healthy, they won't simply die. Maybe most healthy people want to spend their time alive in a different way than Bryan currently is, but they want to spend their time alive, and if they somehow can spend only a minimal amount of time to increase their time spent alive, they probably will do it. Bryan is just in the startup stages digging around, and that takes more time than people might consider reasonable. But that's his job. You just have to wait until the engineering problem is overcome, then you will join Don't Die (proper) probably as a default. If infinite lifespan was obtainable through swallowing a pill every morning (or doing a one-time genetic intervention), and it was basically free, how big percentage of the population would do it?

No: neologism (which is not a new word).

@Natasha Tori Maru "Don't Die" is a marketing slogan. Bryan is a businessman. He sold a company for 800 million dollars. The actual philosophy underlying Don't Die is akin to Sadhguru saying "dying in installments" (and avoiding it), i.e. simply be healthy, and if you're healthy, you don't see a reason to die. If you're unhealthy, yes, that's an issue, and I think Bryan knows that (he was at one point suicidal and overall unhealthy).

What are the pros and cons of reading books vs wikipedia articles or merely doing Google searches? Curious what your takes are. I think books are able to give some more depth sometimes, but often a book has many chapters and they are not necessarily connected in a profoundly significant way. But when they are, it helps drawing larger picture connections. And also of course just staying on a book or just sitting down and reading x amount of time (that you preset) trains your ability to focus and commit to one thing. I think the issue is not necessarily as much about reading books vs doing other forms of research but instead reading books vs not reading anything at all (or watching AI slop, reels, complete epistemic poison). I've personally not read many books outside my university education (which spans multiple fields though), I've mostly been an internet researcher (which might involve jumping into books or proper academic articles sometimes, but it's usually more sporadic than investing time in a structured way). But over the years, you come back to the same topics again and again and you accumulate depth and knowledge that way. It's not necessarily the case that non-books research precludes depth. It just makes it a longer time horizon thing. Your cognition structures it for you, you write the book in your own mind so to speak. Whichever format you think is best, I honestly don't think it matters much as long as you feel you have a clear traction on your goals. One invaluable thing I've always done (but which was calcified in my mind by either Daniel Schmachtenberger or Sam Harris, I can't remember) is to always look up the definition of a word you haven't heard about before. It becomes a little sporadic research program in its own right but it also becomes a springboard to other research (I do absolutely go down massive rabbit holes drawing connections between many words and concepts and sites, articles, persons, books, ideologies, 100 tabs open, not knowing which is which after a while). This is obviously a massive strength by having the internet.

It's not. It's a semantic game, as it usually is.

I believe your motivation for meditation is one of the very strongest predictors of the outcomes of meditation. If your motivation is enlightenment, that will lead to more profound outcomes than if your motivation is stress-reduction or whatever metric you would want to maximize your well-being at a normal kind of level. And changing your motivation (authentically) is hard. It's wired into you. If you're not motivated to meditate for enlightenment, there are very few things that can do that for you. So where would you expect to cultivate such a motivation with greater efficiency? Schools. Children are under creation, they are impressionable, and they are not distracted by life, by having a job, a family to take care of, financial status, social status, etc. Even if you meditate consistently every day as an adult, even while aiming at these higher states (awakening, enlightenment), you might not want to give up your job, your family, your finances, to become enlightened, or to pursue these things more rigorously. You're attached to these things, authentically giving them up is not usually something you can do over night. That's the crux of the issue of an unenlightened society. Nobody wants to give up what they have. They want to cling to what is their current life, the status quo, what feels secure. Even if they know very intimately what the enlightened experience entails, they might not want to actually give (and give up) what it takes to get there. So to create an enlightened Earth, you must start with the soil, you must water it so that the plants grow, you must give the plants the right attention and tools to grow into the potential that you give them. Let the old plants do what they do until they wither away. That's just the state of nature at this point.

Funny = mistake? 🤔 I just don't know what "inner friction" means (unless we're in the bedroom; talking psychologically of course). 🥴

Bruh the pen broke me. Reading cognitive science and neuroscience is basically getting this point hammered into your head again and again. It breaks your mind after a while. "Prediction errors", "forward models", "cognitive schemas", "fast-and-frugal heuristics", "ecological rationality", "Gestalt psychology", "top-down vs bottom-up processing".

