Lento

@mandyjw Perhaps it's time to move on from spirituality to something else. To be honest, all I see here is unnecessary thought-loops. I don't think there's much to get from this. Perhaps consider continuing your exploration in other areas.

@Serotoninluv I understand. Although, consider the following; say I've had one trip, whether psychedelic or not, in which I've "become" God and experienced multiple lifetimes, some of which were of highly experienced psychonauts like yourself. Now, this is not likely to be the case, but still, it could be. In the case of someone like Sadhguru, could that be the case? And if it was, would that make his opinions more legit say than someone like you or Leo?

But this is not realistic at all. How would we determine which perspective is the most comprehensive? Are there any objective measures for this? See, at least with gender equality, we can know who is a man and who is a woman. I'm not sure but I still sense a bit of denial of the female perspective.

I'm sorry, "some"? ?

In theory, yes. But in practice, it's very very difficult. A male is still a male, and a female is still a female. Each is biased towards their own gender. Plus, perspectives change, so that makes it harder to keep in touch with both perspectives. I don't get your point though, it seems male-centric. If you truly fully accept women as part of your identity, then why do you seem to prefer isolating them and exchanging their perspective for highly conscious mens' perspective? It just doesn't make sense to me.

@Serotoninluv I see. But the point is that I have a similar understanding to yours both of psychedelics and reality, although probably not as comprehensive. And this understanding was not intermediated by drugs, which proves that it's completely valid to have opinions on psychedelics without having to use them.

Exactly!

If you're talking about robots, then yes, I totally agree.

In theory, you are right. In practice, well, it's very different.

Developmentally speaking, it's still too early for you to expect to see a full objective understanding of feminism. These kinds of changes usually take decades and centuries, and of course it is getting better, more feminists are becoming aware of their shadows. So make sure you don't dismiss the time factor. Until that homeless person is fully living the most equal life possible, you shouldn't judge him by the same criteria. You must also know that compassion comes from above. If you're actually having the higher perspective here, you should be more compassionate and less objective. Life is not a mathematical equation! Logic is not everything, dude! I'm just expressing my views. It's not that I hold up these standards. I alone don't determine whether the message does resonate or not. It's the masses. A good artist knows how to connect with the masses.

Well, I guess, kind of. But keep in mind that tier two emerges from transcendence, not suppression. If you want tier one feminists to move into tier two, then you should give them the space to explore the full extent of their feminism with all of its potential problems. Instead of just warning them of the dangers, it would be better to support them, hold their hands, and guide them through. Notice that these are your standards for what you think is worth complaining about and what's not. You're not in her shoes, you're judging from a radically different place. I think you have a point here. Although, in the end of the day, it's her job, and she's clearly not conscious enough to be aware of her self-biases. You're probably asking for too much from a pop artist. It's not fair to compare her with yourself. Perhaps a better comparison is the one she's highlighting, with DiCaprio, for example. I'm not saying anything. Read some YouTube comments under the video and judge for yourself.

That's because feminism hasn't arrived at its destination yet. Focusing on the shadows in this case is like asking someone in the desert looking for water whether chloride water causes health problems or not. It's a typical response from a homeless person whose being asked about the hardships of householding. At least, that's how I feel towards this issue. Yes, I do. A good artist knows how to portray his message whether it's misery, anger, frustration, betrayal, or anything else. He wouldn't have to use the same imagery though. He would use his artistic skills to make people empathise with him. A good artist knows how to connect with your heart if your heart is open. But don't expect a good artist to portray hatred towards a particular woman in an era of women's rights, that would be foolish of him. He would probably show how faithful and honest he was and still is, and then he'd show that he was and still is a feminist lol, and then he'd share his story with that particular woman. In this case, could you imagine anyone not empathising with him?

Again, art is more about metaphor. You don't get an exact message with art. She's mainly portraying her life in the light of being a female and how she feels about it. Well, exaggeration in this case resembles anger and being fed up. It's hard to act/be rational while you are emotional. It's difficult to separate the heart from the mind here. Although, I would say this; In ideal objective circumstances, most women will listen to logic even more than men. So, in short, no. Both male and female feminists usually understand that there's a shadow to feminism. You just shouldn't ask them questions like this in a debate or any kind of emotional situation lol because they will likely tell you something and show you the opposite.

Exaggeration is a huge factor in art. Imagine the video without sarcasm or exaggeration. It would be boring. If I was a director, I would do the same things if not even more. Art is more about creativity and metaphor than objectivity. If you want total objectivity, don't expect a music video song to fulfil your desires. A documentary format speaks to your mind, while this artistic format speaks to your heart.

The Wolf Of Wall Street movie.

Actually yes, but not quite. If you read the lyrics, she's referencing Leonardo DiCaprio and St. Tropez, where he hosts yearly galas and is often seen surrounded by young and beautiful models. The lyric implies he's never called out for this, while Swift has been scrutinised in the past for the number of men she's been in relationships with. www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/taylorswift/theman.html

The way I see it is that people don't transcend survival because they're not ready; not because they're inherently evil. I'd bet that nobody woke up in the morning one day and said: "Hey, to hell with survival! Gotta transcend it asap." The video is clearly a part of feminism. Worst case scenario, consider it a side effect. Best hope for this bullshit to stop. I wasn't offended by the video until the phrase "no men were harmed during the making of this video" appeared. It felt very 'racist' to me (although not sure the term applies), but I understand.

Essentially, I think it all boils down to this. Still, it's easier said than done. Survival is not easy to transcend. Self-bias is a survival instinct. Hypocrisy is a survival strategy. Ignorance is both a survival strategy, and a developmental issue. It's moderately easy for me to apply this solution on myself, but in a system, it's much more complicated and harder. And even though nothing is perfect, feminism seems like our best hope.

