Osaid

Caring was never about having reasons, or things mattering, though. It was always for its own sake. Why do you need a reason to care? Isn't that what it means to care, that it happens for its own sake? Otherwise you are being blackmailed by something, isn't it? Do you need a higher reason to speak nicely to the cashier? Do you need someone to hold you at gunpoint to care for an injured kitten on the road? Maybe it is the fact that nothing matters which pushes you to care for those who are plunged into the same world as you, where nothing matters. Maybe that itself can become the reason for caring. Is there a reason why vanilla ice cream is preferred over chocolate? Does there have to be a reason? Do you have to build a moral structure out of it? For me it is like looking at food and saying, there is only salty and sweet. Songs can create very unique emotions. Some emotions only exist in relation to certain songs, for me. Some emotions feel bittersweet, like nostalgia. Absolutely nothing wrong with saying it is dark or light though, those elements definitely exist and they are felt. But much more can be felt too, is what I am emphasizing. Some darkness can be beautiful. Some darkness can be pretty. Some darkness can have hope mixed in. Some darkness can have mystery mixed in. Many flavours. Very raunchy and deep, I can get into it. This is one of those songs where you have to focus on emotions not melody.

You're the one yinning and yanning, calling music dark and light. I am just speaking in your vernacular. Although admittedly, some music can feel very shallow like that, like it has one or two emotions. For me, music is bright, dim, dark, colorful and beyond. Good luck deciding whether this one is dark or light. You don't even have lyrics to go off of this time.

Haha, I only sent it because it was similar to what you sent. I forgot it even existed before your song reminded me of it, but it's the best of that genre IMO. From my perspective, looking at the lyrics, it seems to be an equal amount of "light and dark." I usually don't listen to that type of lyrical dnb music, but this is one of the few where I think it works really well.

Good for its genre. Reminds me of this:

lmao Is this how you react everytime someone has generic taste in music? Although yes, they are not to be trusted.

There are no boxes or dolls, but I can confirm that an absence of qualia is something that exists and is perceivable. There are states which have no qualia at all, if you can imagine. Actually, the fact that you can't see behind you right now is itself a perception which depends on the fact that you can see in front of you, but this is hard to notice if you haven't entered some state of "no sensory perception." But also, ultimately, it's not really important to notice. It's just a way of mentally recontextualizing experience, and it doesn't have much to do with realizing what you are. What I am trying to say is something like, seeing in front of you is as existential as not seeing behind you, they are both yin and yang, same sides of the coin so to speak. Your mind just has a bias to focus on the appearance of qualia rather than the non-appearance of qualia, because the former can be contextualized by the finite mind, whereas the latter is a paradox for the finite mind. Kind of how light doesn't exist without dark. The only reason you can see in front of you is because you can't see behind you. But anyways, what I'm saying up till here is really just conceptual, there is no duality between seeing and not seeing ultimately, or absence and non-absence of qualia. This is just a cool metaphysical recontextualization I got from experiencing a certain state of consciousness, and I wanted to share it because your trip reminded me of it. As for your actual inquiry, it is mostly corrupt. Your questions are assuming many different contexts, such as "borders" and "outside", the very thing you sought to question. I see a big fallacy on the forum where people just assume their questions make any sense, they think questions are innocent and that reality has to give some conclusive answer to it. And then they construct entire identities around the answer that they get to these questions. They further cement the identity by pointing to some experience they had on psychedelics which supposedly confirmed it, big trap. Overall, there are assumed concepts baked into the questions themselves. You are coming up with questions, but the questions themselves are being made up by you, they don't actually point to anything, but you assume they do. You assume that borders, contexts, and "outside" are existential, but they are just questions you made up. And any answer you get will be relative to a question, which is made up. And so of course, you got answers, but they are conceptual, because answers are always relative to questions, and questions are always conceptual. There's your catch-22. It's all made up. The entire thing is a context you made up. The realization that there is no context, happens from a place of assumed context. The fact that borders exist, is not a given. The fact that context exists, is not a given. The fact that inside and outside exist, is not a given. So when you look at "Being" and ask "Hey dude, where is your context and your border? I need answers!", don't be surprised if "Being" gives you a confused look. You are putting too much credit on your ability to imagine context and borders. It is not existential, it is just the human capacity for imagination. What is more fundamental is not questioning context or borders, but questioning how those things are perceived in the first place. Don't get lost in the content, look at the structure. These things can seem existential and metaphysical, but they are really just what a human believes to be those things. The human imaginative capacity can imagine many fantastical things, contexts, borders, outside, inside, but they are irrelevant to existential experience. The question itself is the error, not the answer or inability to find an answer.

Sounds like a bad trip.

I, as God, deliberately created an omelette to feed myself. And then I, as God, deliberately created a post on this forum. And then I, as God, deliberately tricked myself into tripping over a rock today, which I imagined into existence, as God.

