Osaid

This is basically Descartes' evil demon, but with the theme of christianity, or so I intuit. Popular philosophical conundrum. There is nothing literal about your interpretation of "666". I could put up "666" on my wall right now and it wouldn't mean I'm a follower of Satan. YOU could put up "666" on your wall, and it would mean nothing. Your local christian pastor could put "666" on his wall and it would mean nothing. But, you fear these numbers because of dogma and fantastical thinking. Actually, the extent of this thinking reminds me of schizophrenia, although I understand it has probably been drilled into you through no fault of your own. Ultimately, you don't know. You're just assuming. And, you can assume anything you want, even things that make you really fearful and paranoid. Such is the nature of mind. Anyways, my advice to you is to just build a really good and solid epistemology by watching Leo's videos. Your epistemology is like a firewall that screens out maladaptive ideologies. You need to be able to accurately discern what is ideological bullshit and what isn't. You need to create a genuine inquiry: What do I know for sure? What do I know that is 100% true? Latch on to that. FOLLOW THROUGH WITH ALL YOUR QUESTIONS: What if Satan is powerful? What if he ISN'T powerful? How do I know Satan even exists? What does it even mean for something to exist? How do I know something doesn't exist? Why am I assuming the worst scenario? <<< Like this

I don't find it that weird or suspicious. He has a history of weird outbursts, and has previously been warned many times for spamming threads with multiple posts in the same fashion.

Ralston is just being very picky about his words, as he always is. He is saying that a relative phenomenon like psychedelics has no direct relation to enlightenment or truth. Ralston tends to be anal about such things. He never levels with you on your relativity. He always speaks very strictly, with this sort of autistically hyper-Absolute perspective, so to speak. He's very careful about saying things like "psychedelics will lead you to enlightenment" or "everything is love" or "enlightenment is full of love and bliss." He doesn't want to lead people on with ideas. He is very careful about this. Admittedly, he does feel a bit standoffish when it comes to talking about psychedelics. He could offer more nuance so that he is not misunderstood as this entire thread misunderstands him. But, I do believe it is a misunderstanding, as he says at the end "it is possible to have direct consciousness while on some drug." Maybe this is just his teaching style and it works well in his workshops. I don't like it either, though.

Unless you unimagine that you ever took DMT*

Narcissists control and gaslight people all the time, and they also like to isolate people into their own "virtual reality" or "bubble." Cults are often started by narcissists. Common cult mind control technique is isolating you from friends and family. Cult dynamics are very similar to the narcissist dynamics on a small scale, it's just on a bigger scale, and so it leads to a cult. I have suspicions that the War Room is a cult, at the higher echelons at least.

Ah ok, thank you. Also, this is the exact opposite of materialism, did anyone read the last sentence? Or any of the sentences? It's very succinct. "And I understand what it is and that no drug, process, or any alteration of the brain or experience can ever produce it. Just not possible. Doesn’t work that way. It may be possible to have a direct consciousness while on some drug, but the drug doesn’t do it. Only you can. Just like it may be possible to have an enlightenment while contemplating, but the method doesn’t do it, you do." Essentially, he is saying that psychedelics are a part of the dream, so to speak. This is the exact same reason why Leo made the "We are not in a simulation" video. He is saying that you should not offload direct experience and enlightenment onto a process called "psychedelics", the same way someone would offload their direct experience onto a process called "simulation" or "virtual reality" or "simulation theory." Essentially, in my own attempt to reiterate his communication as accurately as possible, he is saying that enlightenment is not caused by drugs or psychedelics, but just YOU, directly experiencing yourself. To clarify more, he is saying that the psychedelic high is simply a state which makes it easier to perceive enlightenment, but it is not enlightenment itself. Kind of like a finger that points to the moon and makes it easier to see the moon, but the finger is not the moon itself. The moon is a separate phenomenon from the finger. And so is the same with "psychedelics" and "enlightenment."

You don't ?