I was calling my own comment about you cringe, not you 💀 You thought I thought it was cringe that you pointed out Putin's energy? I meant it was cringe I pointed out my impression of your past and current patterns. It was meant to disarm my next statements, but you took the disarming as an attack 😂

You have these funny concepts.

I can't watch AI videos because they are robotic :,) They rot my soul, and the brain-to-brain connection is non-existent. The organic feelings that try to peer through the surface layer just runs into metal, silicone, 1s and 0s.

It's funny that a video serving Russian propaganda is made soelly through the use of Western AI technology

Right, correct, thank you 🙏

I know I know >:) "Control yourself, you're a member" 🤔

I'll reveal everything, don't you worry. I want to reveal as much as I possibly can. You might even want to close your eyes.

I gave a caveat that it is cringe, give me a break And by giving that caveat and still going ahead with it, I was indeed controlling myself :,) You see, this person you're talking to right now is very mean, calculated, cold, when he wants to >:) I will also just splerg out emotions if that's what's up, if that's part of the plan >:) But yes, Ramasta, just thoughts, just thoughts.

The #1 rule of world politics is Donald Trump doesn't know what the fuck he is doing. Everything else is secondary to that. What people think Kim Jong-Un is, Trump is. A clueless, narcissistic piece of rotten scum :,)

That you get genuine energy from? You're getting hypnotized by that weird woman with a weird voice 🥴 I find it cringe to point out personal things generally, but I think you're very impressionable by outside influences, more than you might realize. It's the fruit diet thing ("I just feel better on it; I also just happened to read this book on it where they argue why it's the most evolutionarily healthy diet"). It's this ("I feel Putin's energy as positive; I also just happened to watch a supposed psychic read their energy and describe it as positive"). It's perhaps other things ("they said she was 141 so I think that she is", I don't know as much about that one). Just some thoughts, don't need to take them as absolute truth ;P

If you want love without psychedelics, Jan is the teacher to go to:

I think when somebody tries to say "no other minds exist", that is what they're trying to say. And when they point to the limited human experience being the reason for that, they can't be talking about the Absolute. And when they keep referring to limited objects of their experience, e.g. "what you're reading right now", that becomes even more clear. If they then at some point concede "ok, no in fact, no objects are absolute, I'm actually not talking about my limited experience but the unlimited experience or recognition of the totality of everything", them we can talk about the Absolute again. But then they are either contradicting themselves or they are simply confused or unable to make proper distinctions that convey their understanding more or less accurately. That's the crux of the issue. If they were to study what the "mind" is in a Western psychology sense (e.g. mostly human perceptions, sensations, feelings, experiences) and contrast this with the mind in a Hindu Advaita Vedanta sense or Buddhist sense (unlimited consciousness beyond all human experience, emptiness), they would maybe see that what they're trying to deny the existence of is other human minds in the Western sense while they actually are having intuitive insights into the Hindu/Buddhist mind, which is an unfortunate conflation. Imagine going into a food store and you run into apples in the fruit section (and the oranges are hidden behind a stack of crates) and you say "there are only apples here, that means oranges can't exist, because only the store exists". That's the level of confusion of a solipsist who declares that their human limited experience is absolute (and that other human minds don't exist), while grounding their reasoning in insights into unlimited consciousness.

Give me your best explanation. Best explanation gets a cookie (laced with meth).

I'm specifically saying the solipsism of taking your finite limited experience as a human (and only it) as Absolute, is what doesn't work. If you want to say that the aloneness of the great beyond or perfect ultimate presence is solipsistic, that's fine, but that is usually not what solipsists want to do. They want to pull it into the human realm. They want to talk about "other human minds" and such topics. Their focus is interestingly very human, perhaps because that is where their identification (and attachments and fears) lies. What strikes me is you will (to my knowledge) never find an Enlightened (not merely awakened) person obsessing about the ontological status of other human minds. It's only those who are awakened (or parroting those awakened or enlightened) who are still (most of the time) identified with their finite mind that go into these weird obsessions and neuroses. If you ask an Enlightened person "do you think other minds exist?", they will be like "what? Not even your own mind exists. What are you so concerned about? See that you were always dead, nobody was alive, it was all a show, including you and your story".