In this case, it's quite the opposite. The attraction here is the problem. It's like boiling a pot of water and then complaining about why it got hot. The suggested solution was to turn off the heat. I don't see a problem with that. But I also believe that it's not an effective solution. It's a very complicated issue and I don't have solutions. Just some food for thought.

@JonasVE12 You're doing the right thing, and asking questions is part of the research. I would say just keep researching about the exact substance(s) that you usually smoke, and from there you can decide better. Maybe you'll find a better substance that will get you to better places with much less harm than advertised. Better yet, perhaps you can do like I did and never use a substance and still be where you need to be. Feelings come and go, but you don't. I don't prefer attaching myself to a certain experience. Although, of course, I do prefer a better experience. Also be aware that with a lot of creativity, you'll lose touch with reality. Your thinking will become unrealistic. You will basically become an idealist, living in your own bubble of imagination. At least, that's my understanding. I prefer living in balance and harmony.

Oh my God! Finally! Balance is the perfect alignment with reality in every single moment. I can't believe how such a deep insight got spontaneously revealed while speaking myself. It seems like interacting with highly conscious people is truly contagious. Thank you Serotoninluv ??

@Serotoninluv YES! I agree with everything you said. And sure, I understand that my human-centric narrative is only partially true, but I've consciously chosen to have this narrative due to the lack of "better" narratives for me right now. Sure, detaching oneself from the narrative (which is still a narrative though) has its benefits, such as relaxation, meta-understanding, curing anxieties, and other benefits. So, if that's what you seek, then great! Then again, it has its cons, which I personally don't prefer to have at the moment. This narrative feels limiting for me as a human being at the moment. Maybe in the future when I will have enough growth I will want to use that narrative again (I used to have it last year or so). Right now, I have more growing to do. Besides, I prefer being aligned with my environment. Radically different views usually cause a lot of trouble. So, it's not that my or your narrative is truer than the other. It's that a narrative is just a narrative; A human being is just a human being; An ant is just an ant. However, tier two thinking is more about using the narrative as a tool. Since there is no inherent truth to it, there's a freedom in utilising it for our human purposes. Again, this human life, from a certain perspective, does not matter at all. Yet, from another perspective, it's all that matters. In certain occasions, I find it better to use the former perspective as the main narrative, although it sometimes creates a sense of depression and nihilism for people. In other occasions, I find the latter to be more effective, although it may cause neurosis and attachment to the human identity. This is all relative and very nuanced in the end and I'm trying to make the best out of it. I'm looking for balance; perfect alignment with reality in every single moment. This understanding has not been intermediated by psychedelics for me. It's something I learned, deeply contemplated, derived from my direct experience, and mainly gathered through observation. All with the help of meditation. This is why I say psychedelics are not necessary to have a deep understanding of reality, because my experience "proves" that.

Sure, if we're talking about experiencing something new. But here we are talking about God. God is nothing new. It's not something you meet on psychedelics. This is why I say that drugs are unnecessary for realising the truth of being. Okay. Although, I don't follow here. I don't think that I am biased. I don't even believe that bias exists at all as an actual phenomenon. I think it's just a human concept that was created for some purpose(s). As well, a point of view is a human concept. And so is interpretation. Those things don't actually exist outside of the human imagination. I can; Direct experience is being, or the present moment. Now, what is being or the present moment? I said earlier that it cannot be understood or communicated, it can only be. The reason why you can't translate it into language is because there's a baggage of subtle interpretations that comes along with it. With enough meditation (maybe psychedelics, I don't know), this baggage gets emptier and emptier, until you get to pure direct experience which is the present moment without a single thought. The next level is realising that the baggage was always empty, and that the weight was imaginary. It's when you realise that mind and no-mind are identical. There, the duality collapses and you enter the "gateless gate". I personally have realised all that without drugs, and I am aware of it right now. Not bragging, just saying that this was my experience, and that it might not apply to you. Notice that I didn't use my direct experience to create universal standards that my story will apply to everyone. Hell! It might even not apply to me in the future. That story has occurred once for me, and as reported, for many other people. However, it might never occur again in the future. I don't know!

So, you're basically saying that communication is one other way than direct experience for understanding reality. Sure, it has its own limitations just as direct experience does. Everything has its pros and cons. For example; I can't directly experience everything in the world. There's not enough time for that. Learning through direct experience is time-consuming. Learning through communication is time-effective. This is a tricky one to tackle. Where is this thing you call "the mind"? I don't see it. I don't directly experience it. Perhaps you're referring to logic or conditioning, in which case, I would say that you have some point. I don't rely on logic or my past knowledge to understand reality. But here's a shocking truth for you; you shouldn't rely on direct experience either because it may change in the future. Notice that you have an assumption that the direct experience will always remain the same. But how do you know that? Have you directly experienced that? Or is it just an assumption? Notice how tricky "the mind" is. It clings to direct experience as if it's the absolute truth, but in reality it's merely a tool for understanding reality. A neutral tool with pros and cons, just like concept and belief. Oh, boy! This duality has collapsed for me. Apparently, it still hasn't collapsed for you. Try using a mirror. Turn your skepticism on itself, and you might see something deeply profound.

A much better understanding of what exactly? Psychedelics and how they work? Reality as a whole? Both of them? Also, "better" is a relative term. It's comparing your current understanding with your past understanding. I believe it depends on the person themselves. Perhaps for a rational person, psychedelics are helpful for breaking down logic. For some other person whose logic is already broken down, they may be completely useless. What do you think about this?