What was your initial question? How was it worded? What is he responding to?

Is it like being a child again?

Confidence and dominance is not equal to bullying. There's a false equivalence. You can be confident and dominant without bullying someone. And also, bullying by itself has no relation to confidence. It's not mutually inclusive. You can bully someone without confidence. Bullying is usually enmeshed in an underlying insecurity.

Oh no, although I'd love to take credit, I just had ChatGPT convert the writing style. Good, you should. I worked really hard to channel that message directly from God himself. Aw, thanks.

Alright, I forwarded the questions to God and he sent me the complete list of when you can and can't kill flies. I have copy and pasted it below, hopefully it clears up all the confusion: When It Is and Isn't Morally Appropriate to Kill Flies, As Penned by the Almighty: Section 1: Thou Shalt Not Slay the Minuscule Buzzers When the clock strikes noon on the third Sunday of the seventh month, thou shall not layeth a finger on any fly buzzing around thy abode. If the fly bears a striking resemblance to William Shakespeare, thou shall spare its life, for it may be a literary genius in disguise. In the event that the fly chanteth a melodious tune in the key of G-flat major, thou shall grant it safe passage to the nearest meadow, where it can join a fly choir. Should a fly find itself trapped in thy beverage, thou shall grant it a lifebuoy fashioned from a toothpick and rescue it from its liquidy doom. Unless the fly challenges thee to a game of chess and thou art defeated thrice in a row, thou shall not smite it. Section 2: Of Fly Slaying Circumstances When a fly partaketh in espionage or engage in covert operations against thee, thou shall summon the Fly Counterintelligence Unit and act accordingly. If a fly declareth war upon thee and leadeth an army of its brethren, thou shall be permitted to retaliate with flyswatters and rolled-up newspapers. In times of dire famine, thou shall be allowed to consider flies as a last resort of sustenance. But verily, only if thou art truly desperate. Thou shall not engage in wanton slaughter for the mere sake of acquiring fly wings for use in ill-fated attempts at human flight. Section 3: Flies in Divine Service If a fly hath been appointed as thy spiritual guide by fate or chance, thou shall heed its buzzing advice and embark on a quest of self-discovery. Should a fly display miraculous powers of healing, thou shall establish a Fly Church of Miracle Cures and arrange weekly services in thy garden. In the presence of a sacred fly infestation during sacred ceremonies, thou shall view it as a sign of divine favor and celebrate with joyous abandon. Section 4: Miscellaneous Fly-Related Matters If thou findeth a fly with golden wings, thou shall set it free and wait for three wishes to be granted by a grateful fly fairy. In the event of an interdimensional portal appearing in thy living room, and flies starteth to emerge, thou shall not be alarmed; it merely indicates an odd day in the cosmos. Should thou encounter a time-traveling fly from the future, thou shall exchange philosophical insights but refrain from asking for lottery numbers.

I just spoke with God, he said you're not allowed to kill flies.

Might be good for tarot reading or psychic readings. I've gotten weirdly accurate readings before. Psychics use it for stuff like that. You need someone who genuinely pursues it as an area of expertise for more accurate applications, not some 16 year old on Pinterest. Although, I am still uncertain about the extent of its usefulness. I find something like MBTI to be much more practical, so I am left to assume that zodiac signs are more like a tool for supernatural readings and predictions, rather than a more objective psychological analysis as MBTI proves to be. Definitely. Same happens for MBTI, or most things humans interact with in general.

bruh bullying != confidence and domination

normal drama is two people gossiping about eachother scientist drama is about room temperature superconductors

Looking at the "differences" section of this article, I still say narcissist. https://www.talkspace.com/mental-health/conditions/articles/sociopath-vs-narcissist/#:~:text=“The main difference between sociopathy,but isn't always dangerous. Despite his lack of respect and empathy towards certain human beings, it all still hinges on his own moral structure of being a real man and being part of a brotherhood or whatever. I think his relationship with his brother and dad are as genuine as his emotions are gonna get, and I think he really does look up to his dad (who was professionally diagnosed as a narcissist). I don't think he would torture someone for fun as a sociopath would. At the very least, he would first justify it with some kind of narcissistic moral justification that makes him guilt-free in his mind. He also goes through a lot to maintain his public image, whereas a sociopath wouldn't care as much.

