TheAlchemist

This is a vital topic to consider as the deeper forms of spirituality gain traction at the collective level through increasing access to psychedelics and powerful spiritual techniques. This article goes along very well with Leo's series on cults. Feel free to engage and comment based on just the title, the excerpts, or the whole article: https://metamoderna.org/the-totalitarian-potential-of-new-age-spirituality/ "Why then would I claim that New Age has the potential to be even more hellish than Gulag or Holocaust? Think about it: These relations involve your innermost ontological belief structures. They can make you believe that if you don’t follow suit, if you even think the wrong thought, you will be punished for a literal eternity of unbearable suffering. And they can make you believe that in full and earnest. That’s much, much more radical than making you think you’re a bad comrade or not a part of the master race. And they can make you believe that the fate of the entire cosmos, literally speaking, depends on your work with this and that inner purifica­tion, enlightenment, etc. And they can make you believe this or that person is literally God speaking and that nothing else has any relevan­ce compared to what they may be saying. And they can make you inti­mately feel that with every cell of your body and soul. It’s the Michelin Star Club of totalitarianism. It’s totalitarianism magna cum laude, extra everything; ketchup and mustard. Because it reaches into the depths of your soul and controls parts of you neither Stalin nor Hitler could reach. In theory, then, what crimes could that sort of power make you commit? And if you were invested in it, what would you be prepared to do to defend it from perceived attackers?" -Hanzi Freinacht "We must see that spiritual insight and higher universal love are powerful futu­re attract­ors, but that they reside in the posthuman or transhuman realm of poten­tials, which means that we shouldn’t rush it. In this case, we must remain careful and conservative, as the sheer terror that can be unleashed under the auspices of a “metamodern totalitar­ianism” leaves a heavy ethical bur­den on us. Imagine a world where dictators control your soul and the con­struction of your social universe and have a thousand social, psycho­logical, chemical and technological tools to control the structure of your mind. That would be beyond nasty." -Hanzi Freinacht

@Carl-Richard makes sense. Good points

Disclaimer from CDC about VAERS (their own system): "VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind. The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. As part of CDC and FDA's multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as "safety signals." If a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same scientific limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine. Key considerations and limitations of VAERS data: Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS, whether or not they believe the vaccine was the cause. Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information. The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines. VAERS data is limited to vaccine adverse event reports received between 1990 and the most recent date for which data are available. VAERS data do not represent all known safety information for a vaccine and should be interpreted in the context of other scientific information. VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public."

Ok let's help Africans and Indians end hunger and lets provide schooling and healthcare for everyone globally. We will quickly have a couple billion more potential Einsteins.

That article and writer are not coming from a place of anti- new age, but point towards integrating the healthy parts of it while remaining aware of the potential traps. It's more about the extreme forms of new age spirituality that are popping up now in the form of cults and strong "us vs. them" narratives that are justified in new age terminology. And about how those ideas have potential to go viral and hijack the human mind Christianity or Atheism style, but potentially in an even darker and stronger way. Although I think the diversity of worldviews is something that guards us quite well from that in the modern world. Diversity typically increases resilience, whether it be in the natural environment, or in culture. So I'm not too worried about it, it's just something to be aware of and keep an eye on.

Yes. Along these lines is why I think people like Leo, Sadhguru, Rupert Spira and Eckhart Tolle with an authentic message are a necessary part of avoiding devolution and getting stuck in dogmatic thinking in the modern age. For the future transitions of humanity, it's no longer good enough for the mystics to withdraw in the caves, now they must come into the society and market themselves, make themselves and their ideas sexy, competing in the marketplace of (spiritual) ideas. Otherwise the more exploitative, manipulative and toxic version of spirituality take over our minds, individually and collectively. The mystics voice has usually been drowned out by the roaring massive machine of preaching spiritual dogma. Now we need a strong grounding in the introspective mystic path of spirituality, where we avoid collective madness and evolve past our prior limitations.