Hahahahaha, so you went back to realizing you're just a human. Great. Much better place to be at actually. Or maybe God with an identity crisis, or I guess, a God that wants to be human? The ideological insanity that stems from psychedelics is really quite amazing.

Psychiatrists do a similar "shrugging-off" when it comes to the occurence of PSSD from SSRIs, which can basically remove sexual function indefinitely, among other anhedonic symptoms, and there is no known reliable cure.

From the point of view of someone who is trying to figure out what reality or existence is, or such existential questions. The context of your current experience, no other context is needed, because you exist, and you are trying to figure out what you exist as.

This is a valid sentiment. Realizing existential truth isn't anything like human or survival-based intelligence, really. It's more like a removal of all your beliefs that you created through your own intelligence. Humans tangle themselves up in their intelligence all the time, hyper-intelligent aliens wouldn't be any different, it would be harder for them to not get tangled. But, maybe they would have invented an instant enlightenment machine or something, lol.

The word "truth" in the average use of the word definitely points to "what exists." It is a definition that humans created. Someone asks: Is there a unicorn in your room? You say yes, they say you are not telling the truth. You say no, they say you are telling the truth. In order to verify whether you are telling the truth, the person has to check your room for the unicorn to see if it exists there. I would separate absolute truth from this human-invented notion of truth, because existence itself is meta to all notions and definitions you can come up with. The definitions happen inside of existence, so it does not capture existence since it is a subset of existence. Absolute truth points to what exists, but the realization of what exists is not a conclusion like "that thing exists therefore it is true", it is just realizing exactly what exists. You could say it is like realizing that nothing untrue can exist, therefore truth as a concept dissolves entirely in that realization.

You're not ever actually experiencing time, or time coming back. It is as experiential as thinking about a math equation. You are experiencing resistance to a believed thought form, and you label that resistance as "time." What time exists as is very simple, it is just a word or number, like "Thursday" or "9am." When you see either of those, your identity immediately starts operating, you imagine yourself as something that exists inside of some universe where the time is currently 9am, but actually that part where you imagine yourself is completely unnecessary and it is not time, it is just an imagined ego self. The thought form in question is essentially just a very genuine belief that there exists some experience elsewhere that you can escape to which isn't your current experience. You say that the mechanism of the psychedelic is placebo, which I contest is a misinterpretation. The idea that beliefs and thoughts are creating illusion, is just more beliefs and thoughts. And the idea that the psychedelic should have no power, and that it is just placebo, is also a belief and thought. The only way for you to access that conclusion is to imagine the idea that you took psychedelics in the first place. Realizing that your knowledge and beliefs about experience are not existential does not give you some kind of power over experience, that is a misinterpretation of that insight, and that misinterpretation is itself belief and knowledge. It is not that beliefs and knowledge are untrue, invalid, false, or illusion, it is that very interpretation itself which is all of those things. You are not going to override the entirety of existence by realizing that thoughts are imaginary. You can realize that in the baseline human state, and it does not transform you into something which is not human, it just recontextualizes the experience of being a human. Calling psychedelics placebo in this matter is as much placebo as saying "I am just imagining that food is going to fulfill my hunger" and then starving yourself to death. Imagination and belief is a human phenomenon, you are not breaking the limits of reality by seeing that thoughts are not existential, you are simply seeing that limits and non-limits were a human interpretation of reality and that they never had anything to do with reality at all. You are using imagination to say that "psychedelics don't have any affect on me because they are imaginary", so the very thing you are criticizing is what you are using to criticize in the first place. Psychedelics not existing in your experience doesn't mean it has no effect on you, it simply means that it does not exist. The former meaning is based on an interpretation which actually sneakily assumes that psychedelics do exist, and that some sort of effect is "removed" as a result. It is not a true recognizing of the fact that psychedelics are imaginary. You are imagining that psychedelics are having an effect on you, but you are also imagining that they don't have an effect on you. Neither is true, both are imaginary. These psychedelics can be very tricky in how they create narratives about reality, so be careful. If you don't have proper epistemology and grounding you will get twisted into adopting odd metaphysical ideas. Experientially, if I had to describe what is happening, it is simply the case that certain memories and thought forms start arising again, and these memories and thought forms "pull you in" and "trigger" you back into your ego identity. This is why it's easy to be peaceful while meditating, but less easy when you are working the register at your 9-5, the latter situation creates lots of thoughts that trigger your identity. The psychedelics remove certain capacities which allow for your ego to form, so that there is no stimuli which can "pull you in" while the drug is active. But, from a biochemical perspective, the exact point where the chemical wears off is where the identity can sneak itself in again, because now your mind is back to its normal capabilities, and your normal capabilities include a very vivid sense of imagination which you entangle yourself in.

