vibv

Tread lightly. DXM is very powerful and can be addictive. If used too often it is harmful for sure. I'd say no more than once in 1-3 months. The effects also may linger for many days after, which can be positive but also negative. That being said, it's one of my favourite dissociatives. It also has a way more "warm" and dreamy feeling to it. I experience Ketamin as very cold and clinical in contrast.

Don't you see the irony here? You even recognize that you'd be happier if you didn't believe in that ideology. And still you say that you have no other choice than believing in it. Is that really true? You have a choice. You are creating your own unhappiness.

This is really worth watching. It's essentially about the huge impact and repercussions that survival has on science. And how you can't really avoid playing the game, either.

❤️

There's free will. The Will Of God.

This is fucking huge!

You can work with any programming language if you're a professional, but everybody has their favourites. So congrats for finding yours.

What do you mean by that? Isn't having a life purpose the best way to live? Or do you mean you shouldn't get too attached to it?

I have no clue what you're talking about. Sounds like mental masturbation to me.

You can still very much get lost in concepts, especially if you think that you're immune to that.

Dude you're way too full of mind to get consciousness. You've got yourself lost in concepts. Drop all the concepts and then see. No concept can ever capture consciousness.

"I'm not done here yet"

@Javfly33 I heard that Kratom is pretty unique in its mechanism of action. I believe it also works a little bit like an SSRI, but that's not conclusively clarified.

About 15 g per day for 3-4 months. It completely numbed my emotions and it was extremely uncomfortable and difficult to taper off. That was over 7 years ago. I took some again last year, but in moderation. I still like it, but you should never underestimate it.

It is able to completely fuck with your life, your spirit, your emotions, etc. Don't ever underestimate such a thing. I'm speaking from personal experience here, and I know cases that were far worse than mine.

People really disliked Van Goghs early works back then I find this whole question extremely fascinating, it resurfaces again and again for me: What makes bad Art bad Art? Who can even really judge that? "You just know it" isn't a very good argument. I think, again, this graph gives at least a hint in some direction:

Kratom is nice, but addictive. But one thing I definitely wouldn't call it – and that's psychedelic.

Appreciate it. I like it a lot. In my view there are paradigm shifts waiting to happen in every field, including music. One day we will recognize that art has more significance than even physics.

That would be the other dimension I talked about: Good craftsmanship. Being quick to judge a piece of art as good or crap also makes it likely to err sooner or later. If that was easy to decide my life would be a lot less complicated... but also a lot less interesting

What even is art? In the broad sense, of course there's a lot of uninspired or downright "bad" art. But it's at the same time easy to overlook really good art. There's a reason why so much of art is pretty much copying already existing things. It just works. Let's look at it that way: There's a spectrum of good vs bad craftsmanship and there's a spectrum of true art vs. uninspired cookie cutter art. Like a 2D graph. A lot of the music that gets played in the radio is extremely well produced, but often lacks originality and depth. The struggle for an artist is to develop the toolset needed to bring that spark of inspiration to life before it fades away. And even then it happens again and again that the best art is only appreciated much later. Best examples are Van Gogh, J.S. Bach (he made a living out of his music but it wasn't nearly as celebrated as it is today, it was seen as outdated because it didn't follow the trends of its time at all) and a lot more of course. There are artists who are naturally gifted at what they do, but it is not always the case. My point being.. it's not always so easy to separate good from bad art. In my view the crucial criterion is if it stems from a place of True Creativity or if it just aims to be useful in one way or the other.

You're absolutely right. But I wouldn't call that art in my books, it's mundane repetition, reproduction. Art is alive, what you described is lifeless, often done because "it works", or sells, or whatever. It's what AI does. It takes the input and combines the patterns in a different way. But real art goes beyond that. Real art creates something completely fresh and NEW. It comes directly from the source of all Life itself. Real art challenges the artist as well as the audience. There's a reason why real art is so seldom achieved. It is extremely difficult to make a living out of it, as a real artist is often ahead of their time.

What is bad art? Art and bad exclude one another. Art is always an expression of the Divine. The artist becomes a funnel through which Creativity with a capital C is channelled. The job of the artist is to develop the needed technical skills to be able to produce what is given to them, and on the other hand deepen their connection to that creative Intelligence that goes way beyond the personal human level. When you say bad you may mean that they're not good ad their craft. As I said, it's their job to develop that craftsmanship. I would go as far as to call it their duty! What makes an artist an artist is having that connection I've talked about and then acting on it.

That's completely wrong. If fun is your priority while doing art that makes it a hobby (nothing wrong with having fun though, don't get me wrong). Art goes way beyond that. Art means you have something in you that wants to be expressed. Art is a process of giving birth and that can be immensely painful. You're not necessarily an artist in the field of music if you're good at, say, playing the piano. What makes you an artist is the fact that there is music in you.

I just posted this answer to a question about the nature of LOVE on another thread. I think it deserves its own thread. Here we go: What is LOVE? LOVE is something completely different from the human emotion of love. LOVE is beyond good and evil. LOVE equals GOODNESS. But it's a greater form of Goodness that has nothing to do with your human fantasies about what's good and what's bad. To realize Absolute Goodness you have to be able to leave the perspective of your ego and consider everything from a holistic standpoint. It's not necessarily good for you as a finite form – which most of the time means good in regards to your survival. But it's Good for the whole in the sense that it maximizes Love. You want an example? Let's take war. War leads to a lot of suffering, so you wouldn't call it good, except if you were the initiator of the war – that already shows how relative your notions of good and bad are. But for the greater Goodness war and all the suffering that comes with it leads to the establishment of True Peace. True Peace is not the absence of the possibility of war. It is us understanding the suffering and consequences of war very deeply, which requires to fully live through it – and then coming together and consciously deciding that we don't want to continue that anymore. The resulting experience of True Peace wouldn't be possible if the opposite - war - would just not exist. It can only be created by deeply and experientally understanding what it means to be fully at war – and then recognizing that it was false and it is not what we fundamentally are. But first you have to go to war. You can't skip that step if you want to really know what you truly are. That's what LOVE is about. It loves itself so deeply that it creates its exact opposite to be able to find out and understand what it is – even fully knowing what that entails.

Karma is just cause and effect. You could also say: Everything you do, you do to yourself, because there's nothing else that exists. Selfishness is the consequence of not knowing that.