The problem at the collective level still remains. How to prevent for example the stuff Leo talks about from being hijacked by someone as a tool for totalitarianism? 90% of people who practice "spirituality" don't do it quietly at home contemplating stuff independently. People want to belong to a group and have some big purpose to work towards. And wherever two or more people gather, there are people interested in hijacking that collective entity and its enthusiasm to feed their own ego. And if the group becomes attractive enough (meets enough human needs), and has an ingrained powerful incentive that causes people to "spread the word", it will become like a parasite trying to take over the individual and collective human psyche (the host). Cults are a small scale example, religions, belief systems and ideologies a larger scale example. Parasites. I think a lot of the neo-advaita stuff for example can also be quite easily corrupted by power hungry egos to gaslight people at the deepest levels of their existence. These high states Leo talks about can easily be hijacked and forced into a premade framework of interpretation that feeds some belief system if they happen in a certain type of group context. Also spiral dynamics is an amazing tool for creating a new kind of pecking order if improperly interpreted. And improper interpretation is not an exception, it's the rule. Especially if the ideas are powerful enough to take hold in human minds at a larger scale. I think there are totally new kinds of risks in the modern world, with the easy access to the most potent spiritual teachings that have traditionally been kept secret, increasing access to totally new kinds of powerful psychedelics, strong tribal dynamics on the internet and the breakdown of a sense of shared fundamental truth in society. This will be a very difficult terrain to navigate for us a society. A solid grounding in epistemology is absolutely vital, but almost completely lacking.

A distinction between some absolute good and absolute evil is not needed. There can be other motivators for not hurting people besides an absolute moral code. I'm sure you realize that. You don't need morals to love people. You can directly see that it is the highest joy. Doesn't meant that doing the opposite and hurting people would be "evil" in any absolute sense. It's simply not life/love/joy-enriching in the grand scheme of things. And at the relative small scale human level, we can still put structures in place that steer people towards love. Luckily we have a universe that naturally rewards love the highest! I find it odd that many people are so reliant on a rulebook or strict moral code to not hurt people. Sometimes it almost sounds like the only thing keeping them from hurting and exploiting people is a rulebook that tells them not to do so, with a threat of punishment. Don't you think it a sign of maturity to be able to do that which is life/joy/love enriching, purely out of your own desire to do so, not just because somebody/something is pressuring you?

Do you guys make a distinction between a) ego based solipsism, where the character that experiences separation believes it's own human mind is imagining everything vs. b) God based solipsism. Where the ego is seen as an appearance and as a part of Gods mind, but also something muuuch greater than just the finite human mind. I think a lot of the sense of fear and aloness towards the idea of solipsism comes from a) and it is usually what is assumed when humans experiencing separation are talking about solipsism. But do you think this kind of distinction can be made? The neo advaitans would probably say no, you are already "God", awake etc. even if you don't see it so. What do you think?

@Zedman your sense of concern is valid. Your raw feelings are valid. In concepts, we can be lost forever, and I do not wish to get lost in defending some position, getting my sense of identity wrapped up in it. So, you might take this as me avoiding the arguments, which is fine. Maybe I don't have the answers you are looking for. Just know your sense of concern, whatever you're feeling is not wrong in any fundamental way. I'm not saying your analysis is valid because I don't know, but you as a person, your sense of concern and feelings of worry etc. are all totally valid. That's all I can say now.

What do you think, would this have happened if you were 20 and smoked dmt for the first time? Or do the breakthroughs in consciousness with other psychedelics and all the spiritual work and meditation lay the groudwork for this type of insight to occur more easily?

There's a big difference between 1. studying a isolated event exposure (vaccine) vs. 2. constant exposure (heavy metals & plastics). In the first case you can look at how the body system is before exposure to the intervention (vaccine), how it reacts to the exposure and how it adjusts after exposure. Systems don't suddenly, years later react in some totally unexpected way to an isolated exposure event. What you have is the normal state, the shock state and the adjusted state which are looked at in a clinical environment with double blind studies, removing the effect of other variables than the vaccine as much as possible. Whereas with heavy metals and phtalates the exposure is often happening continuously, from birth, potentially starting from the womb. The premise is that it can be all around the environment, in the food, the water, even the air. So it is massively more complex to study, since you can't compare easily the before and after state. And I know someone might say that the vaccine is not an isolated exposure since there will probably be 4+ rounds of it or something. Still, it is fundamentally different from heavy metal exposure from the environment, since a proper clinical double blind study can be done and all the exposure events are known very accurately, their dosage and their timing. Which, despite the limitations of science, works especially well for studying things like vaccines and their effects. And that is why I trust the modern scientific method regarding this. Although the development of the vaccine is highly complex, the study of its effects is fundamentally quite easy and simple.

I'm sure it was a baffling and awe inspiring experience. Entertain this thought if you like: Lets say you (or someone else) prayed to Muhammed or Vishnu or Shiva at that moment, and this exact same phenomena and light appeared. Exactly the same experience happened. Would that be a confirmation of the belief in Muhammed or Shiva or Vishnu being true? Or could it be that the experience itself is just something that happens? Maybe not even randomly, but lets say in response to a calling out of your heart. Then the mind quickly jumps in and attaches a narrative to it, all kinds of concepts and ideologies are reinforced through the narrative. When in reality, there was just the pure nonconceptual experience, and it holds no meaning beyond what is given to it. Isn't that a possibility as well?