I think it is likely a result of fearful thought-attachment. Psychological, as you say, but for me I see lots of overlap between psychology and spirituality, to the point where the distinction seems almost superfluous. Nightmares and odd dream states tend to resolve themselves when you fix your sleep and also your relation to thoughts in the waking state. What I notice happening a lot in dream-like states is that there is an initial thought form that appears, you react fearfully to that thought, and then that fearful emotion instantly manifests itself as some monster or something.

It's just a criteria you're making up, don't get too hung up on it. You could say it is a glimpse into what you are, but then I say that is all of reality. There are just certain experiences which make what you are more obvious, or that they change your beliefs about what you are to a radical degree, and then you say: "That experience was super mystical, because I realized a, b, and c about myself."

Nope, might have seen a few spirits/ghosts here and there, but that's more supernatural, and I personally wouldn't consider it relevant. There was lots of love, creativity, and wonder, but it wasn't to do with any "mystical experiences."

I might have worded that badly. I am just saying that the thing that you are scared of is just more imagination. It's not an actual transcendence of imagination that you're fearing. It's just another type of imagination to fear. As you said, you didn't actually "go all the way", so what you are fearing is simply another paradigm. It's the materialist paradigm being replaced by the laser paradigm, so to speak. Anyways, I personally wouldn't get attached to any idea like "reality is imaginary" either, that might not even be what was being shown, and that is basically just a story as well. Don't get too attached to descriptions of reality, they are just descriptions. My inquiry about vanilla ice cream was to ground you in your experience and highlight that whether you imagine lasers or physicality, at the end of the day, the perception of vanilla stays the same no matter what existential knowledge you have.

If a possibility exists, it is not a possibility anymore, it is just what exists. If humans could fly, it would exist, and so you would say: the fact that we cannot fly is now a limitation. And so you have created a koan for yourself, where everything always seems to be limited no matter what. If either case exists, you perceive a limit. But how exactly are you perceiving limits in the first place? Perhaps it is the perception of "all possibilities that exist" that creates limitation and is itself limitation? How is possibility perceived, anyways? Where is it perceived from? If humans that cannot fly do not exist, how is it possible to perceive a human which cannot fly as a limitation? Is it a limitation to not be something which does not exist? Is it infinite to be something that does not exist?

Why does the fact that there are lasers behind the scenes matter? Why is it more relevant than imagining that there is a physical reality behind the scenes? When you are eating vanilla ice cream, what does the knowledge of lasers have to do with the taste of vanilla? When you are eating vanilla ice cream, what does the knowledge that the ice cream is made of atoms have to do with the taste of vanilla? Do lasers hold the taste of vanilla together? Do atoms hold the taste of vanilla together? You have not truly realized that reality is imaginary. You have replaced a previous belief with another belief, which has to do with lasers or whatever. If you realize that physicality is imaginary, that is fine, but then you are imagining another idea to take its place which says "I am imagining reality through lasers" or some such thing, which is just more imagination. You have not escaped imagination, you have just come up with a different form of imagination which you say is somehow more transcendent than the previous imagination.

Just describing what I'm seeing 😅

Humans have imaginary tails. A human is like a dog that can imagine an infinite amount of tails inside of its head and then judge itself for not grasping all the imaginary tails. Oh, you never realized that particular tail is imaginary? I'm more awake than you! Oh wait, that guy over there only realized that 3 tails are imaginary, but I've realized that 20 are imaginary. He needs to have 17 more awakenings about those specific types of tails to be as woke as me!

Grasp what? There's nothing to grasp, it's imaginary. 😂 You don't even actually understand that "other people" are imaginary. "Other people don't exist" is not the same as realizing that other people are imaginary, that itself is a conclusion which is also based in imagination, and it is the modus operandi that your ego uses to make sense of your experience. If you imagine an infinite amount of things, you can grasp that they don't exist an infinite amount of times, and all of that "grasping" will be equally as deep and metaphysical to you. This is basically what all awakenings are, they are changing and removing identities and beliefs, which is why you will chase them infinitely until you realize what you actually are, which is beyond concepts. In the mean time, enjoy your infinite tail chasing.

It's a distraction. A new conclusion or belief to superimpose onto everything. It doesn't change anything because it is a belief about experience, which is to say, it is a new belief about yourself. You are not a belief. Ok, fine you are alone, but what is it that is alone? Do you actually know what you are? Ok, fine, you are dreaming everyone up, but what is the thing that is dreaming everyone up? Do you actually know what you are? Notice that the conclusions "alone" and "dreaming everything" have nothing to do with your actual experience, they are basically just "side-quests" so to speak, and are just conceptual stories or conclusions. Neither conclusion answers what you actually are. It is just pointing relative to other things. "I am not this lamp", "I am not other people", "I am not a tree", "I am not a table", "I am a thing that imagines other things", ok, but then what the fuck are you? Stop jumping around it! You are just trying to define yourself by pointing to things that are relative. Anything defined or concluded is based on relative parameters.