I am referring to someone diagnosed with NPD

I disagree. This is the average narcissist. It's just that most narcissism happens behind closed doors in very personal situations, so you don't get to see that this is how they all tend to operate. They all conduct it with the same methods of manipulation, it's how psychologists detect narcissists in the first place. Of course their specific ideas of how to pursue the narcissism is different, but the structure is the same.

If the relationship wasn't dysfunctional or toxic for you, then that's great. I don't think this is a common occurence at all, though, assuming she was in fact a narcissist or highly narcissistic. There can be genuine moments of sweetness in those relationships, which is why it can be hard to leave those types of relationships or even admit to yourself that they are toxic to you. A lot of that sweetness usually occurs in highly conditional ways, which is where the "toxic" or "dysfunctional" element comes in. Or, the sweetness could even just be a farce altogether on the narcissist's part. Or, a combination of both. That level of self-absorption is still highly dysfunctional, and so it will pose a danger to other people, if not yourself. Arguably, in the context of someone like Tate, he isn't demonized enough. People think narcissism is just about being infatuated with your looks and being prideful, but if you ever get involved in the personal lives of someone as narcissistic as Tate, the amount of emotional manipulation they exert on you is insane. It's cult-like, and actually, most cults start from narcissists, so the same dynamic is there, just on a smaller level. The word narcissist has lost too much of its meaning from people using it loosely as an insult, so I am trying to use something more captivating like "monster" to invoke the proper level of seriousness. If you are unable to distinguish an alligator as a monster to keep distance from, it becomes a survival issue. Same with narcissists. If you don't keep appropriate distance, you will get sucked into their manipulation without knowing it, just like Tate did to thousands of impressionable people. They can hide in plain sight through their charisma. No one knows how to accurately spot this type of narcissistic manipulative behaviour at all. Case in point, Andrew Tate and the many people he fooled. So, for that reason, I'm loose about using terms like "monster" in order to juxtapose the nice and charismatic appearance narcissists tend to put out. Also, when I say "narcissist", I am referring to someone with NPD.

This is what a real clinical narcissist looks like. As entertaining as Tate can be at times, it's only because you have the distance to view him through the internet. If you had to personally live with him, you would see how much of a monster narcissists really are.

much better

legit thought i opened a porn site by accident when i typed twitter into the search bar and saw a black logo with an x pop up, very cool update from elon

One way you could go about it: 1. Go to a room or secluded area where you can genuinely think and introspect 2. Ask yourself why you aren't happy, and why spirituality didn't make you happy 3. Write or note down all the reasonings and goals that arise 4. Ask yourself, is taking care of these these things going to make me happy? If the answer is yes, go achieve all those goals, or a few of them, and then come back to the reasonings and ask yourself the question again to confirm your progress. Do an update, how much has your happpiness increased since reaching those goals? Rinse and repeat. If new reasonings and goals arise, feel free to add them. Congratulations, you just found the key to happiness! If, for whatever reason, the answer is "no" or "I don't know", ask yourself if you can make yourself happy without these things, and whether you have ever experienced happiness without these things, and how exactly that occured. Then, ask yourself how you can achieve something like that again (if you ARE able to recall a time where you were happy without these things). Otherwise, just ask yourself how it could be possible, and if there are other people who have made it possible. TLDR, just thoroughly ask yourself why you're not happy. This is specifically for stubborn stage orange btw, that's why it's so formulaic and kinda forces yourself to ask and verify certain questions. They like that type of stuff. You gotta communicate with where the stage is at. Can't expect a cat to understand english.

true