Beautiful report. But how the heck do you integrate something like that?

Almost all online communities that have a strongly shared passion break up and divide at some point due to some kind of drama or disagreements between people. There is usually a break off from the original community, to have a more "pure" teaching and community, that is believed to somehow meet everyones needs better. I'm surprised it hasn't happened here yet, but I see strong signs of it stirring up. Then those communities fragment further and further. That's the endless cycle that happens if people are looking for some perfect teacher who will meet all their expectations and form a community around it. Then they get upset when the inevitable humanness comes forth and their dreams are shattered. I think the key is to simply learn to see beyond the black and white, discard the parts of a message you don't agree with, but try to see the gold in someones pov. If you find no gold there, then fine, discard it. But in most places there is some gold to be found, even if the messenger is not liked. This forum might not exist in a few years at all anymore, so see if you can find some beauty and value in it while it lasts.

@WokeBloke Stay with what is true for you, only go as far as you feel willing. I really respect your honesty and openness here, I think that's the way to go.

"I think the answer is yes. I am not sure that synthetic consciousness could achieve the same level of sophistication as human consciousness, but I can imagine this being possible in a number of hundred years, or even less. I do not think that synthetic consciousness would be equal to natural human consciousness. I am unsure whether it could reach the same level of complexity, but even if this were possible there seems to me a fundamental difference between natural and artificial intelligence. Humans are not just conscious, but also have a certain amount of free will. Humans can choose their actions partially based upon their own desires and motivations. Neither of these concepts seem to be possible in synthetic consciousness. I think this is the main reason why it would be difficult for synthetic consciousness to reach the same level of sophistication as human consciousness. The other aspect that I see contributing to a separation between natural and artificial intelligence is an aspect of what has been described as qualia. Qualia, meaning the inner sensation of experiences such as pain, seem to be a fundamental aspect of consciousness. I think that this is what separates human consciousness from artificial intelligence. I think this is what makes humans conscious - the ability to feel pain. I believe that synthetic consciousness would not have this aspect, and therefore it would be a different kind of consciousness." ----A reply to your question from a neural net AI

When I was doing daygame I had this same fear. Once some women from my university had seen me approaching people, and they "confronted" me about it, asking me what I was doing with an accusatory tone. Later on it turned that all the drama was because one of the girls was actually just upset that I had walked past her and had not approach her! After that I didn't worry much about it. I think the key is to stand behind what you are doing fully. Why are you feeling guilty about approaching?. Frame it and do it in some way that you can fully and 100% stand behind it, even if you were the subject of news headlines, being grilled on live television by the CNN For me it was about making connections with people and facing my fears and going on adventures with strangers. Why would I be seen as "that guy" if that's what I'm doing? If you're not smelling like shit, not stepping over boundaries and remaining respectful, you just won't be "that guy" And really, what would it matter if someone did see you as "that guy"? It only matters if you deep down feel like you are doing something wrong.

No description of reality is reality (ungraspable) No, description of reality is reality (all-encompassing) "No description of reality", is reality (empty) Interesting sentence there ?

What do you think about a perspective like Jean Kleins? Watch this clip for a few minutes from the timestamp. "The teacher, he presents never himself as a teacher, because he is love. He is consciousness. So he will never take you as an ignorant, as a student. "

I don't know for sure either, but I think about it along these lines: The I-am-ness is something that is completely impersonal right? Impersonal in the sense that it is the only "thing" that is unchanging, while everything that appears in it is constantly changing, appearing and disappearing. It is also the only "thing" that is not distinct from anything else, it doesn't have any boundary that separates itself into "me" and "not me", or "this" and "that". In this case, wouldn't it be plausible that this sense of being/I-am-ness would be eternal, timeless and everpresent? Since it seems to be the only place anything ever appears in. I think the idea of some kind of structure or personal identity going onto another life or some place after death is implausible, but that deep I-am-ness/beingness could be transcendent of death in the sense that it is already always existing everywhere and cannot even conceive of death, since death always requires a limited identity that has seemingly differentiated itself from that beingness into something seemingly separate. No boundaries = No death

It means nothing to me. I think it's the only "thing" in the universe that is completely ungraspable, unfathomable, unbelievable for the mind. Those might sound like descriptions, but they are negations, points about what I think it can't be, which is graspable, fathomable or believable.

Yes, I think this is key. When any kind of fear arises, just simply notice it and ask yourself "is it true?"